Wow... Opposition to certain wars doesn't make one a weasel. Soldiers do not get to assume by default that they are making the world a better place. It is a matter for debate. Unfortunately the emotion surrounding the depths of a soldier's sacrifice, and the patriotic rhetoric, cloud the ability for us to have this debate.
I use Wikipedia to answer this simple question: who/what the fuck is x? If people start deleting articles just because they think x isn't important enough, how am I supposed to find out what x is, even if nobody really cares about x?
There are some cool sites I've found on the internet to help you find stuff, and I mean all kinds of stuff! They're calling them 'search engines' I guess. Here are a few I think are pretty rockin': Google, Yahoo!, Altavista, Lycos, and Excite.
Can't you see all of the assumptions you are making? How do you know they are ALL looking down on you? Why do they have to ask for your permission to express their opinions? Why do you believe that they NEED to tell us what they think. Why is that so ridiculous or bad? How do you know that they think their opinions matter more than yours or mine? I mean, sure, the world is a big place, so some people will conform to all of your prejudices you have on display here, but you seem to speak in very broad language. You seem opposed to all film and game makers using their media to express a point of view or opinion, because you seem to believe they all conform to this narcissistic cliche. More broadly speaking, you seem opposed to the expression of ideas generally, like, people are discussing things and it annoys you, and you just don't want to hear about it. Should we limit our discussion to the weather and the ball game?
I don't think anyone is arguing against the idea that people want "fun, entertaining games". What I am arguing against is that you seem to have defined what is fun and entertaining for us, and from reading some posts, not all of us agree with you. Some of us think opinions and points of view can contribute to the fun and entertainment, whereas you dismiss creators who wish to do so. That is fine as a personal opinion, but if you can see outside yourself I think you would realize it is not the case universally.
Maybe I am arguing against things you didn't mean to say, but in your post you said:
"To game and film makers: You are in the entertainment business. No one wants to hear about your ridiculous opinions on politics, culture, or anything else. No one wants to play a videogame where the object of the game is to maximize the game-creators' social climbing."
Maybe you forgot that you mentioned film makers? I know for a fact that I personally enjoy films that include intriguing or different points of view (aka "opinions"). So, from my perspective the quote from your post seems to be an insult directed towards such film makers, and I know it is a lie based on my personal experience (as in "I actually do want to hear their opinion, so he is wrong to say that" [if well expressed]).
To set the film maker thing aside, you also seem to be stating that games that express a point of view can not be fun or entertaining, or at the very least that expression of a point of view can not contribute to the fun in a game. I think that could possibly be the case for you, but definitely would not be the case for everyone. Basically, I think you are over-generalizing your position, and being snide towards those who would like to explore other avenues in the medium.
I mean, there are dating simulation games that people apparently enjoy playing. Could you possibly see a game that could include homosexuality as an element in the plot of such games, incorporated in a way that people found enjoyable or interesting? The old "Leisure Suit Larry" games were pretty well liked in their day and are basically all about being a goofy heterosexual, not that they were anything deep. Then we have the indie game "Facade" that got a lot of press a year or 2 back. The game is basically an interactive drama about being a guest where the host couple is on the verge of breaking up. In the game you walk around the apartment and type what you say as things come up during the visit and things develop. I could see if that technology develops you could have engaging interactive drama games that address homosexuality. The fun in that case would be due to curiosity I think mostly, but maybe just the same sort of fun anyone gets from drama. There is currently no mainstream game that is aiming for or accomplishes the sorts of things "Facade" is attempting, but maybe when the tech/AI problem has been worked out it could be part of the future of gaming. I'm not going to rule it out, I won't bash anyone for trying. I'll give it a chance.
You are being a bit of a jerk, don't you think? You don't even know what these game and film makers' opinions would be, yet you are ready to insult them all without knowing them by labeling those opinions ridiculous. Is every opinion ridiculous? Especially since you include film makers in your dismissal, I wonder what acceptable material would even be for you. You don't want films that address politics, culture, or anything else from any non-neutral (if that even exists) point of view. I'm starting to wonder how they will be telling a story. A bunch of cars blow up, a sex scene, and some fireworks?
I can only assume you mean something other than what you say. I can totally understand if you have a preference for games that are just about game play mechanics, graphics, and maybe interesting but light world setting color/background. I don't think that means everyone wants games just like you would prefer them to be, and I certainly don't think that makes potential creators of such games necessarily preachy, whiny, social-climbers or ridiculous. That is a very rude, and bad-faith assumption. If you mean what you say about films as well, it honestly sounds like you don't like entertainment that makes you think in any way. Like, the story just happens and you go "Wow!" or "Cool", because it tickled you in some way you do not care to analyze or consider in any depth My mom, for example, likes pretty formula movies where there is some emotion and drama, and at the end the lovers live happily ever after. She doesn't like anything trippy, she doesn't like for things to end as a mystery, or badly. She doesn't like movies where they jump around in time because it is too much hassle to follow. Of course, that is all totally OK, because it is just entertainment, and it is for people to enjoy however they would like. To denigrate all those who are looking to create something else with film or even games, though, is anti-intellectual. Obviously some will try that sort of thing and fail spectacularly, maybe try to come off looking deep, yet their material is really sort of silly. But it seems that others will succeed, and so a blanket insult of the whole thing seems out of line on that basis.
Regarding what I may have seen as contradiction, it was just that it seemed on 1 hand you believed that there are soldiers who believe they are being ordered to do things that cause harm, that they disagree with, but then you mentioned the "they are over there willing to take a bullet aimed at you" thing.
When it comes to soldiers, there is no doubt that they are in highly stressful situations and are more restricted, have less freedom to do as they please while on active duty, etc. To me it has always seemed that because of this sacrifice, publicly we make a great show of praising their honor, courage, and that they served well in protecting our country. This may sound silly, but in a way it seems similar to when someone dies, people may comfort the grieving with some statement like "Well, they are in a better place now." or "They are watching you from heaven." I am not saying that it is necessarily false to say a soldier is courageous, or that they protected the country, but that it is something you can not question in polite company. Because individuals and families have so much invested in what they are doing, as part of the military, it is an emotionally touchy area to say that you believe what they are doing in any particular instance is evil, or causing harm, and so on. I feel that the emotional touchiness around this issue stifles the sort of honest debate I'd like to see around these issues, and that it plays into the hands of pro-war people. If a soldier dies in Iraq today, and someone says "We honor what he has done to protect our country", you can't go "Well, Saddam never actually attacked us, he had no WMDs, and he was not tied to 9/11. In fact, since US soldiers have arrived, people have died by the 10s of thousands, and much of the middle east is enraged, so actually we are worse off in some ways". You'd be the asshole. Obviously, you would be if you said it right at the funeral, but even after, in any old debate, if there is ever a war widow, or family members of a fallen soldier, you can to an extent still be the asshole.
