I don't think getting around the restrictions is QUITE that easy. I mean, you're talking about a ten year old setting up their own DNS server, and spoofing queries. And saying that's the average kid. Now, I don't know how many pre-teens you've talked to recently, but I don't think half the people I work with know what a DNS server is, and they're a far cry from ten year olds. I'm willing to say a good portion of the/. crowd might've been able to do it when they were that young, but this is hardly your average audience.
In any case, considering that I'm sure the registar for kids.us is going to be reasonably selective (as in, not handing out these addresses to just anyone) and they're probably going to avoid www.anonymizer.kids.us, this is probably enough of a measure to handle most of the cases. And if little Billy can hack his way out of it, I think he's earned it.
No, it's a little more like saying that the government cannot prohibit people from talking about politics, but they've created a special Barney-only room, that you're free to use, so long as you only talk about Barney. Now, that might get into a conflict with the establishment of religion clause (Barneyism!) but other than that, it's okay.
Basically, if the Gov't was to make an adults-only TLD, that ALL of the "adult" sites had to be on, there'd be tons of conflict over what was considered adult, and limiting their freedom of speech and so on. Your freedom to speak is limited to this one area, or TLD. Like giving someone the right to protest, but only on one street.
The alternative, which happened here, isn't limiting anyone's freedom of speech any more than preventing someone from yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater does. It's more like giving someone the right to protest, and they can do it anywhere except in this nursery school.
I also realize that this is probably a troll, considering your vitriolic...language and unpopular...opinion.
Sigh. Just because I'm arguing an unpopular opinion doesn't really make me a troll, does it? I wasn't trying to say any use of the technology behind this is wrong, so much as our definition of the word steal is faulty. I've yet to see an actual definition that has as the only meaning the owner must lose control for it to be theft. The fight that needs to be made isn't trying to argue that copying a CD isn't theft, you're still getting possession without right. Making a backup copy is a different matter, of course.
In fact, you read my statement (First, there is no such thing as stealing a movie.) and took it to mean that it's my opinion that because copying a movie is not stealing a movie, copying a movie is not wrong.
You're right, that's how I took it. Same reason for saying you were rationalizing, it tends to be that most people I've seen try this whole not-theft argument are typing a forum post with one hand and surfing KaZaA with the other. In any case, the point is, that right now information and physical objects ARE treated the same. Instead of just declaring that they can't be treated as such, that's the lobby team that needs to be formed if people feel so strongly about it. As of right now, it's stealing.
This was the entire point of what I was saying. As a community trying to defend the actions and technology we're not very organized. Copying a movie (when you do NOT have permission to do, mind) IS stealing. It's not just copyright "infrigement."
Just because YOU think the word steal means to deny the original owner doesn't mean it actually does.
First, I don't recall seeing the word 'appropriate' anywhere in the parent.
You're right. I was defining a word in a second definition that I deleted after some thought. My bad. The word "take" still does fine on it's own.
Now, what you're saying for the most part is actually in agreement. I was arguing with the statement that "There is no such thing as stealing a movie," by trying to point out there IS. Copying a DVD to your own drive, I would say, is well within the bounds of having the right to "make use" of the information/property. That the recording industry and movie association would disagree is an entirely different legal battle.
As for 1's and 0's, it was sort of an analogy. If I create a picture with Fireworks, whether I go through the actual process or not, the picture is copyrighted. The only way this picture was ever stored was as a digital image, so I'd say that the representation of this picture (the PARTICULAR string of binary, forgive me if that wasn't clear) is indeef copyrighted, along with anything that would give an image that falls too close to the original.
Or in other words, of course a 1 itself isn't protected, but the pattern would be, no?
First, there is no such thing as stealing a movie.
Ohhhh, how I love this argument. Let's break it down, shall we? (Definitions courtesy of Merriam-Webster Online, and linked as such) The word steal is defined as such:
steal:verb (In the transitive sense)
1 a: to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully
Well, that's a little helpful. Let's try looking at those verbs there. take and appropriate
take:verb (transitive sense) 1 : to get into one's hands or into one's possession, power, or control
appropriate:transitive verb 3 : to take or make use of without authority or right
Okay. Now let's put that all together. To "steal" is to get into one's posession, or to take or make use without right, with the intent to keep or to make use of.
I'd say that by downloading a movie, you are getting the movie/the information/the stream of copyrighted 1's and 0's into your possession without permission, and making use of it (watching). If you never keep it on your hard drive, or watch it, or trade it, or do anything... then you're right. You're not stealing. I apologize if I may have offended you. If you do NOT fall into this innocuous category, then yes, you ARE stealing. Only one definition of steal even mentions taking property, and even that doesn't mention taking access away from the original owner.
