Every time I hear about some activity impairing more than being legally intoxicated (driving with 1 hour sleep deprivation, driving with crying babies, driving while talking on a mobile, etc) I always wonder whether that says more about the activity, or the limits of what is considered legally impaired.
Or another way of looking at it, obviously alcohol impaired drivers need to drink more!
I believe it is a protected thing, mostly because I do not want to have any slippery slope.
I don't want one either, but is that a convincing argument? It's not for me.
Really!?
Are you aware that many public libraries already employ filters to prevent "porn", that end up also filtering out things like artistic nudity, discussions and legitimate information regarding sexuality, sexual identity, and sexual health.
EVERY TIME something is banned to protect the children, the oversensitive, religious zealots, etc, the net is cast increasingly wider to make sure that nothing slips by accidentally and incurs some type of liability or punitive response.
And can you not honestly imagine that if sexual content became banned in libraries, that somewhere down the road, someone might be offended by violent content? I'm surprised it hasn't come up already, in fact (though apparently we Americans are more offended by body parts when they are shown still on the body, rather when they are dismembered from the body).
I can easily see this going on to violence, and then maybe sites with extreme views or that support hate groups, or have some connection (real or imaginary) to terrorism.
Hell, yesterday there was a post showing an example of the FBI apparently casting the net wider in order to catch terrorists, by internet cafes and such to start viewing people who like encryption, privacy, VPN, etc, as possible terrorists.
I certainly believe that video games could have some form of impact on empathy, though I'm not sure it has to be negative. Afterall, video games managed to cause me to feel empathy for a fucking cube.
We have a lot of video games that have themes that encourage lack of apathy. Many games offer choices that reward you for being good or evil, where quite often "evil" is really being a malevolent psychopath).
And while I think that video games could have an effect on behavior (and possibly development), I have doubts that it is particularly unique to the medium. I would hazard to guess that music, movies, magazines and comic books do as well.
And we already know that letters, books, and religious texts have had substantial changes to the thinking of entire cultures or subcultures, started wars and toppled empires.
Speech is dangerous, in all forms, in all media. And people should fight to keep it that way.
The NES one, on the other hand, was actually impossible after a certain level... the blocks fell faster than you could get them to the edges of the screen.
That made me think of the old Columns game on the Sega Genesis that I used to play when I was around 13. I recall that the rate at which pieces fell when you pushed down was fixed. After a certain point, the fall speed of pieces became faster than the fixed speed of pushing down, so you could slow pieces down by pushing down. Using this technique, I could play indefinitely without it ever getting too fast.
The worst crimes in the history of humanity were carried out by people who were just following orders.
People following orders are still morally culpable for their acts.
Actually, I think most of us picked up that is what the GP was already implying by his humorous 5 word interjection, but please, don't let me interrupt your needless exposition.;-)
Yes, in the future, when 3D printers improve by leaps and bounds and when the Music and Movie industries have won and it will become illegal to hum copyrighted works in the elevator, we will see Public Service Advertisements that say...
"You wouldn't steal a song would you!? Don't steal that car! Downloading a car is illegal!"
Sure, I agree that there are additional hidden values that may be found in traditional education (such as the development of social skills and social networks).
However, it is completely possible that you can succeed in attaining your education without gaining these social skills or developing those networks, just like it is possible to develop social skills and networks without traditional education.
Additionally, not everyone is in the financial position to attain the luxury of having both a traditional education and a rewarding social experience. Some will be unable to afford to go at all, while others need to spend almost all of their time split between school and the job they need to pay for it.
So what you speak of is fine for an ideal, but the reality of the situation is that the people that benefit the most from open and freely available knowledge are those that can't afford (or would struggle to afford) a traditional education anyway. I doubt it will have much benefit on traditional education since there will always be parents of privileged kids who share your attitude that the "college experience" has great value in personal development.
Though, if there is an effect, I hope it would be to create downward pressure on the cost of education.