The way we try to edge around this it seems, is to blame the President or supporters in the congress, not troops executing actions we disagree with. I agree that the President is the most responsible, but not solely. Still, personally I am not happy with the idea of people surrendering their moral decision-making and culpability over to a politician. So, from that perspective, I can not help but hold soldiers responsible for their role in enabling the President to do what he has done.
So, rather than a contradiction, I guess it is more that I didn't feel that your statement that the soldiers were sacrificing to protect us was justified (in the case of the current conflict). I felt it was more of a rhetorical tactic that is commonly pulled out in emotion-laden debate/arguing whenever soldiers are involved. Not that that is so awful, as the top of this whole thread has plenty of internet style flame-age going on, and you are not the flamer, and I'm waltzing in as if it were calmer than it is.
I am a little confused by comments like yours. On one hand you say your brother is doing a job he doesn't want to do, yet he does it anyways, duty, willing to do the tough things, etc. You also say that just because those men and women are over there doesn't mean they agree with it.
At the end of your comment you say that these people are risking their lives one a daily basis for people like us (non-military types), ready to "step in front of a bullet aimed at you".
I believe that many soldiers are willing to give it all to protect America and Americans, but being a soldier does not automatically mean you are doing so. In the end, whatever a soldier feels, he is at the call of the President. You can obey every order, and sacrifice your life, and yet hurt America. Take these people you mention in your post who are over there, yet don't agree with it. They don't agree with the war, yet continue to fight, because in the end a soldier executes orders, and that duty takes precedence over any personal moral stance they may have.
That is one sacrifice I am happy to say I am unwilling to make.
The point is, why call it CD quality when its not? Why not call it FM quality, which would at least be somewhat closer to accurate, and somewhat farther from a lie? Also, a lot of people like you seem to dismiss people who actually care about the quality of the sound coming out of their XM/Sirius radios as marginal and somehow being jerks about all of this. Well, whatever you may think about their desire to have an actual quality signal, the fact is that advertising hype such as "CD Quality" exactly amounts to deception to this segment of the market. It is easy to see that someone might expect better quality out of a new technology, and saying "CD Quality" adds to this faulty impression.
I'm not some Monster Cable, tube amp, super tech-literate wacked out picky audiophile, but very often I can tell a 128kbps encoded mp3 vs a CD or something of higher quality. Move encoding up to 160 kbps I am not sure that I could tell one way or another. All I am doing is actively listening to the music, which I realize is different from people who have it on as background noise, or as part of a social activity, but I'd like to think that its not so rare to actually actively listen to music for people, at least now and then, with some group or song they care about. If I had a choice between audio services, given how I occasionally like to listen to music, I would choose one with higher quality. If a service claimed to be CD quality, and actually was, that would be all I could ask for. If a service claimed to be CD quality, and I believed them, then I might (justifiably I think) be a little upset that I was lied to and that I can notice a lesser quality.
I sort of don't get comments like this. "What indication is there for a great public need for extended lifetimes?" What does that even mean? Is there a great public need for us to exist at all? Or if you assign some value to our species, is there a need for us to exist after we've reared children? Have we extended life to the proper length just now in 2006, and before our lifetimes were too short? So now that we live to our 70s instead of our 30s, the job of life extention has reached its end goal, but extending it further would somehow not match with the, ummm, "public need"?
As best I can figure it, I will have to let others decide for themselves what sort of lives they want, and their own tradeoffs on the quality/quantity scale. If I don't want to live into my mid-100s, it seems to be a matter of personal taste, and not so much what people other than me actually feel, or a universal fact about what people should be allowed, or a statement about what we all should do.
Umm... I think he was saying that he believes Arnie is barely a Republican (as in, a moderate who would approve the occasional environmental regulation, etc.), not that Arnie barely made the remark.
That was a complete non-sequitur. Your response makes no sense. "Why didn't Line 6 sue Apple when they released the iPod?" "Because Line 6's series of Pods is currently less well known than Apple's iPods."
Perhaps my brain is too constrained by logic to understand.
I understand the concepts, and I understand the justifications the military drilling men to operate unquestioningly. I see how that makes the military a more effective and efficent tool in serving the interest of the decision makers. Still, understanding why this is a military ideal, for anyone to operate completely unquestioningly means they must give up their own moral judgement. Is it ever moral to surrender your own moral judgement to others? Now, the 2nd guessing you described in your post is all tactical and not moral in nature. You are descrbing a theoretical soldier who refuses to act because he believes his superiors do not understand his need for back-up, or that they must have made a mistake in choosing an objective. It seems that is a different sort of disobedience than one rooted in moral objections.
Now, you also say that "many more lives depend on the soldier acting unquestioningly". Who's lives, and how can you know that is the case? For all we know, a soldier's refusal to do something may save many lives. I understand that the response would be that an individual soldier does not see the big picture his commanders do, and so is ill situated to make these decisions. I think I would agree that if a soldier believes he being asked to fight a war he morally agrees with, it is his job to submit to the authority of those tasked to direct him and not 2nd guess their strategic or tactical decisions. I do believe that he is still justified in refusing orders for a moral reason at any point though. A private may not be PAID to think by the military, but he still must think because he is morally responsible for his own decisions, regardless of how well the military may like that.
You say that the idea of soldiers unquestioningly obeying their commanders is based on the assumption that "the brass" is wiser and more intelligent, but that you don't think they are today. I don't know if I understand what you mean by "the brass". I have always assumed it to mean generals more than the President, and I personally question the wisdom and intelligence of the political side more than the military side, in performing their job functions. Anyway, lets say that in however you mean it, you are correct. If you believe that "the brass" lacks wisdom and intelligence, what is a soldier to do? Continue on as before because it is their job description, as sad as it is that their bosses have failed them? I guess I am not sure what it is you are really advocating.
Hope I am not taking this too far. I still am wary of this respect and admiration thing. I can understand that if someone honestly believes they are protecting and helping me out, I should appreciate their intentions, and that they do so at great risk to themselves makes this more the case. I don't know what this means for me if I were to address a soldier though, other than that I should not assume bad intentions, that maybe I acknowledge their good intentions instead of taking a hostile attitude?
Under this principle it seems I need to accord respect to anyone who (in my charitable estimation) honestly believes that what they do aids me in some way, which I do not necessarily disagree with, but makes soldiers exceptional only in that a soldier can often face mortal danger, and other activists and professions are less likely to (except maybe police and firemen?). Also, one can often find themselves in strident opposition to others who claim to have their best interests in mind. I am sure there are Catholics who honestly believe that I and society would be happier if contraception was illegal. Tim McVeigh may have honestly thought he was helping me and America at large in damaging what he saw to be a corrupt, oppressive government, and he paid with his life. Ted Kaczynski was sure I would be happier if I was free from the encumberance of modern society, and was allowed to return to some kind of primitivist utopia. Jehovah's Witnesses want to save more than my life, but my eternal soul from damnation in Hell.
