While I would agree that the movie version Starship Troopers is cinematic garbage, I do like the idea of co-opting a work to further the opposing viewpoint. In this case, it was the extremely distasteful glamorization of the military portrayed in the novel, being blown to ludicrous proportions and re-contextualized in the film adaption to essentially reverse the meaning. While I can't say that Starship Troopers succeeded, or that this was even the director's explicit intention, I do like the idea quite a bit (though I am sure any artists caught in the crosshairs of such a scheme would be none too happy).
Well, to be fair to racing games, they are simulating racing, and for this it is realistic. Race car drivers spend countless hours studying every single inch of the track before they go out and race on it -- it really is the only way to drive at such a high rate of speed through any kind of track. As for your critique of this study -- you are spot-on. This tests absolutely nothing as far as real-world driving skills go. This is a test of memory as well as a test of the participants' video game skill (driving a simulator, even a good one, is much more like playing a video game than actually driving.)
Yes, I agree. Real wars these days are definitely at the most extreme end of the spectrum of justification/necessity, in that they are in no way even close to being necessary and/or justifiable and are realistically tantamount to cultural and economic imperialism at best, and genocide at worst. Just saying.
Yes, you have a right to express outrage. I also have a right to ridicule your outrage. Especially when your outrage is not based in reality or in facts. I don't find it healthy or reassuring that people are disgusted and outraged by this, I think it just shows how stupid and petty our society is, and makes me wish people would get this upset about things that actually matter. For instance, I'm sure the same fucking idiots who have all sorts of sand in their collective vaginas about video game violence are perfectly okay with the war going on in Iraq right now.
Microsoft might control the desktop market, but don't forget that the vast majority of servers and supercomputers run Linux. You might have Windows on your PC at home, but all your Interwebz are belong to Linux.
Yes, but I believe the proper word is 'tubes'. Please remember that it is a series of said tubes, and not a dump truck. Treating your personal series of tubes as if it were a dump truck will definitely crash your Internets and give your CPU a virus.
Yes it is. That last sentence is clearly implying that the possible increased use of encryption will hamper law enforcement in their prevention of terrorism. This is, for many obvious reasons, laughably retarded.
They start off good, railing against the absurd 3 strikes law, but then continue on to rail against encryption as hampering the ability of law enforcement to fight terrorism? It seems you missed the grape Kool-Aid, but ended up drinking the blue raspberry just the same...
No. First of all, we are talking about human beings here, or hairless apes with a prefrontal cortex. Even if you ban everything except for silently looking straight ahead with both hands on the wheel, we will become distracted while driving. We are not robots, this is simply a fact of life.
As for your assertion that drivers involved in accidents have their cars impounded, that is simply fascism. First of all, you fail to take into account the innocent victims here. If a drunk driver blatantly runs a red light and crashes into me, my car needs to be impounded and my license suspended until they can figure out the cause? Who is going to make sure these claims are expedited? How am I (the innocent victim who had NOTHING to do with this accident happening) going to get to work?
As for your further assertion that anyone involved in an at-fault accident have their license revoked, well, you are an idiot. I have personally been in an accident that no reasonable person could ever call my fault, but I was technically still at fault according to the law (light turned green, idiot didn't go, I turned left, idiot realized the light was green and plowed into me). Extreme cases are already covered by the law -- anyone involved in an accident while driving recklessly can ALREADY be jailed. Your assertions here have no basis in fact, or in reality, and have no place in a free society of any kind.
The way to remedy this situation is NOT increased law enforcement, it is increased education. Driver's education is currently a total joke. Kids need to learn a bit about their own neurology behind the wheel. We need to incorporate exercises to show the limits of concentration, as well as the dangers of speeding and such. The licensing system also ought to be tightened -- right now anyone (including old geezers who cannot see, hear, or tell the difference between the gas and brake) can just walk in and be licensed to drive. We should make sure that drivers, before obtaining a license, understand all the inherent risks of operating a motor vehicle. These things will help, banning everything and throwing people in jail will not.
This is all well and good -- but unfortunately the real world is not so idealistic. You see, most people have these things called 'jobs', and often these so-called 'jobs' require people to work on very tight schedules. To comply with these schedules some people must do some crazy things some times, like take their cup of coffee to go on the way to work.
How do you change gear?