I'm willing to agree with you that the thread is more than a little suspect, just that degree of unanimity is reason enough to be suspicious. However, you can't just assume that NO ONE thinks that way. Personally, I don't think it's that bad of a thing. It's akin to Battle.net saying "We're going to ban you if you cheat." As the article mentions, if you've got a mod chip with a switch and you're reasonably intelligent enough to switch it OFF before going on line, you're fine.
It's not like after detecting a mod chip the system explodes, so you're not losing all use of it. You just aren't allowed to use the networks that Microsoft pays to maintain if you're breaking their terms of service. I don't agree with the concept behind this 100%, but it's hardly that unfair.
Since the other people are tackling your Gulf War Syndrome statements, let me handle your blurb. I cite Cecil Adams (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/020322.html)
The gist is that Dr. Pinkerman, a Los Angeles doctor/lawyer/Native American activist, conducted a study that said IHS physicians sterilized 25% of American Indian women between the ages of fifteen and fourty-four, and claimed that 40 percent WOULD be by 1975. Not only was that a claim based on the future, but her numbers aren't exactly supported either. She also misunderestimated the number of Native American women in the country by about a fourth of the actual.
Furthermore, about 41 percent of US Women of child bearing age, or their partners, had been sterilized as of 1995, that's ALL races. Not to mention the Native American population has increased more than the US average, so they're hardly declining.
Now, I'm not saying US history is perfect. Far from it.. we (as a country) have done a lot of bad things. But not QUITE as many as we're accused of.
What was the last FPS that made it's claim to fame in single player mode only?
Max Payne. It was a decent sized hit.
Half-life was before that. That's bigger.
I suppose it wasn't ONLY single player, but neither is this. However if a single player FPS is good enough to get everyone interested in the genre to have a play-through, and then those clever mod-makers realize how many people are playing Doom 3 and begin work on the next counterstrike, well, it's a path to success.
I'll agree, multi-player is the key to longevity, but there's nothing wrong with a good ol' solo romp through Hell before you get around to Deathmatch.
Because when you click a button on a remote, it skips everything without you moving. If you're going to the bathroom or to get a drink or something, chances are you aren't going to stroll back if you don't want to miss any of the show. And if you do, you're probably going to see the last commercial, or enough of it to get the product name embedded somewhere in your memory, which is good enough for them.
I suppose fast forwarding through it, you still see it, as opposed to just the 'deletion' that they mention in the article for ReplayTV. So I can see where they're coming from, since that's how they make their money. Not that I agree, necessarily, but I can understand.
You know, when I worked retail I had more than one kid come in and buy a $40 video game using a few singles and a lot of dimes. Besides saving the scraps from their lunch money, some kids actually DO get allowance, and save money, and can afford these things. It's not that rare at all to get a 10 year old making his own purchases.
For that matter, the main problem we had with minors trying to buy R-rated games were 15 and 16 year olds. Most (if not all) of the major chains DO have rules in place that you cannot sell violent games to minors, and if your boss's boss catches you, you'll get written up. And most people don't really care about that. A lot of managers too, because it's a lucrative market if the other store around the corner in the mall won't sell and you will, you stand to make a lot of money.
I'm generally against laws with "video game" and "violence" in the same sentence, but this isn't really that bad. I think you're completely wrong that this would give parents an excuse to not be involved with their life, since if the kid wants the latest, coolest, violent video game, their parents (more likely than any other adult) HAVE to be involved with the process, since they themselves cannot purchase it.
Yes, how dare someone place a link that some people might find useful! And one that relates to the story as well! Shame, shame I say. Obviously the only reason anyone would try to be relevant and give a mirror is because they are a cheap whore! I mean, gaining karma is such a horrible sin, and it's so important to every day life, even more so when someone is already at their max. Then they're just showing off! Absolutely shameful.
On second thought, I better edit this to be more sarcastic. I'd never want to get modded funny instead of flamebait. I'd be a whore too!
Well, except that both reviews aren't entirely positive. The first one pretty much says it's useful, but the second one even stated that it was just listing faults, they were easier to find. And of course, Slash is free, so they're not really promoting anything that'd help them out, since they were not the authors.
Besides that, I'd bet a lot of the people who would set up Slash sites and be interested in the book probably surf here, so it is targetted... it's sort of like the Chinese newspaper article: Scientist reads book about communism and says it's fairly nice if you don't already live here. And is promptly shot.
No, because destroying the park would destroy something that other people want to use. It's not censorship, it's protecting other people's rights besides your own.