So, another part of my worry is the whole "our soldiers" "us", etc. It seems that a universal, automatic, exceptional respect and admiration for your own nation's soldiers reinforces an atmosphere of nationalism and division. If I should admire the soldiers of my nation, and the citizens of my nation's enemies should admire their soldiers, then haven't we set up a situation that perpetuates war? It seems so basic that I should be able to say, "Look, I do not admire your way of thinking, or your actions. I believe that for you to continue is immoral." for anyone, soldier, politician, or random citizen. Personally, I happen to have whatever beliefs and principles, and would like to forward my own particular agenda with anyone who happens to share my views, regardless of our geographical locations. People I stand in opposition to exist within my nation of residence, and outside of it. I like a nation that is stable and reasonably safe, for selfish reasons, but aside from that I am only "for" my nation in as much as it forwards my other interests, or takes actions I agree with.
Different moral frames maybe? I think I've typed myself out finally.
I must agree with you about those giving the orders. It is true that the soldier is in a position where he can be easily coerced, and the whole weight of the military justice system can seriously mess up his life should he refuse orders he personally finds immoral. Additionally you are right that they are the ones in the thick of the most stress inducing, psychologically taxing, and life threatening action where it is difficult to be able to make such decisions anyways, due to peer pressures and just concern for survival. Under so much stress, fighting an enemy, fearing for your life, why would you add even more to that stress and make your own army bring pain and pressure down on you as well? To have no allies, and be rejected by everyone in such a circumstance, cut off from family as the military drags you through its particular system of justice. Personally, the risk of such a circumstance prevented me from ever considering the military as an option (among other factors). So, while I did not convey it in my previous message, I am more angry with powerful people making such decisions and using their authority to force obedience to their wishes.
Given that, what do I imagine we could do to stop these leaders, if we oppose them? Vote against them? Try to get them removed from office or charged on something or other? PR campaigns? Agitate for legislation? Refuse to be a tool for their use? Something violent? If I can figure out who they are I vote against them. I do my best to not be a tool for their use (I do pay taxes however...). I do minor agitation for legislation via some organizations I contribute to.
So now, the "sacred sacrifice". I disagree that the willingness to take on risk of losing your life in service of something is inherantly noble (though it very surely can be!). Your position seems to imply that soldiers on all sides of all conflicts should be admired and respected, and if it does not, I would like to hear clarification. Personally I have felt that one should be directly in support of principles, and not people or nations, as theoretical/abstract as that sounds. A soldier may not have the information to make an informed choice on some issue, and so leaves it up to someone he trusts: the leader of his nation. Is there ever a point we can criticize a soldier for not taking on the burden of discovering the information himself, so that he does not need to rely on the judgements of others? As long as we submit to leaders (all of us, not just soldiers), the more it seems that we will have people surrendering their moral choices to others, giving those leaders more power to do evil, as well as good. Ideally, people could choose their battles based on their informed conscience. Unfortunately, no military does (or possibly could???) function in such a way.
While the grandparent post is juvenile, I still take issue with your post. Soldiers do decide if they go or not. They have a choice as to whether they will join the military in the 1st place, and once they are there, they can choose to go to jail instead of going to war. Personally, I do not trust my government and politicians with my life, and I do not trust their moral judgement, though I do believe I would fight if we were at war on our soil. Now, most people join the military at a young age, before they have really had a good chance to maturely assess the state of their world, so I have sympathy that some may be exploited. I also have no doubt that the vast, overwhelming majority of U.S. military personnel desire to protect the United States, and would gladly do so.
The thing is, there is a very large part of this country that does not believe that what the military is currently doing in a couple places is doing anything to help protect the United States. Some believe it is hurting the United States, others believe it was started for immoral reason. Now, the military did not decide to take those actions, the President did, but at minimum, any soldier who joined after the beginning of hostilities in Iraq should have went in full well knowing what he was supporting. There is nothing immoral in opposing this war, or soldiers who knowingly supported it. Somehow in this country we have decided that soldiers are sacred, and that an individual is not morally culpable if he willingly gives up his own freedom of conscience with knowledge and hands it over to the President. If you intentionally kill, you are responsible. That doesn't mean you are wrong, and it doesn't mean that sometime people don't have to do awful things, but every individual has responsibilty for their actions, and being a soldier in service to a government does nothing to change that. Just because a soldier believes he is serving his country does not mean that he always is. The only garuntee is that a soldier serves the President and government. Those people may or may not be directing the military in a way that serves the country. Rhetoric has conflated the 2, such that now we must always agree that, of course the soldier is serving the country. When directed properly, soldiers do more than anyone to serve this country, I have no doubt of that. Their job requires more sacrifice than potentially any other.
Now, you look at the U.S. military budget, I am not going to blame individual soldiers for the military budget. Still though, compared to every other nation on Earth, the U.S. does have an absurdly high military budget. This is money that is used in part to fund killing many of us oppose. Money that could either be given back to us, or could be used to directly help people here at home. Many would feel better if their money were used to help the needy in the US instead of kill people in the Middle East. Even if you think that is oversimplified, or do not agree, I think you can understand the outlook of such people.
You also discount this "it made the rest of the world hate me" aspect, but I think it is also a valid concern. The more of the world that hates me, the more of the world that will wish me harm. Also, I do not wish harm to be done to others in my name, I don't want to piss people off unnecessarily. Call that arrogant and selfish if you wish, but I see nothing wrong with that.
Also, I do not wish to see you beaten in the middle of the street.
I have no tattoos or piercings, though I am a guy with long hair, which is still considered a little bit outside of professional norms. Anyways, I am disturbed by the many people saying things like "Grow up!" and basically insulting people who would like to be free to have differently colored hair, or tattoos, piercings, or whatnot, yet still make a living as a professional.
Can having body modifications hinder someone in their career? Yes, clearly they can.
Should body modification hinder someone in their career? No, I can not imagine any rational moral argument that would conclude so.
The most rational business/economic argument against having employees with body modifications is that the business deals with prejudiced clients, and it may lose money by losing the business of those prejudiced clients. That prejudice is rife in these comments, by people saying things like "it tells people you don't care about the job", or "you need to grow up and leave your imagined counterculture", or "how would you feel if your lawyer/doctor/babysitter showed up with tattoos?" and so on. You get the same kind of projections on lesbians as hating men, or men/women who perform certain jobs, and the various racial prejudices and thoughts people have. While someone with body modifications made a choice to have them, and people do not get to choose their sex, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, the prejudice is morally equivelant and arises from the same error in reasoning. Mistaking aesthetic factors as indicators of merit and character.
So, I think that a lot of people could read what I said and disagree with me in two ways.