Well, you see, most cars coming out nowadays have something called an 'automatic transmission'. The car actually changes gears for you! I know, I know, this sounds like science fiction, but it's true. These new future cars also have these things called cup holders, which will literally hold your cup for you! That will leave both of your hands completely, 100% unburdened by your coffee until you find a good time to take a sip! Wow!
These handheld electronics bans are completely absurd and have no basis in reality or in science whatsoever. Why? Well, I am glad you asked. This bill states that a handheld cell phone is bad, but a hands-free one is ok. Well, science has shown again and again that the problem with using a cell phone while driving in the TALKING part, not holding the phone. If holding the phone were the problem, the ban would be on driving one handed. Having a conversation with a passenger would create the same distraction. This being said, there is no reasonable way we could possibly ban talking on a cell phone, especially when the same government almost certainly does everything they can to promote car pooling.
Texting and playing video games while driving are certainly not ok, but I would have thought that not looking at the road while you are driving would already be thoroughly well covered by previously existing laws (we would call it reckless endangerment in the U.S., not sure about Canada).
Of course they do -- this is all just a show to garner votes. We see the same thing with gun control laws every time some nutjob goes into a public place. Politicians were screaming about instituting more gun control after Columbine, completely ignoring the myriad of other gun laws that these kids had unsurprisingly already ignored and circumvented.
Wow -- this post is just full of fail. You really start it off wonderfully with:
I take it you have no moral objection to stealing CDs from a store because it probably causes them no harm? Hell leave them a $1 and take the CD...as we know CDs and CD cases cost less then $1 - so you are being more then fair.
Do I really need to debunk this stupid argument again? For real? If I were to steal a CD from a store, I am physically taking something from the store -- there was a CD on the shelf before I got there, there wasn't a CD when I left. Now that CD cannot be sold to anyone. Got it? No such thing happens when a song is pirated online. User A makes a copy of a song, and User B downloads it. User B never took anything away from anyone, and User B was not necessarily going to ever buy the CD anyway. Nothing is stopping User B from going to buy the CD later, and there is certainly nothing stopping User C from downloading it.
I hear this a lot, and while I am sure someone, out there, buys 104 to 260 cds per year, I feel confident on calling you out on this.
I hear this a lot, and while I am sure someone, out there, thinks that you are not a fucking moron, I feel confident on calling you out on this.
Nazi's? It's people like you who diminish what happend during the holocaust and WWII
No. It is a literary device. Get over it.
Ah-hah - now we get it. Indie music is better because it is sometimes free? So free makes music sound better. Maybe you are onto something. Let those artists starve.
Again, no. I still buy a great many CDs, and have recently begun collecting vinyl. I go to shows, and I buy the artists' merchandise. 'Free' has nothing to do with it -- indie labels simply tend to turn out higher quality music for a great many reasons.
Nice of you to make blanket statements about all artists. Because someone can't possibly enjoy making good music and making a profit. Better that they spend their time doing it for free - because as we know, free music sounds better then paid music.
Again, you fail miserably at trying to make a coherent point by going back to the straw man you created with you last statement. Major labels are more concerned with profit margins than creating art. If you have not figured this out, and why this is bad for music, then there is not much I can do for you. None of this is to say that musicians should be doing it "for free" -- I want artists to be compensated generously for the works they provide. The art, however, needs to come before the dollar sign if you are going to make a great album. If it is good and people want to hear it, it will sell.
What happend in the article, in the thread you are commenting on, has nothing to do with your rant. Now run along and go download the latest Mily CD - you know want to put your hands up in the air like yea.
This has EVERYTHING to do with the thread I am commenting on! It's about copyright laws run amok and how to deal with the issue! I even addressed this at the beginning of my comment! Are you even trying?
If so -- I would be horrified, not only by the fact that I am getting a lap dance in front of a huge crowd of people, but even more so by the fact that what appears to be a naked Mr. Burns is watching over my shoulder.
Agreed. In a truly capitalistic society, there would be no copyright. Not that pure capitalism is at all of a good idea, but the right answer is rarely ever black and white. I would not want to abolish copyright totally, per say, but it ought to be slashed back to a mere shadow of what it is now. 10 year limit, max, with severe limitations on enforcement. The DMCA needs to be completely eliminated, there is no reason for "piracy" to be illegal, nor is it conscionable to illegalize DRM circumvention -- if I bought it, I should own it. Most importantly, plaintiffs should be required to PROVE actual harm in cases such as this one -- and need to be slapped down hard for making frivolous claims.