No one shoved this post down your throat, did they? Skip on over, I don't think it's actively affecting your life at all, or that there's a limited number of articles that can be posted. "Well, there's this science piece, but let's post a review instead!"
It's a fairly decent review, conveniently placed in a place I check already. Oh, and welcome to the internet, where we don't run out of space to print stories.
I'm not quite sure where to get a copy of it, but they were installed on the Macs in the music theory lab in my old school when I took the class a couple years back.
Besides being able to see the other computers, the teacher could send messages to one or all computers, take control of the mouse to demonstrate how to do something, show one person's screen on everyone's and etc. It was actually a really good tool for teaching, besides just making sure we were all doing work.
Anything that runs like that would be a great solution. I'm not too up on my VNC, so.. you figure it out.
As an idea, rather than the correct/informed opinion, I believe it has to do with where you registered to vote. If you're registered in district #4, that should be your congressperson.
Same thing with voting for presidential elections, it's where you should be getting the away ballot from.
I have serious problems believing that Quake turns anyone into a killing machine, but I've always believed that the only thing I've learned from video games is to shoot the alien in the head three times with the rocket launcher.
Still, I think this might be more about politeness than trying to warp young kid's minds. It's just bad form to show something like Die Hard the day after something like that. It might offend a lot of people and rightly so.
Of course, if it's just a one week cancellation, that's fine, now killing a series of something is pushing it.
-733 mhz Intel chip, compared to about 233 for Dreamcast, 300 for PS2.
-They've bought/gotten exclusive contracts from a lot of really great game suppliers, who are either making X-box only games, releasing them first, or at least publishing for the system as well.
-Hard drive space, for add-ons and saves without buying additional memory cards and all that.
-Less bugs than the PS2? Maybe. Certainly availability.
-That neato Nvidia chip, too.
This is one powerful little sucker, and I love my PS2. Just because I don't love windows doesn't mean their console will suck. Only time will tell.
--OblvnDrgn
Yes, I work retail in the game industry. Yes, I already reserved my X-box.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think getting around the restrictions is QUITE that easy. I mean, you're talking about a ten year old setting up their own DNS server, and spoofing queries. And saying that's the average kid. Now, I don't know how many pre-teens you've talked to recently, but I don't think half the people I work with know what a DNS server is, and they're a far cry from ten year olds. I'm willing to say a good portion of the /. crowd might've been able to do it when they were that young, but this is hardly your average audience.
In any case, considering that I'm sure the registar for kids.us is going to be reasonably selective (as in, not handing out these addresses to just anyone) and they're probably going to avoid www.anonymizer.kids.us, this is probably enough of a measure to handle most of the cases. And if little Billy can hack his way out of it, I think he's earned it.
No, it's a little more like saying that the government cannot prohibit people from talking about politics, but they've created a special Barney-only room, that you're free to use, so long as you only talk about Barney. Now, that might get into a conflict with the establishment of religion clause (Barneyism!) but other than that, it's okay.
Basically, if the Gov't was to make an adults-only TLD, that ALL of the "adult" sites had to be on, there'd be tons of conflict over what was considered adult, and limiting their freedom of speech and so on. Your freedom to speak is limited to this one area, or TLD. Like giving someone the right to protest, but only on one street.
The alternative, which happened here, isn't limiting anyone's freedom of speech any more than preventing someone from yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater does. It's more like giving someone the right to protest, and they can do it anywhere except in this nursery school.
I also realize that this is probably a troll, considering your vitriolic...language and unpopular...opinion.
Sigh. Just because I'm arguing an unpopular opinion doesn't really make me a troll, does it? I wasn't trying to say any use of the technology behind this is wrong, so much as our definition of the word steal is faulty. I've yet to see an actual definition that has as the only meaning the owner must lose control for it to be theft. The fight that needs to be made isn't trying to argue that copying a CD isn't theft, you're still getting possession without right. Making a backup copy is a different matter, of course.
In fact, you read my statement (First, there is no such thing as stealing a movie.) and took it to mean that it's my opinion that because copying a movie is not stealing a movie, copying a movie is not wrong.
You're right, that's how I took it. Same reason for saying you were rationalizing, it tends to be that most people I've seen try this whole not-theft argument are typing a forum post with one hand and surfing KaZaA with the other. In any case, the point is, that right now information and physical objects ARE treated the same. Instead of just declaring that they can't be treated as such, that's the lobby team that needs to be formed if people feel so strongly about it. As of right now, it's stealing.
This was the entire point of what I was saying. As a community trying to defend the actions and technology we're not very organized. Copying a movie (when you do NOT have permission to do, mind) IS stealing. It's not just copyright "infrigement."