One set of people would be the prejudiced and conservative people who would say "Look, that's just the way it is. Deal with it. Why do all of these people have to raise a stink over thier childish, rebellious little fads they want to engage in? You aren't special, you aren't some revolutionary rebel, you are just a regular dude who has to earn a living like the rest of us. You are an adult now, and none of that crap is important." Another set of people may agree with me in the abstract, but then go on to say, "Well, that's the way it might be in a perfect world, but the reality is that, unfortunately, people are going to judge you on these factors, and you can't change that, so you are going to have to play the game by the rules."
I agree that, in comparision to many things, the right to have body modifications without forfieting your place in society is relatively minor. Still, I find it an unneccessary little oppression that makes the world a greyer, less fun and interesting place. People get hostile about it. Why can't the president have a mohawk? Just goofy playing around with appearance. Why does adulthood require we give these things up? Does the requirement make society a better place?
Anyway, it is just one of those little things that I think sucks a bit about life, and I will complain about it whenever I damn well please. People like to tell other people "you can't change this", or "if you don't like it, you can either do this (X) or shut up". Setting arbitrary limits on the discussion, narrowing the range of possibilities.... Nope. You are wrong.
Why do we have to treat the music labels like some kind of poor skittish fawn in a petting zoo? I mean, you say they are scared of offering online music because it may be, um, cracked. The big news flash is this: If you buy the CD, it is already "cracked" so to speak. Did they forget about CDs? Should we help the music industry lock down CDs somehow so they don't get so scared they stop selling us music all together?
Like I said earlier today, I could buy music from the iTunes store, which comes in a mediocre sound quality (compared to DRM-free CDs), in a format that doesn't work with my portable music player. Then I could burn it to a CD, then rip the CD into another lossy format to lose even more quality, all just so I could use the music like I want to. Honestly, it would be a lot easier to just obtain the music illegally, because I'm not gonna run out and buy an iPod or sit at my computer all day. To be honest, I've decided to stick to CDs for now.
To keep the ease of use and freedom we already have with music, we have to recognize this DRM for what it is: a power grab. Anybody with half a brain can see it is pretty much just as easy to share music you rip off a CD as it is to share music you've downloaded. Whether you consider the DRM a hassle or not, there is no doubt that you are losing control you once had. Why would you want to pander to these people and their anti-consumer goals?
The way I see it, the music labels themselves are hurting online legal music, because I would be buying singles and so on, if I didn't get less rights and more hassle out of it. As far as I'm concerned, they can just not have my money, you know? I'm not going to encourage what they are doing. Hurting the iTunes music store or this kind of locked up DRM business model doesn't seem so bad.
As for the people cracking these DRM schemes, well, its not necessarily illegal, depending on how free of a nation you live in. It's hard for me to see it is inherantly unethical either. It's not like the music is being being taken without paying.
The sad thing to me is relationship your are willing to put yourself in, in relation to the music industry. I mean, if you buy a CD you could rip it to any format very easily. Going through iTunes may save money in buying singles, but you get the music in a locked up format with mediocre quality (compared to CD), and the format doesn't even work on a lot of portable music players (such as my iRiver iHP-120). It would actually be easier for me to illegally download new music right now, if I wanted to actually use it the way I want. So, you put yourself into this appeasement relationship with the music industry that is basically limiting us and screwing us over for very flakey reasons. It's like "Daddy said we could get digital music if we are all good until Friday!".
To hell with that kind of attitude. They can either lose money, or they can give us what we want. Its their choice. CDs are an open format you can use anywhere. Why is it so absurd or wrong or ridiculous to expect the same in downloading music over the internet?
Here is how I see it. To me, DVDs are to VHS as CDs are to Cassette tapes. I had a decent amount of albums I liked that I used to own on cassette that I later purchased as CDs, because of all of the well known advantages of CDs, and some of the tapes had become dull sounding or had been eaten by the tape player a few times. Now it is rare to even find cassettes for sale anymore. Imagine if a group you loved refused to release their album in CD form, forcing you to dig around for old, possibly cruddy sounding cassettes, or maybe finding it is only available by illegal means, or maybe you have to buy an 8-track at a flea market or something. Of course, you could buy the new CD the band released, that is full of techno remixes of that album you loved, but that just doesn't quite cut it, does it? I remember one year for Christmas my Dad wanted some music by some old group, something along the lines of Foghat or Bad Company, but not them, and my Mom bought a CD with the few songs he wanted on it. Only the album was them going back into the studio many years later and rerecording the tracks. Needless to say, he doesn't listen to it much.
So, that's my point. Both music and movies can leave us with great memories of certain times in our lives, or maybe we just really appreciated them artistically, aside from nostalgia, and we all realize that currently under law Star Wars is "his" to do with as he pleases, but the Star Wars movies, like so many other movies and songs, are also a part of "our" culture that we all own, and it just seems a little disrespectful to have earned hundreds of millions of dollars from adoring fans, then effectively deny us access to the work we loved. That's all it boils down to.
Well, we did not evolve from current monkeys. All of the primates today evolved from a common ancesestor in the distant past. So apparently, the evolutionary branch that led to these modern monkey species created monkeys who tend to slack off until the very last minute, just like the branch that led to the evolution of humans.
People like movies for different reasons. While to you, all of this nitpicking is annoying, I think that for some people it is part of the fun. In any case, I had fun watching the movie tonight just straight up for the themes it addressed, and the story, but I am not annoyed that people do this nit picking. To each his own, you know?
I see a lot of people posting about how it is so dangerous to post your opinions online in a personal page, because maybe your mom will read it or your buddies will shun you or something. Or maybe your employer/potential employer will find out about your secret personal life and drop you like a hot potato. Maybe someone will crush your feelings by saying you have an ugly self-centered 1993 looking tacky page. Maybe I'm out of touch or something, but this seems pretty lame.
How about proudly being who you are and not giving a fuck? Your friends are shunning you and you can't get a date? Fuck 'em. Really. Do you really want to have to censor yourself all of the time, for the rest of your life, because your friends, employer, and potential mate would ditch you if they really knew what you thought? If they really knew who you were?
Maybe I'm being harsh, but it all sounds weak. Some kind of fearfull low self-esteem thing...
I voted a few times in the contest. My votes were for OpenOffice.org, Audacity, and VNC. Both VNC and OpenOffice.org (especially!) have made my job easier and saved a lot of money in my overwhelmingly Windows workplace. Audacity is just great, and fun. Aside from my personal like of the programs, they all share the feature that they are cross-platform. It doesn't seem so useful to me to go to a conference showcasing your software, then when its all said and done, someone realized they would have to change their operating system just to use it. Anyone interested in Linux has at least passing knowledge of Gnome and KDE and if they were to obtain Linux, they will almost certainly be using one of them. Maybe the reason for bringing Gnome and KDE is really to promote Linux as a whole, which is fine. For me personally, though, a program that is free is great, and a program that is free AND I can share it with my friends regardless of their computing environment is even better.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow... Opposition to certain wars doesn't make one a weasel. Soldiers do not get to assume by default that they are making the world a better place. It is a matter for debate. Unfortunately the emotion surrounding the depths of a soldier's sacrifice, and the patriotic rhetoric, cloud the ability for us to have this debate.