Yes. This is completely insane. That is why we all need to stop giving money to these people (I will talk specifically about the RIAA in this post but I am speaking more generally about the big nameless, faceless entertainment cartels worldwide). After I got a nice little letter from the RIAA a few years back, I figured I would heed their warning and stop downloading music illegally (I have no moral objection to such activities as they provably cause no harm, but I don't want to get sued either), but I also decided that they don't need any of my money anymore (I was buying between 2 and 5 CDs EACH WEEK from RIAA musicians before, go figure), and decided that I am going to take my music dollars elsewhere. Not only have I been able to avoid giving money to these Nazis, I have discovered that the music being put out by indie labels is infinitely better! You get music that is created by artists who care about their music, rather than their profit margins. This is the only way we can fight this shit -- take your money elsewhere. Vote with your wallet. Don't even share this shit online for free -- that gives them a scapegoat. Dry their profit margins up and make it clear that they have no one to blame but themselves. That is the only way to stop this insanity.
I also worry that this sort of shit makes it easier for people to commit real crimes, as I feel that many would fear taking the initial step onto the wrong side of the law. When we pass laws that ensure that all citizens are on the wrong side of the law by default, I feel that we remove a large barrier in the minds of the people. Not only that, but it makes a total farce of law enforcement.
It would be pretty trivial for Apple, if put under legal pressure, to implement geographic restrictions there.
It would be equally trivial for Australians to log into the app store through a proxy server, thereby totally circumventing the geographic restriction.
For the real trip to Mars, any direct connection to the Internet will (obviously) be futile, but I think that they would do well to give each astronaut a souped up PC with several TB of hard drive space, full to the brim with games, movies, music, e-books, and whatever else they might want. They could even set up a LAN and wallop on each other in Starcraft 2 or something. Or maybe include another computer as a dedicated server for MW2. The possibilities are endless!
Umm... that was pretty much my whole point. It makes me want to claw out my own eyes when I hear these jack off tech companies talking about this new "cloud" computing phenomenon -- it is only a new (and exceptionally stupid) buzzword for something that we have been doing for a long, long time. It is not "cloud" computing -- it's just fucking regular old computing -- with CPU's and memory and HDD's and the like -- it just happens to be taking place somewhere else.
Slashdot Mirror
While I would agree that the movie version Starship Troopers is cinematic garbage, I do like the idea of co-opting a work to further the opposing viewpoint. In this case, it was the extremely distasteful glamorization of the military portrayed in the novel, being blown to ludicrous proportions and re-contextualized in the film adaption to essentially reverse the meaning. While I can't say that Starship Troopers succeeded, or that this was even the director's explicit intention, I do like the idea quite a bit (though I am sure any artists caught in the crosshairs of such a scheme would be none too happy).
Well, to be fair to racing games, they are simulating racing, and for this it is realistic. Race car drivers spend countless hours studying every single inch of the track before they go out and race on it -- it really is the only way to drive at such a high rate of speed through any kind of track. As for your critique of this study -- you are spot-on. This tests absolutely nothing as far as real-world driving skills go. This is a test of memory as well as a test of the participants' video game skill (driving a simulator, even a good one, is much more like playing a video game than actually driving.)
Yes, I agree. Real wars these days are definitely at the most extreme end of the spectrum of justification/necessity, in that they are in no way even close to being necessary and/or justifiable and are realistically tantamount to cultural and economic imperialism at best, and genocide at worst. Just saying.
Yes, you have a right to express outrage. I also have a right to ridicule your outrage. Especially when your outrage is not based in reality or in facts. I don't find it healthy or reassuring that people are disgusted and outraged by this, I think it just shows how stupid and petty our society is, and makes me wish people would get this upset about things that actually matter. For instance, I'm sure the same fucking idiots who have all sorts of sand in their collective vaginas about video game violence are perfectly okay with the war going on in Iraq right now.
Microsoft might control the desktop market, but don't forget that the vast majority of servers and supercomputers run Linux. You might have Windows on your PC at home, but all your Interwebz are belong to Linux.