Just because YOU think the word steal means to deny the original owner doesn't mean it actually does.
First, I don't recall seeing the word 'appropriate' anywhere in the parent.
You're right. I was defining a word in a second definition that I deleted after some thought. My bad. The word "take" still does fine on it's own.
Now, what you're saying for the most part is actually in agreement. I was arguing with the statement that "There is no such thing as stealing a movie," by trying to point out there IS. Copying a DVD to your own drive, I would say, is well within the bounds of having the right to "make use" of the information/property. That the recording industry and movie association would disagree is an entirely different legal battle.
As for 1's and 0's, it was sort of an analogy. If I create a picture with Fireworks, whether I go through the actual process or not, the picture is copyrighted. The only way this picture was ever stored was as a digital image, so I'd say that the representation of this picture (the PARTICULAR string of binary, forgive me if that wasn't clear) is indeef copyrighted, along with anything that would give an image that falls too close to the original.
Or in other words, of course a 1 itself isn't protected, but the pattern would be, no?
First, there is no such thing as stealing a movie.
Ohhhh, how I love this argument. Let's break it down, shall we? (Definitions courtesy of Merriam-Webster Online, and linked as such) The word steal is defined as such:
steal: verb (In the transitive sense)
1 a: to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully
Well, that's a little helpful. Let's try looking at those verbs there. take and appropriate
take: verb (transitive sense)
1 : to get into one's hands or into one's possession, power, or control
appropriate: transitive verb
3 : to take or make use of without authority or right
Okay. Now let's put that all together. To "steal" is to get into one's posession, or to take or make use without right, with the intent to keep or to make use of.
I'd say that by downloading a movie, you are getting the movie/the information/the stream of copyrighted 1's and 0's into your possession without permission, and making use of it (watching). If you never keep it on your hard drive, or watch it, or trade it, or do anything... then you're right. You're not stealing. I apologize if I may have offended you. If you do NOT fall into this innocuous category, then yes, you ARE stealing. Only one definition of steal even mentions taking property, and even that doesn't mention taking access away from the original owner.
Now, please. Don't try to rationalize your actions with these egregious claims, it's just ridiculous and pedantic. Just call a spade a spade.
(Disclaimer: I certainly don't support the ??AA's, but don't try taking the moral high ground by playing word games.)
I'm willing to agree with you that the thread is more than a little suspect, just that degree of unanimity is reason enough to be suspicious. However, you can't just assume that NO ONE thinks that way. Personally, I don't think it's that bad of a thing. It's akin to Battle.net saying "We're going to ban you if you cheat." As the article mentions, if you've got a mod chip with a switch and you're reasonably intelligent enough to switch it OFF before going on line, you're fine.
It's not like after detecting a mod chip the system explodes, so you're not losing all use of it. You just aren't allowed to use the networks that Microsoft pays to maintain if you're breaking their terms of service. I don't agree with the concept behind this 100%, but it's hardly that unfair.
What?! How in hell can this work?
Without doing too much research? By having a network cable port in the back of the adapter instead of a phone jack. It works pretty easily, actually.
Since the other people are tackling your Gulf War Syndrome statements, let me handle your blurb. I cite Cecil Adams (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/020322.html)
The gist is that Dr. Pinkerman, a Los Angeles doctor/lawyer/Native American activist, conducted a study that said IHS physicians sterilized 25% of American Indian women between the ages of fifteen and fourty-four, and claimed that 40 percent WOULD be by 1975. Not only was that a claim based on the future, but her numbers aren't exactly supported either. She also misunderestimated the number of Native American women in the country by about a fourth of the actual.
Furthermore, about 41 percent of US Women of child bearing age, or their partners, had been sterilized as of 1995, that's ALL races. Not to mention the Native American population has increased more than the US average, so they're hardly declining.
Now, I'm not saying US history is perfect. Far from it.. we (as a country) have done a lot of bad things. But not QUITE as many as we're accused of.
What was the last FPS that made it's claim to fame in single player mode only?
Max Payne. It was a decent sized hit.
Half-life was before that. That's bigger.
I suppose it wasn't ONLY single player, but neither is this. However if a single player FPS is good enough to get everyone interested in the genre to have a play-through, and then those clever mod-makers realize how many people are playing Doom 3 and begin work on the next counterstrike, well, it's a path to success.
I'll agree, multi-player is the key to longevity, but there's nothing wrong with a good ol' solo romp through Hell before you get around to Deathmatch.
Because when you click a button on a remote, it skips everything without you moving. If you're going to the bathroom or to get a drink or something, chances are you aren't going to stroll back if you don't want to miss any of the show. And if you do, you're probably going to see the last commercial, or enough of it to get the product name embedded somewhere in your memory, which is good enough for them.