There are some cool sites I've found on the internet to help you find stuff, and I mean all kinds of stuff! They're calling them 'search engines' I guess. Here are a few I think are pretty rockin': Google, Yahoo!, Altavista, Lycos, and Excite.
You can find a list of more HERE
Can't you see all of the assumptions you are making? How do you know they are ALL looking down on you? Why do they have to ask for your permission to express their opinions? Why do you believe that they NEED to tell us what they think. Why is that so ridiculous or bad? How do you know that they think their opinions matter more than yours or mine? I mean, sure, the world is a big place, so some people will conform to all of your prejudices you have on display here, but you seem to speak in very broad language. You seem opposed to all film and game makers using their media to express a point of view or opinion, because you seem to believe they all conform to this narcissistic cliche. More broadly speaking, you seem opposed to the expression of ideas generally, like, people are discussing things and it annoys you, and you just don't want to hear about it. Should we limit our discussion to the weather and the ball game?
I don't think anyone is arguing against the idea that people want "fun, entertaining games". What I am arguing against is that you seem to have defined what is fun and entertaining for us, and from reading some posts, not all of us agree with you. Some of us think opinions and points of view can contribute to the fun and entertainment, whereas you dismiss creators who wish to do so. That is fine as a personal opinion, but if you can see outside yourself I think you would realize it is not the case universally.
Maybe I am arguing against things you didn't mean to say, but in your post you said:
"To game and film makers: You are in the entertainment business. No one wants to hear about your ridiculous opinions on politics, culture, or anything else. No one wants to play a videogame where the object of the game is to maximize the game-creators' social climbing."
Maybe you forgot that you mentioned film makers? I know for a fact that I personally enjoy films that include intriguing or different points of view (aka "opinions"). So, from my perspective the quote from your post seems to be an insult directed towards such film makers, and I know it is a lie based on my personal experience (as in "I actually do want to hear their opinion, so he is wrong to say that" [if well expressed]).
To set the film maker thing aside, you also seem to be stating that games that express a point of view can not be fun or entertaining, or at the very least that expression of a point of view can not contribute to the fun in a game. I think that could possibly be the case for you, but definitely would not be the case for everyone. Basically, I think you are over-generalizing your position, and being snide towards those who would like to explore other avenues in the medium.
I mean, there are dating simulation games that people apparently enjoy playing. Could you possibly see a game that could include homosexuality as an element in the plot of such games, incorporated in a way that people found enjoyable or interesting? The old "Leisure Suit Larry" games were pretty well liked in their day and are basically all about being a goofy heterosexual, not that they were anything deep. Then we have the indie game "Facade" that got a lot of press a year or 2 back. The game is basically an interactive drama about being a guest where the host couple is on the verge of breaking up. In the game you walk around the apartment and type what you say as things come up during the visit and things develop. I could see if that technology develops you could have engaging interactive drama games that address homosexuality. The fun in that case would be due to curiosity I think mostly, but maybe just the same sort of fun anyone gets from drama. There is currently no mainstream game that is aiming for or accomplishes the sorts of things "Facade" is attempting, but maybe when the tech/AI problem has been worked out it could be part of the future of gaming. I'm not going to rule it out, I won't bash anyone for trying. I'll give it a chance.
You are being a bit of a jerk, don't you think? You don't even know what these game and film makers' opinions would be, yet you are ready to insult them all without knowing them by labeling those opinions ridiculous. Is every opinion ridiculous? Especially since you include film makers in your dismissal, I wonder what acceptable material would even be for you. You don't want films that address politics, culture, or anything else from any non-neutral (if that even exists) point of view. I'm starting to wonder how they will be telling a story. A bunch of cars blow up, a sex scene, and some fireworks?
I can only assume you mean something other than what you say. I can totally understand if you have a preference for games that are just about game play mechanics, graphics, and maybe interesting but light world setting color/background. I don't think that means everyone wants games just like you would prefer them to be, and I certainly don't think that makes potential creators of such games necessarily preachy, whiny, social-climbers or ridiculous. That is a very rude, and bad-faith assumption. If you mean what you say about films as well, it honestly sounds like you don't like entertainment that makes you think in any way. Like, the story just happens and you go "Wow!" or "Cool", because it tickled you in some way you do not care to analyze or consider in any depth My mom, for example, likes pretty formula movies where there is some emotion and drama, and at the end the lovers live happily ever after. She doesn't like anything trippy, she doesn't like for things to end as a mystery, or badly. She doesn't like movies where they jump around in time because it is too much hassle to follow. Of course, that is all totally OK, because it is just entertainment, and it is for people to enjoy however they would like. To denigrate all those who are looking to create something else with film or even games, though, is anti-intellectual. Obviously some will try that sort of thing and fail spectacularly, maybe try to come off looking deep, yet their material is really sort of silly. But it seems that others will succeed, and so a blanket insult of the whole thing seems out of line on that basis.
OK, I see what you are saying.
Regarding what I may have seen as contradiction, it was just that it seemed on 1 hand you believed that there are soldiers who believe they are being ordered to do things that cause harm, that they disagree with, but then you mentioned the "they are over there willing to take a bullet aimed at you" thing.
When it comes to soldiers, there is no doubt that they are in highly stressful situations and are more restricted, have less freedom to do as they please while on active duty, etc. To me it has always seemed that because of this sacrifice, publicly we make a great show of praising their honor, courage, and that they served well in protecting our country. This may sound silly, but in a way it seems similar to when someone dies, people may comfort the grieving with some statement like "Well, they are in a better place now." or "They are watching you from heaven." I am not saying that it is necessarily false to say a soldier is courageous, or that they protected the country, but that it is something you can not question in polite company. Because individuals and families have so much invested in what they are doing, as part of the military, it is an emotionally touchy area to say that you believe what they are doing in any particular instance is evil, or causing harm, and so on. I feel that the emotional touchiness around this issue stifles the sort of honest debate I'd like to see around these issues, and that it plays into the hands of pro-war people. If a soldier dies in Iraq today, and someone says "We honor what he has done to protect our country", you can't go "Well, Saddam never actually attacked us, he had no WMDs, and he was not tied to 9/11. In fact, since US soldiers have arrived, people have died by the 10s of thousands, and much of the middle east is enraged, so actually we are worse off in some ways". You'd be the asshole. Obviously, you would be if you said it right at the funeral, but even after, in any old debate, if there is ever a war widow, or family members of a fallen soldier, you can to an extent still be the asshole.
The way we try to edge around this it seems, is to blame the President or supporters in the congress, not troops executing actions we disagree with. I agree that the President is the most responsible, but not solely. Still, personally I am not happy with the idea of people surrendering their moral decision-making and culpability over to a politician. So, from that perspective, I can not help but hold soldiers responsible for their role in enabling the President to do what he has done.