Yes, but I believe the proper word is 'tubes'. Please remember that it is a series of said tubes, and not a dump truck. Treating your personal series of tubes as if it were a dump truck will definitely crash your Internets and give your CPU a virus.
Controversy only works on stupid people
I believe the previous commenter already covered that point:
And that's the American Way.
Yes it is. That last sentence is clearly implying that the possible increased use of encryption will hamper law enforcement in their prevention of terrorism. This is, for many obvious reasons, laughably retarded.
Damn -- that is amazing. I would love it if someone could come up with some sources so I can read more into this.
They start off good, railing against the absurd 3 strikes law, but then continue on to rail against encryption as hampering the ability of law enforcement to fight terrorism? It seems you missed the grape Kool-Aid, but ended up drinking the blue raspberry just the same...
No. First of all, we are talking about human beings here, or hairless apes with a prefrontal cortex. Even if you ban everything except for silently looking straight ahead with both hands on the wheel, we will become distracted while driving. We are not robots, this is simply a fact of life.
As for your assertion that drivers involved in accidents have their cars impounded, that is simply fascism. First of all, you fail to take into account the innocent victims here. If a drunk driver blatantly runs a red light and crashes into me, my car needs to be impounded and my license suspended until they can figure out the cause? Who is going to make sure these claims are expedited? How am I (the innocent victim who had NOTHING to do with this accident happening) going to get to work?
As for your further assertion that anyone involved in an at-fault accident have their license revoked, well, you are an idiot. I have personally been in an accident that no reasonable person could ever call my fault, but I was technically still at fault according to the law (light turned green, idiot didn't go, I turned left, idiot realized the light was green and plowed into me). Extreme cases are already covered by the law -- anyone involved in an accident while driving recklessly can ALREADY be jailed. Your assertions here have no basis in fact, or in reality, and have no place in a free society of any kind.
The way to remedy this situation is NOT increased law enforcement, it is increased education. Driver's education is currently a total joke. Kids need to learn a bit about their own neurology behind the wheel. We need to incorporate exercises to show the limits of concentration, as well as the dangers of speeding and such. The licensing system also ought to be tightened -- right now anyone (including old geezers who cannot see, hear, or tell the difference between the gas and brake) can just walk in and be licensed to drive. We should make sure that drivers, before obtaining a license, understand all the inherent risks of operating a motor vehicle. These things will help, banning everything and throwing people in jail will not.
How do you change gear?
Well, you see, most cars coming out nowadays have something called an 'automatic transmission'. The car actually changes gears for you! I know, I know, this sounds like science fiction, but it's true. These new future cars also have these things called cup holders, which will literally hold your cup for you! That will leave both of your hands completely, 100% unburdened by your coffee until you find a good time to take a sip! Wow!
These handheld electronics bans are completely absurd and have no basis in reality or in science whatsoever. Why? Well, I am glad you asked. This bill states that a handheld cell phone is bad, but a hands-free one is ok. Well, science has shown again and again that the problem with using a cell phone while driving in the TALKING part, not holding the phone. If holding the phone were the problem, the ban would be on driving one handed. Having a conversation with a passenger would create the same distraction. This being said, there is no reasonable way we could possibly ban talking on a cell phone, especially when the same government almost certainly does everything they can to promote car pooling.
Texting and playing video games while driving are certainly not ok, but I would have thought that not looking at the road while you are driving would already be thoroughly well covered by previously existing laws (we would call it reckless endangerment in the U.S., not sure about Canada).
Of course they do -- this is all just a show to garner votes. We see the same thing with gun control laws every time some nutjob goes into a public place. Politicians were screaming about instituting more gun control after Columbine, completely ignoring the myriad of other gun laws that these kids had unsurprisingly already ignored and circumvented.
Do I really need to debunk this stupid argument again? For real? If I were to steal a CD from a store, I am physically taking something from the store -- there was a CD on the shelf before I got there, there wasn't a CD when I left. Now that CD cannot be sold to anyone. Got it? No such thing happens when a song is pirated online. User A makes a copy of a song, and User B downloads it. User B never took anything away from anyone, and User B was not necessarily going to ever buy the CD anyway. Nothing is stopping User B from going to buy the CD later, and there is certainly nothing stopping User C from downloading it.