I suppose fast forwarding through it, you still see it, as opposed to just the 'deletion' that they mention in the article for ReplayTV. So I can see where they're coming from, since that's how they make their money. Not that I agree, necessarily, but I can understand.
You know, when I worked retail I had more than one kid come in and buy a $40 video game using a few singles and a lot of dimes. Besides saving the scraps from their lunch money, some kids actually DO get allowance, and save money, and can afford these things. It's not that rare at all to get a 10 year old making his own purchases.
For that matter, the main problem we had with minors trying to buy R-rated games were 15 and 16 year olds. Most (if not all) of the major chains DO have rules in place that you cannot sell violent games to minors, and if your boss's boss catches you, you'll get written up. And most people don't really care about that. A lot of managers too, because it's a lucrative market if the other store around the corner in the mall won't sell and you will, you stand to make a lot of money.
I'm generally against laws with "video game" and "violence" in the same sentence, but this isn't really that bad. I think you're completely wrong that this would give parents an excuse to not be involved with their life, since if the kid wants the latest, coolest, violent video game, their parents (more likely than any other adult) HAVE to be involved with the process, since they themselves cannot purchase it.
Yes, how dare someone place a link that some people might find useful! And one that relates to the story as well! Shame, shame I say. Obviously the only reason anyone would try to be relevant and give a mirror is because they are a cheap whore! I mean, gaining karma is such a horrible sin, and it's so important to every day life, even more so when someone is already at their max. Then they're just showing off! Absolutely shameful.
On second thought, I better edit this to be more sarcastic. I'd never want to get modded funny instead of flamebait. I'd be a whore too!
Your frequent flier miles take you into space? /. story about the above, it was posted a few days ago.
If anyone wants another
Well, except that both reviews aren't entirely positive. The first one pretty much says it's useful, but the second one even stated that it was just listing faults, they were easier to find. And of course, Slash is free, so they're not really promoting anything that'd help them out, since they were not the authors.
Besides that, I'd bet a lot of the people who would set up Slash sites and be interested in the book probably surf here, so it is targetted... it's sort of like the Chinese newspaper article: Scientist reads book about communism and says it's fairly nice if you don't already live here. And is promptly shot.
There is no sig.
No, because destroying the park would destroy something that other people want to use. It's not censorship, it's protecting other people's rights besides your own.
Not to be silly but... article said the second movie made, what, $310 million, and Mike himself got $25 million to do the third one?
I don't think I can really blame him for "wasting his time."
No one shoved this post down your throat, did they? Skip on over, I don't think it's actively affecting your life at all, or that there's a limited number of articles that can be posted. "Well, there's this science piece, but let's post a review instead!"
It's a fairly decent review, conveniently placed in a place I check already. Oh, and welcome to the internet, where we don't run out of space to print stories.
I'm not quite sure where to get a copy of it, but they were installed on the Macs in the music theory lab in my old school when I took the class a couple years back.
Besides being able to see the other computers, the teacher could send messages to one or all computers, take control of the mouse to demonstrate how to do something, show one person's screen on everyone's and etc. It was actually a really good tool for teaching, besides just making sure we were all doing work.
Anything that runs like that would be a great solution. I'm not too up on my VNC, so.. you figure it out.
As an idea, rather than the correct/informed opinion, I believe it has to do with where you registered to vote. If you're registered in district #4, that should be your congressperson.
Same thing with voting for presidential elections, it's where you should be getting the away ballot from.
Hope it helps... if it's right.
I have serious problems believing that Quake turns anyone into a killing machine, but I've always believed that the only thing I've learned from video games is to shoot the alien in the head three times with the rocket launcher.
Still, I think this might be more about politeness than trying to warp young kid's minds. It's just bad form to show something like Die Hard the day after something like that. It might offend a lot of people and rightly so.
Of course, if it's just a one week cancellation, that's fine, now killing a series of something is pushing it.
-733 mhz Intel chip, compared to about 233 for Dreamcast, 300 for PS2. -They've bought/gotten exclusive contracts from a lot of really great game suppliers, who are either making X-box only games, releasing them first, or at least publishing for the system as well. -Hard drive space, for add-ons and saves without buying additional memory cards and all that. -Less bugs than the PS2? Maybe. Certainly availability. -That neato Nvidia chip, too. This is one powerful little sucker, and I love my PS2. Just because I don't love windows doesn't mean their console will suck. Only time will tell. --OblvnDrgn Yes, I work retail in the game industry. Yes, I already reserved my X-box.