So, rather than a contradiction, I guess it is more that I didn't feel that your statement that the soldiers were sacrificing to protect us was justified (in the case of the current conflict). I felt it was more of a rhetorical tactic that is commonly pulled out in emotion-laden debate/arguing whenever soldiers are involved. Not that that is so awful, as the top of this whole thread has plenty of internet style flame-age going on, and you are not the flamer, and I'm waltzing in as if it were calmer than it is.
I am a little confused by comments like yours. On one hand you say your brother is doing a job he doesn't want to do, yet he does it anyways, duty, willing to do the tough things, etc. You also say that just because those men and women are over there doesn't mean they agree with it.
At the end of your comment you say that these people are risking their lives one a daily basis for people like us (non-military types), ready to "step in front of a bullet aimed at you".
I believe that many soldiers are willing to give it all to protect America and Americans, but being a soldier does not automatically mean you are doing so. In the end, whatever a soldier feels, he is at the call of the President. You can obey every order, and sacrifice your life, and yet hurt America. Take these people you mention in your post who are over there, yet don't agree with it. They don't agree with the war, yet continue to fight, because in the end a soldier executes orders, and that duty takes precedence over any personal moral stance they may have.
That is one sacrifice I am happy to say I am unwilling to make.
Exactly!
Long live the Dreamcast. I mean, a modem and web browser too! One of my favorite systems ever.
The point is, why call it CD quality when its not? Why not call it FM quality, which would at least be somewhat closer to accurate, and somewhat farther from a lie? Also, a lot of people like you seem to dismiss people who actually care about the quality of the sound coming out of their XM/Sirius radios as marginal and somehow being jerks about all of this. Well, whatever you may think about their desire to have an actual quality signal, the fact is that advertising hype such as "CD Quality" exactly amounts to deception to this segment of the market. It is easy to see that someone might expect better quality out of a new technology, and saying "CD Quality" adds to this faulty impression.
I'm not some Monster Cable, tube amp, super tech-literate wacked out picky audiophile, but very often I can tell a 128kbps encoded mp3 vs a CD or something of higher quality. Move encoding up to 160 kbps I am not sure that I could tell one way or another. All I am doing is actively listening to the music, which I realize is different from people who have it on as background noise, or as part of a social activity, but I'd like to think that its not so rare to actually actively listen to music for people, at least now and then, with some group or song they care about. If I had a choice between audio services, given how I occasionally like to listen to music, I would choose one with higher quality. If a service claimed to be CD quality, and actually was, that would be all I could ask for. If a service claimed to be CD quality, and I believed them, then I might (justifiably I think) be a little upset that I was lied to and that I can notice a lesser quality.
That all seems pretty simple to me.
I sort of don't get comments like this. "What indication is there for a great public need for extended lifetimes?" What does that even mean? Is there a great public need for us to exist at all? Or if you assign some value to our species, is there a need for us to exist after we've reared children? Have we extended life to the proper length just now in 2006, and before our lifetimes were too short? So now that we live to our 70s instead of our 30s, the job of life extention has reached its end goal, but extending it further would somehow not match with the, ummm, "public need"?
As best I can figure it, I will have to let others decide for themselves what sort of lives they want, and their own tradeoffs on the quality/quantity scale. If I don't want to live into my mid-100s, it seems to be a matter of personal taste, and not so much what people other than me actually feel, or a universal fact about what people should be allowed, or a statement about what we all should do.
Umm... I think he was saying that he believes Arnie is barely a Republican (as in, a moderate who would approve the occasional environmental regulation, etc.), not that Arnie barely made the remark.
That was a complete non-sequitur. Your response makes no sense. "Why didn't Line 6 sue Apple when they released the iPod?" "Because Line 6's series of Pods is currently less well known than Apple's iPods."
Perhaps my brain is too constrained by logic to understand.
I understand the concepts, and I understand the justifications the military drilling men to operate unquestioningly. I see how that makes the military a more effective and efficent tool in serving the interest of the decision makers. Still, understanding why this is a military ideal, for anyone to operate completely unquestioningly means they must give up their own moral judgement. Is it ever moral to surrender your own moral judgement to others? Now, the 2nd guessing you described in your post is all tactical and not moral in nature. You are descrbing a theoretical soldier who refuses to act because he believes his superiors do not understand his need for back-up, or that they must have made a mistake in choosing an objective. It seems that is a different sort of disobedience than one rooted in moral objections.
Now, you also say that "many more lives depend on the soldier acting unquestioningly". Who's lives, and how can you know that is the case? For all we know, a soldier's refusal to do something may save many lives. I understand that the response would be that an individual soldier does not see the big picture his commanders do, and so is ill situated to make these decisions. I think I would agree that if a soldier believes he being asked to fight a war he morally agrees with, it is his job to submit to the authority of those tasked to direct him and not 2nd guess their strategic or tactical decisions. I do believe that he is still justified in refusing orders for a moral reason at any point though. A private may not be PAID to think by the military, but he still must think because he is morally responsible for his own decisions, regardless of how well the military may like that.
You say that the idea of soldiers unquestioningly obeying their commanders is based on the assumption that "the brass" is wiser and more intelligent, but that you don't think they are today. I don't know if I understand what you mean by "the brass". I have always assumed it to mean generals more than the President, and I personally question the wisdom and intelligence of the political side more than the military side, in performing their job functions. Anyway, lets say that in however you mean it, you are correct. If you believe that "the brass" lacks wisdom and intelligence, what is a soldier to do? Continue on as before because it is their job description, as sad as it is that their bosses have failed them? I guess I am not sure what it is you are really advocating.
Hey again,
Hope I am not taking this too far. I still am wary of this respect and admiration thing. I can understand that if someone honestly believes they are protecting and helping me out, I should appreciate their intentions, and that they do so at great risk to themselves makes this more the case. I don't know what this means for me if I were to address a soldier though, other than that I should not assume bad intentions, that maybe I acknowledge their good intentions instead of taking a hostile attitude?
Under this principle it seems I need to accord respect to anyone who (in my charitable estimation) honestly believes that what they do aids me in some way, which I do not necessarily disagree with, but makes soldiers exceptional only in that a soldier can often face mortal danger, and other activists and professions are less likely to (except maybe police and firemen?). Also, one can often find themselves in strident opposition to others who claim to have their best interests in mind. I am sure there are Catholics who honestly believe that I and society would be happier if contraception was illegal. Tim McVeigh may have honestly thought he was helping me and America at large in damaging what he saw to be a corrupt, oppressive government, and he paid with his life. Ted Kaczynski was sure I would be happier if I was free from the encumberance of modern society, and was allowed to return to some kind of primitivist utopia. Jehovah's Witnesses want to save more than my life, but my eternal soul from damnation in Hell.