I hear this a lot, and while I am sure someone, out there, thinks that you are not a fucking moron, I feel confident on calling you out on this.
No. It is a literary device. Get over it.
Again, no. I still buy a great many CDs, and have recently begun collecting vinyl. I go to shows, and I buy the artists' merchandise. 'Free' has nothing to do with it -- indie labels simply tend to turn out higher quality music for a great many reasons.
Again, you fail miserably at trying to make a coherent point by going back to the straw man you created with you last statement. Major labels are more concerned with profit margins than creating art. If you have not figured this out, and why this is bad for music, then there is not much I can do for you. None of this is to say that musicians should be doing it "for free" -- I want artists to be compensated generously for the works they provide. The art, however, needs to come before the dollar sign if you are going to make a great album. If it is good and people want to hear it, it will sell.
This has EVERYTHING to do with the thread I am commenting on! It's about copyright laws run amok and how to deal with the issue! I even addressed this at the beginning of my comment! Are you even trying?
If so -- I would be horrified, not only by the fact that I am getting a lap dance in front of a huge crowd of people, but even more so by the fact that what appears to be a naked Mr. Burns is watching over my shoulder.
Wow, you are clever. Thank you for your stimulating addition to the discussion at hand.
Agreed. In a truly capitalistic society, there would be no copyright. Not that pure capitalism is at all of a good idea, but the right answer is rarely ever black and white. I would not want to abolish copyright totally, per say, but it ought to be slashed back to a mere shadow of what it is now. 10 year limit, max, with severe limitations on enforcement. The DMCA needs to be completely eliminated, there is no reason for "piracy" to be illegal, nor is it conscionable to illegalize DRM circumvention -- if I bought it, I should own it. Most importantly, plaintiffs should be required to PROVE actual harm in cases such as this one -- and need to be slapped down hard for making frivolous claims.
Yes. This is completely insane. That is why we all need to stop giving money to these people (I will talk specifically about the RIAA in this post but I am speaking more generally about the big nameless, faceless entertainment cartels worldwide). After I got a nice little letter from the RIAA a few years back, I figured I would heed their warning and stop downloading music illegally (I have no moral objection to such activities as they provably cause no harm, but I don't want to get sued either), but I also decided that they don't need any of my money anymore (I was buying between 2 and 5 CDs EACH WEEK from RIAA musicians before, go figure), and decided that I am going to take my music dollars elsewhere. Not only have I been able to avoid giving money to these Nazis, I have discovered that the music being put out by indie labels is infinitely better! You get music that is created by artists who care about their music, rather than their profit margins. This is the only way we can fight this shit -- take your money elsewhere. Vote with your wallet. Don't even share this shit online for free -- that gives them a scapegoat. Dry their profit margins up and make it clear that they have no one to blame but themselves. That is the only way to stop this insanity.
SHHH!!!! I know you are being sarcastic but some right wing nutjob might hear you and think it's a great idea!
I also worry that this sort of shit makes it easier for people to commit real crimes, as I feel that many would fear taking the initial step onto the wrong side of the law. When we pass laws that ensure that all citizens are on the wrong side of the law by default, I feel that we remove a large barrier in the minds of the people. Not only that, but it makes a total farce of law enforcement.
It would be pretty trivial for Apple, if put under legal pressure, to implement geographic restrictions there.
It would be equally trivial for Australians to log into the app store through a proxy server, thereby totally circumventing the geographic restriction.
For the real trip to Mars, any direct connection to the Internet will (obviously) be futile, but I think that they would do well to give each astronaut a souped up PC with several TB of hard drive space, full to the brim with games, movies, music, e-books, and whatever else they might want. They could even set up a LAN and wallop on each other in Starcraft 2 or something. Or maybe include another computer as a dedicated server for MW2. The possibilities are endless!
Not really actually. I mean, it's not entirely odorless, but it's certainly better than lighting up a doober in the living room. Or so I've heard.
Umm... that was pretty much my whole point. It makes me want to claw out my own eyes when I hear these jack off tech companies talking about this new "cloud" computing phenomenon -- it is only a new (and exceptionally stupid) buzzword for something that we have been doing for a long, long time. It is not "cloud" computing -- it's just fucking regular old computing -- with CPU's and memory and HDD's and the like -- it just happens to be taking place somewhere else.