It seems obvious to me, that they are blatantly ignoring your sense of entitlement.
How dare Google for having the unbridled audacity to not keep their free experimental service and software project fully maintained and supported 100% of the time after donating it to the MIT Media Lab, until the Media Lab was able to deploy their service.
Sure, it could be a bit frustrating if you were a heavy user of it, but at the same time is it really fair to criticize them for not being quite generous enough and on your terms?
Or maybe... the name "photoshop" has become so ubiquitous that it has come to be synonymous with "computer aided photo manipulation". It is not uncommon for brand names to infiltrate culture so successfully that the trademarked brand name ceases to be relevant.
I suggest that you take a sharpie and a post-it note and write yourself a reminder to google this phenomenon. If that sounds like too much of a headache, take an aspirin and maybe tivo a documentary on it.
Second, how the fuck do you know the lyrics to this song? Seriously. Are you actually dedicating space in your head to 80s TV sitcom themes? Why would you do that?
Are you actually suggesting that memory is a completely voluntary thing? Trust me, there are many things I really wish that I remembered that I do not, and many things that I really wish I didn't remember that I do.
Or biological. Women may actually enjoy the fields they gravitate toward.
There are several modern fields that are dominated by women, that used to be dominated by males. Has there been a shift in biology?
As an aside, when some women broke into some of these previously male-dominated fields in order to seek better pay, wages would fall for that position. Then men began to move out of those jobs, and into better paying jobs, making room for more women. Apparently getting women into a given profession is an effective way of reducing pay for that profession.
So your argument is that because one mainstream news network gave favorable coverage, you can dismiss the negative coverage from ABC, CBS, MSNBC, WSJ, NY Times, Time magazine, etc, etc, etc...
No, that's not quite right.
First of all, it it isn't simply just "one mainstream network gave favorable coverage". It is the most watched television news network (by a huge margin), a news network that has viewership that single-handedly has often approached having the viewership of half of all the US news networks combined, and a news network that frequently has almost all 10 (if not all 10) of the most frequently watched news shows in the US.
And it wasn't just favorable coverage. They actively promoted it on both their shows and on their website. They presented dishonest reporting of events in order to exaggerate attendance. They were also caught actively directing the protesters for the camera.
I can't personally speak for the negative coverage for the other news networks, because I didn't see that coverage. Whether in the office, visiting family, or visiting local restaurants, the news channel that was always on during that time was Fox News.
So, no, you have my argument completely wrong. I'm not dismissing negative coverage because "one mainstream network" gave "favorable coverage", I'm dismissing negative coverage because the most influential and watched news machine in the country was actively promoting it.
Apparently you didnt follow any of the coverage of the Tea Party.
Did you? I recall a lot of positive coverage of the tea party, though most of it was from Fox News. Not only did they give them positive coverage, they intentionally tried to make event turn-out to be more substantial than it really was, provided information on their website in order to help people find rallies, and promoted this information on the air.
There wasn't a universal support from the media of course, but Fox made for quite an effective cheerleader.
And even if they can't afford to support it, and they spread the music to others, then there is still a chance that those others will provide the artist with some form of financial compensation (either through seeing a performance, or purchasing music), or further spread it to others that might.
The popularity of the cassette tape in the 80's brought on a lot of "piracy" (music sharing, mix tapes, etc), but yet by many accounts, this was a good and profitable time for artists. Exposure is much more valuable to artists than making sure that nobody hears you unless they buy something.
I worked for a company where a manager had offered a sum of money to a lower positioned, financially struggling, single-mother in exchange for sleeping with him. She went to HR to complain. He was allowed to step down from his position voluntarily, and was given a new higher position job at a sister company.
Another employee was outright fired for discussing pay.
So, yes, apparently some companies take discussing payroll far more seriously than even sexual harassment.
You might want to pick up a newspaper sometime (if they still in print) because the world has changed a little bit in the last several decades.