So, another part of my worry is the whole "our soldiers" "us", etc. It seems that a universal, automatic, exceptional respect and admiration for your own nation's soldiers reinforces an atmosphere of nationalism and division. If I should admire the soldiers of my nation, and the citizens of my nation's enemies should admire their soldiers, then haven't we set up a situation that perpetuates war? It seems so basic that I should be able to say, "Look, I do not admire your way of thinking, or your actions. I believe that for you to continue is immoral." for anyone, soldier, politician, or random citizen. Personally, I happen to have whatever beliefs and principles, and would like to forward my own particular agenda with anyone who happens to share my views, regardless of our geographical locations. People I stand in opposition to exist within my nation of residence, and outside of it. I like a nation that is stable and reasonably safe, for selfish reasons, but aside from that I am only "for" my nation in as much as it forwards my other interests, or takes actions I agree with.
Different moral frames maybe? I think I've typed myself out finally.
Hello,
I must agree with you about those giving the orders. It is true that the soldier is in a position where he can be easily coerced, and the whole weight of the military justice system can seriously mess up his life should he refuse orders he personally finds immoral. Additionally you are right that they are the ones in the thick of the most stress inducing, psychologically taxing, and life threatening action where it is difficult to be able to make such decisions anyways, due to peer pressures and just concern for survival. Under so much stress, fighting an enemy, fearing for your life, why would you add even more to that stress and make your own army bring pain and pressure down on you as well? To have no allies, and be rejected by everyone in such a circumstance, cut off from family as the military drags you through its particular system of justice. Personally, the risk of such a circumstance prevented me from ever considering the military as an option (among other factors). So, while I did not convey it in my previous message, I am more angry with powerful people making such decisions and using their authority to force obedience to their wishes.
Given that, what do I imagine we could do to stop these leaders, if we oppose them? Vote against them? Try to get them removed from office or charged on something or other? PR campaigns? Agitate for legislation? Refuse to be a tool for their use? Something violent? If I can figure out who they are I vote against them. I do my best to not be a tool for their use (I do pay taxes however...). I do minor agitation for legislation via some organizations I contribute to.
So now, the "sacred sacrifice". I disagree that the willingness to take on risk of losing your life in service of something is inherantly noble (though it very surely can be!). Your position seems to imply that soldiers on all sides of all conflicts should be admired and respected, and if it does not, I would like to hear clarification. Personally I have felt that one should be directly in support of principles, and not people or nations, as theoretical/abstract as that sounds. A soldier may not have the information to make an informed choice on some issue, and so leaves it up to someone he trusts: the leader of his nation. Is there ever a point we can criticize a soldier for not taking on the burden of discovering the information himself, so that he does not need to rely on the judgements of others? As long as we submit to leaders (all of us, not just soldiers), the more it seems that we will have people surrendering their moral choices to others, giving those leaders more power to do evil, as well as good. Ideally, people could choose their battles based on their informed conscience. Unfortunately, no military does (or possibly could???) function in such a way.
How messy.
While the grandparent post is juvenile, I still take issue with your post. Soldiers do decide if they go or not. They have a choice as to whether they will join the military in the 1st place, and once they are there, they can choose to go to jail instead of going to war. Personally, I do not trust my government and politicians with my life, and I do not trust their moral judgement, though I do believe I would fight if we were at war on our soil. Now, most people join the military at a young age, before they have really had a good chance to maturely assess the state of their world, so I have sympathy that some may be exploited. I also have no doubt that the vast, overwhelming majority of U.S. military personnel desire to protect the United States, and would gladly do so.
The thing is, there is a very large part of this country that does not believe that what the military is currently doing in a couple places is doing anything to help protect the United States. Some believe it is hurting the United States, others believe it was started for immoral reason. Now, the military did not decide to take those actions, the President did, but at minimum, any soldier who joined after the beginning of hostilities in Iraq should have went in full well knowing what he was supporting. There is nothing immoral in opposing this war, or soldiers who knowingly supported it. Somehow in this country we have decided that soldiers are sacred, and that an individual is not morally culpable if he willingly gives up his own freedom of conscience with knowledge and hands it over to the President. If you intentionally kill, you are responsible. That doesn't mean you are wrong, and it doesn't mean that sometime people don't have to do awful things, but every individual has responsibilty for their actions, and being a soldier in service to a government does nothing to change that. Just because a soldier believes he is serving his country does not mean that he always is. The only garuntee is that a soldier serves the President and government. Those people may or may not be directing the military in a way that serves the country. Rhetoric has conflated the 2, such that now we must always agree that, of course the soldier is serving the country. When directed properly, soldiers do more than anyone to serve this country, I have no doubt of that. Their job requires more sacrifice than potentially any other.
Now, you look at the U.S. military budget, I am not going to blame individual soldiers for the military budget. Still though, compared to every other nation on Earth, the U.S. does have an absurdly high military budget. This is money that is used in part to fund killing many of us oppose. Money that could either be given back to us, or could be used to directly help people here at home. Many would feel better if their money were used to help the needy in the US instead of kill people in the Middle East. Even if you think that is oversimplified, or do not agree, I think you can understand the outlook of such people.
You also discount this "it made the rest of the world hate me" aspect, but I think it is also a valid concern. The more of the world that hates me, the more of the world that will wish me harm. Also, I do not wish harm to be done to others in my name, I don't want to piss people off unnecessarily. Call that arrogant and selfish if you wish, but I see nothing wrong with that.
Also, I do not wish to see you beaten in the middle of the street.
I have no tattoos or piercings, though I am a guy with long hair, which is still considered a little bit outside of professional norms. Anyways, I am disturbed by the many people saying things like "Grow up!" and basically insulting people who would like to be free to have differently colored hair, or tattoos, piercings, or whatnot, yet still make a living as a professional.
Can having body modifications hinder someone in their career? Yes, clearly they can.
Should body modification hinder someone in their career? No, I can not imagine any rational moral argument that would conclude so.
The most rational business/economic argument against having employees with body modifications is that the business deals with prejudiced clients, and it may lose money by losing the business of those prejudiced clients. That prejudice is rife in these comments, by people saying things like "it tells people you don't care about the job", or "you need to grow up and leave your imagined counterculture", or "how would you feel if your lawyer/doctor/babysitter showed up with tattoos?" and so on. You get the same kind of projections on lesbians as hating men, or men/women who perform certain jobs, and the various racial prejudices and thoughts people have. While someone with body modifications made a choice to have them, and people do not get to choose their sex, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, the prejudice is morally equivelant and arises from the same error in reasoning. Mistaking aesthetic factors as indicators of merit and character.
So, I think that a lot of people could read what I said and disagree with me in two ways.