There have been some recent developments that you might find interesting, such as the rise of "the internet", "smart phones", "i-things", "unemployment", and "economic uncertainty".
In reading, you might also learn that most of us don't have infinite incomes. Additionally, at the risk of offending some camps, all businesses can't continue to always increase profits for an infinite amount of time.
So the average person has less money to spend on entertainment and more places to spend it, then it seems pretty likely that certain "creative industries" can feel the pinch.
You are in the "creative industry", can't you be more creative than using piracy as a scapegoat?
If you download TV shows from unlicensed sources you will see there is no ads.
Maybe that is the problem? It is not really about copyrights but about losing viewers for the ads?
Maybe, but what is the industry going to do if someone manages to invent a box that you attach to your TV, that can record all your shows, let you watch them later, and lets you skip past the commercials? Hypothetically, of course.
well even tho they succeeded on launching their gaming business, I believe they really REALLY need to start building brand loyalty, NOBODY likes microsoft as a company, you might like windows, xbox, and games for windows live (why like GFWL is beyond me but whatever),but if MS went crashing and burning down today, nobody would really care about the company, about the services, yes; but about the company.. not really.
I would agree that they could use more brand loyalty. Microsoft has never been great at image; they constantly fail to look hip, cool, or caring.
Look at at their competitors. Sony has repeatedly pissed on their customers left and right, but yet they still manage to have fanboys proclaiming how evil Microsoft is. Apple has managed to convince legions that missing a feature is a feature itself, and it's scary outside the walls of their garden. They even had a CEO that was viewed as a messiah.
Then again, it's probably better for us for them to be square. Where would we be without these other players providing competition and pushing them to innovate?
Slashdot Mirror
I was thinking along the same lines.
Every time I hear about some activity impairing more than being legally intoxicated (driving with 1 hour sleep deprivation, driving with crying babies, driving while talking on a mobile, etc) I always wonder whether that says more about the activity, or the limits of what is considered legally impaired.
Or another way of looking at it, obviously alcohol impaired drivers need to drink more!
Ah-ha! So you admit that Anonymous took down the CIA website using a slashdotting hack!
I believe it is a protected thing, mostly because I do not want to have any slippery slope.
I don't want one either, but is that a convincing argument? It's not for me.
Really!?
Are you aware that many public libraries already employ filters to prevent "porn", that end up also filtering out things like artistic nudity, discussions and legitimate information regarding sexuality, sexual identity, and sexual health.
EVERY TIME something is banned to protect the children, the oversensitive, religious zealots, etc, the net is cast increasingly wider to make sure that nothing slips by accidentally and incurs some type of liability or punitive response.
And can you not honestly imagine that if sexual content became banned in libraries, that somewhere down the road, someone might be offended by violent content? I'm surprised it hasn't come up already, in fact (though apparently we Americans are more offended by body parts when they are shown still on the body, rather when they are dismembered from the body).
I can easily see this going on to violence, and then maybe sites with extreme views or that support hate groups, or have some connection (real or imaginary) to terrorism.
Hell, yesterday there was a post showing an example of the FBI apparently casting the net wider in order to catch terrorists, by internet cafes and such to start viewing people who like encryption, privacy, VPN, etc, as possible terrorists.
This case or that case? How about a purported link to hindering development of empathy? Has anyone got the time?
I certainly believe that video games could have some form of impact on empathy, though I'm not sure it has to be negative. Afterall, video games managed to cause me to feel empathy for a fucking cube.
We have a lot of video games that have themes that encourage lack of apathy. Many games offer choices that reward you for being good or evil, where quite often "evil" is really being a malevolent psychopath).
And while I think that video games could have an effect on behavior (and possibly development), I have doubts that it is particularly unique to the medium. I would hazard to guess that music, movies, magazines and comic books do as well.
And we already know that letters, books, and religious texts have had substantial changes to the thinking of entire cultures or subcultures, started wars and toppled empires.
Speech is dangerous, in all forms, in all media. And people should fight to keep it that way.