One set of people would be the prejudiced and conservative people who would say "Look, that's just the way it is. Deal with it. Why do all of these people have to raise a stink over thier childish, rebellious little fads they want to engage in? You aren't special, you aren't some revolutionary rebel, you are just a regular dude who has to earn a living like the rest of us. You are an adult now, and none of that crap is important." Another set of people may agree with me in the abstract, but then go on to say, "Well, that's the way it might be in a perfect world, but the reality is that, unfortunately, people are going to judge you on these factors, and you can't change that, so you are going to have to play the game by the rules."
I agree that, in comparision to many things, the right to have body modifications without forfieting your place in society is relatively minor. Still, I find it an unneccessary little oppression that makes the world a greyer, less fun and interesting place. People get hostile about it. Why can't the president have a mohawk? Just goofy playing around with appearance. Why does adulthood require we give these things up? Does the requirement make society a better place?
Anyway, it is just one of those little things that I think sucks a bit about life, and I will complain about it whenever I damn well please. People like to tell other people "you can't change this", or "if you don't like it, you can either do this (X) or shut up". Setting arbitrary limits on the discussion, narrowing the range of possibilities.... Nope. You are wrong.
Why do we have to treat the music labels like some kind of poor skittish fawn in a petting zoo? I mean, you say they are scared of offering online music because it may be, um, cracked. The big news flash is this: If you buy the CD, it is already "cracked" so to speak. Did they forget about CDs? Should we help the music industry lock down CDs somehow so they don't get so scared they stop selling us music all together?
Like I said earlier today, I could buy music from the iTunes store, which comes in a mediocre sound quality (compared to DRM-free CDs), in a format that doesn't work with my portable music player. Then I could burn it to a CD, then rip the CD into another lossy format to lose even more quality, all just so I could use the music like I want to. Honestly, it would be a lot easier to just obtain the music illegally, because I'm not gonna run out and buy an iPod or sit at my computer all day. To be honest, I've decided to stick to CDs for now.
To keep the ease of use and freedom we already have with music, we have to recognize this DRM for what it is: a power grab. Anybody with half a brain can see it is pretty much just as easy to share music you rip off a CD as it is to share music you've downloaded. Whether you consider the DRM a hassle or not, there is no doubt that you are losing control you once had. Why would you want to pander to these people and their anti-consumer goals?
The way I see it, the music labels themselves are hurting online legal music, because I would be buying singles and so on, if I didn't get less rights and more hassle out of it. As far as I'm concerned, they can just not have my money, you know? I'm not going to encourage what they are doing. Hurting the iTunes music store or this kind of locked up DRM business model doesn't seem so bad.
As for the people cracking these DRM schemes, well, its not necessarily illegal, depending on how free of a nation you live in. It's hard for me to see it is inherantly unethical either. It's not like the music is being being taken without paying.
The sad thing to me is relationship your are willing to put yourself in, in relation to the music industry. I mean, if you buy a CD you could rip it to any format very easily. Going through iTunes may save money in buying singles, but you get the music in a locked up format with mediocre quality (compared to CD), and the format doesn't even work on a lot of portable music players (such as my iRiver iHP-120). It would actually be easier for me to illegally download new music right now, if I wanted to actually use it the way I want. So, you put yourself into this appeasement relationship with the music industry that is basically limiting us and screwing us over for very flakey reasons. It's like "Daddy said we could get digital music if we are all good until Friday!".
To hell with that kind of attitude. They can either lose money, or they can give us what we want. Its their choice. CDs are an open format you can use anywhere. Why is it so absurd or wrong or ridiculous to expect the same in downloading music over the internet?
Sorry you are so bothered, but for some people it is just a goofy fun scenerio to work out. I doubt they meant to ruin your Christmas.
Here is how I see it. To me, DVDs are to VHS as CDs are to Cassette tapes. I had a decent amount of albums I liked that I used to own on cassette that I later purchased as CDs, because of all of the well known advantages of CDs, and some of the tapes had become dull sounding or had been eaten by the tape player a few times. Now it is rare to even find cassettes for sale anymore. Imagine if a group you loved refused to release their album in CD form, forcing you to dig around for old, possibly cruddy sounding cassettes, or maybe finding it is only available by illegal means, or maybe you have to buy an 8-track at a flea market or something. Of course, you could buy the new CD the band released, that is full of techno remixes of that album you loved, but that just doesn't quite cut it, does it? I remember one year for Christmas my Dad wanted some music by some old group, something along the lines of Foghat or Bad Company, but not them, and my Mom bought a CD with the few songs he wanted on it. Only the album was them going back into the studio many years later and rerecording the tracks. Needless to say, he doesn't listen to it much.
So, that's my point. Both music and movies can leave us with great memories of certain times in our lives, or maybe we just really appreciated them artistically, aside from nostalgia, and we all realize that currently under law Star Wars is "his" to do with as he pleases, but the Star Wars movies, like so many other movies and songs, are also a part of "our" culture that we all own, and it just seems a little disrespectful to have earned hundreds of millions of dollars from adoring fans, then effectively deny us access to the work we loved. That's all it boils down to.
Well, we did not evolve from current monkeys. All of the primates today evolved from a common ancesestor in the distant past. So apparently, the evolutionary branch that led to these modern monkey species created monkeys who tend to slack off until the very last minute, just like the branch that led to the evolution of humans.
It's all about our shared proto-monkey ancestors!
People like movies for different reasons. While to you, all of this nitpicking is annoying, I think that for some people it is part of the fun. In any case, I had fun watching the movie tonight just straight up for the themes it addressed, and the story, but I am not annoyed that people do this nit picking. To each his own, you know?
I see a lot of people posting about how it is so dangerous to post your opinions online in a personal page, because maybe your mom will read it or your buddies will shun you or something. Or maybe your employer/potential employer will find out about your secret personal life and drop you like a hot potato. Maybe someone will crush your feelings by saying you have an ugly self-centered 1993 looking tacky page. Maybe I'm out of touch or something, but this seems pretty lame.
How about proudly being who you are and not giving a fuck? Your friends are shunning you and you can't get a date? Fuck 'em. Really. Do you really want to have to censor yourself all of the time, for the rest of your life, because your friends, employer, and potential mate would ditch you if they really knew what you thought? If they really knew who you were?
Maybe I'm being harsh, but it all sounds weak. Some kind of fearfull low self-esteem thing...
I voted a few times in the contest. My votes were for OpenOffice.org, Audacity, and VNC. Both VNC and OpenOffice.org (especially!) have made my job easier and saved a lot of money in my overwhelmingly Windows workplace. Audacity is just great, and fun. Aside from my personal like of the programs, they all share the feature that they are cross-platform. It doesn't seem so useful to me to go to a conference showcasing your software, then when its all said and done, someone realized they would have to change their operating system just to use it. Anyone interested in Linux has at least passing knowledge of Gnome and KDE and if they were to obtain Linux, they will almost certainly be using one of them. Maybe the reason for bringing Gnome and KDE is really to promote Linux as a whole, which is fine. For me personally, though, a program that is free is great, and a program that is free AND I can share it with my friends regardless of their computing environment is even better.