The NES one, on the other hand, was actually impossible after a certain level... the blocks fell faster than you could get them to the edges of the screen.
That made me think of the old Columns game on the Sega Genesis that I used to play when I was around 13. I recall that the rate at which pieces fell when you pushed down was fixed. After a certain point, the fall speed of pieces became faster than the fixed speed of pushing down, so you could slow pieces down by pushing down. Using this technique, I could play indefinitely without it ever getting too fast.
Since they're only following orders.
The worst crimes in the history of humanity were carried out by people who were just following orders.
People following orders are still morally culpable for their acts.
Actually, I think most of us picked up that is what the GP was already implying by his humorous 5 word interjection, but please, don't let me interrupt your needless exposition. ;-)
Yes, in the future, when 3D printers improve by leaps and bounds and when the Music and Movie industries have won and it will become illegal to hum copyrighted works in the elevator, we will see Public Service Advertisements that say...
"You wouldn't steal a song would you!? Don't steal that car! Downloading a car is illegal!"
Sure, I agree that there are additional hidden values that may be found in traditional education (such as the development of social skills and social networks).
However, it is completely possible that you can succeed in attaining your education without gaining these social skills or developing those networks, just like it is possible to develop social skills and networks without traditional education.
Additionally, not everyone is in the financial position to attain the luxury of having both a traditional education and a rewarding social experience. Some will be unable to afford to go at all, while others need to spend almost all of their time split between school and the job they need to pay for it.
So what you speak of is fine for an ideal, but the reality of the situation is that the people that benefit the most from open and freely available knowledge are those that can't afford (or would struggle to afford) a traditional education anyway. I doubt it will have much benefit on traditional education since there will always be parents of privileged kids who share your attitude that the "college experience" has great value in personal development.
Though, if there is an effect, I hope it would be to create downward pressure on the cost of education.
It seems obvious to me, that they are blatantly ignoring your sense of entitlement.
How dare Google for having the unbridled audacity to not keep their free experimental service and software project fully maintained and supported 100% of the time after donating it to the MIT Media Lab, until the Media Lab was able to deploy their service.
Sure, it could be a bit frustrating if you were a heavy user of it, but at the same time is it really fair to criticize them for not being quite generous enough and on your terms?
Or maybe... the name "photoshop" has become so ubiquitous that it has come to be synonymous with "computer aided photo manipulation". It is not uncommon for brand names to infiltrate culture so successfully that the trademarked brand name ceases to be relevant.
I suggest that you take a sharpie and a post-it note and write yourself a reminder to google this phenomenon. If that sounds like too much of a headache, take an aspirin and maybe tivo a documentary on it.
Second, how the fuck do you know the lyrics to this song? Seriously. Are you actually dedicating space in your head to 80s TV sitcom themes? Why would you do that?
Are you actually suggesting that memory is a completely voluntary thing? Trust me, there are many things I really wish that I remembered that I do not, and many things that I really wish I didn't remember that I do.
"Yes! We are all individuals!"
Or biological. Women may actually enjoy the fields they gravitate toward.
There are several modern fields that are dominated by women, that used to be dominated by males. Has there been a shift in biology?
As an aside, when some women broke into some of these previously male-dominated fields in order to seek better pay, wages would fall for that position. Then men began to move out of those jobs, and into better paying jobs, making room for more women. Apparently getting women into a given profession is an effective way of reducing pay for that profession.
Are you referring to the WDEHTBSSAA effect?
So your argument is that because one mainstream news network gave favorable coverage, you can dismiss the negative coverage from ABC, CBS, MSNBC, WSJ, NY Times, Time magazine, etc, etc, etc...
No, that's not quite right.
First of all, it it isn't simply just "one mainstream network gave favorable coverage". It is the most watched television news network (by a huge margin), a news network that has viewership that single-handedly has often approached having the viewership of half of all the US news networks combined, and a news network that frequently has almost all 10 (if not all 10) of the most frequently watched news shows in the US.
And it wasn't just favorable coverage. They actively promoted it on both their shows and on their website. They presented dishonest reporting of events in order to exaggerate attendance. They were also caught actively directing the protesters for the camera.
I can't personally speak for the negative coverage for the other news networks, because I didn't see that coverage. Whether in the office, visiting family, or visiting local restaurants, the news channel that was always on during that time was Fox News.
So, no, you have my argument completely wrong. I'm not dismissing negative coverage because "one mainstream network" gave "favorable coverage", I'm dismissing negative coverage because the most influential and watched news machine in the country was actively promoting it.
Apparently you didnt follow any of the coverage of the Tea Party.
Did you? I recall a lot of positive coverage of the tea party, though most of it was from Fox News. Not only did they give them positive coverage, they intentionally tried to make event turn-out to be more substantial than it really was, provided information on their website in order to help people find rallies, and promoted this information on the air.
There wasn't a universal support from the media of course, but Fox made for quite an effective cheerleader.
And even if they can't afford to support it, and they spread the music to others, then there is still a chance that those others will provide the artist with some form of financial compensation (either through seeing a performance, or purchasing music), or further spread it to others that might.
The popularity of the cassette tape in the 80's brought on a lot of "piracy" (music sharing, mix tapes, etc), but yet by many accounts, this was a good and profitable time for artists. Exposure is much more valuable to artists than making sure that nobody hears you unless they buy something.
Yes, many companies take this very seriously.
I worked for a company where a manager had offered a sum of money to a lower positioned, financially struggling, single-mother in exchange for sleeping with him. She went to HR to complain. He was allowed to step down from his position voluntarily, and was given a new higher position job at a sister company.
Another employee was outright fired for discussing pay.
So, yes, apparently some companies take discussing payroll far more seriously than even sexual harassment.
It's covered in bees!
Sorry, my points have all been spent.
You might want to pick up a newspaper sometime (if they still in print) because the world has changed a little bit in the last several decades.
There have been some recent developments that you might find interesting, such as the rise of "the internet", "smart phones", "i-things", "unemployment", and "economic uncertainty".
In reading, you might also learn that most of us don't have infinite incomes. Additionally, at the risk of offending some camps, all businesses can't continue to always increase profits for an infinite amount of time.
So the average person has less money to spend on entertainment and more places to spend it, then it seems pretty likely that certain "creative industries" can feel the pinch.
You are in the "creative industry", can't you be more creative than using piracy as a scapegoat?
If you download TV shows from unlicensed sources you will see there is no ads.
Maybe that is the problem? It is not really about copyrights but about losing viewers for the ads?
Maybe, but what is the industry going to do if someone manages to invent a box that you attach to your TV, that can record all your shows, let you watch them later, and lets you skip past the commercials? Hypothetically, of course.
He was bolding just outside the two "tents", so you could compare and contrast the two camps.
I shouldn't bother to feed the trolls, but I wouldn't count HP out just yet. At least not until we find out how their memristors turn out.
well even tho they succeeded on launching their gaming business, I believe they really REALLY need to start building brand loyalty, NOBODY likes microsoft as a company, you might like windows, xbox, and games for windows live (why like GFWL is beyond me but whatever),but if MS went crashing and burning down today, nobody would really care about the company, about the services, yes; but about the company.. not really.
I would agree that they could use more brand loyalty. Microsoft has never been great at image; they constantly fail to look hip, cool, or caring.
Look at at their competitors. Sony has repeatedly pissed on their customers left and right, but yet they still manage to have fanboys proclaiming how evil Microsoft is. Apple has managed to convince legions that missing a feature is a feature itself, and it's scary outside the walls of their garden. They even had a CEO that was viewed as a messiah.
Then again, it's probably better for us for them to be square. Where would we be without these other players providing competition and pushing them to innovate?
You're on Slashdot. You should realize by now that reproductive activities aren't required for survival (for the individual member of a species).