Of course there's a right to bear cameras. Just because it isn't spelled out in the Constitution doesn't mean it's not a right. Look through the Constitution and tell me where it says you have a right to breathe, walk, read, or have consensual sex. Should the state be allowed to take any of those away because "it's not written in the Constitution"? No, of course not.
It's important to remember that the Constitution doesn't GRANT rights. It's assumed that, unless otherwise noted, those rights exist and are protected. There are very specific ways in which the state can violate those rights, and the Constitution spells those out (such as: needing probable cause or a warrant for a search).
Evidenced by those potential terrorists who did manage to get past airport security but were stopped by alert passengers and flight crew. The TSA security is a joke, because it's predictable and therefore can be countered. Anyone who tried a 9/11 style plane takeover now would likely be beaten down well before they even reached the cockpit door.
Problems may appear down the road, yes, but there is one effect it has that is both immediate and very troubling.
That effect is that the child is taught that someone with authority over them has the right to touch them in whatever way they wish without the child's consent.
"Think of the children" is very appropriate in this context, even though that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to these abuses.
Sadly, what I can see happening is if you decrypt your drive and they don't see the data they assumed was in there, they will most likely assume that you have a hidden volume as well, and hold you in contempt until you divulge THAT password... even if one doesn't exist.
I never assume law enforcement will be practical or reasonable when it comes to people getting caught in the gears.
Which is a major reason why drugs should be legalized in the US (and probably other countries, but I can't speak for them as I live in the US) I'm going to go off on a tangent/mini-rant, here: The expense is in large part due to criminal control of the source and the expense involved in hiding the activity. In addition, legal drugs would free up resources in law enforcement and the courts, as well as prison space, for people who actually hurt OTHER people, rather than causing debatable self-inflicted damage. Added tax revenue from the sale of those products could be funneled into recovery programs for those that want to get off drugs. Also, legal drugs means that legitimate businesses would be selling them, thus robbing most criminal organizations of that income, which would hamstring a large part of the gang violence we see here in the US.
It's a win/win situation that we won't pursue because of the puritanical morality that we have here in the US and insist on keeping even though it runs counter to the supposed ideals of our country (meaning: personal freedom and responsibility).
I don't hold this position because I want to do drugs (I've got no interest), I'm just tired of all the many various ways in which my country manufactures criminals, and our drug policy is the primary reason why we have such ridiculous criminal statistics (in my opinion). It's insane.
As an adult, I fully support keeping kids learning as much as possible. In fact, cancel all holidays and summer vacation. It's for their own good! And it keeps them off my lawn.
Of course, if I were still a child, I suppose I'd see the massive injustice in all of this.
I didn't realize that Vaan and Penelo were tacked on, but it makes sense that they were. They felt tacked on even while I was playing it the first time. Most of my attention was on the other characters. And I REALLY didn't like Vaan at all.
I agree, the first one was a breakthrough. It wouldn't have mattered WHAT the character was; male, female, hermaphrodite, small blob of goo, the gameplay was just that good that it still would have been successful. Maybe not AS successful, but still... And as for T&A... hah, polygonal uniboob, no thanks:P
Mileage varies, of course... I didn't like 8 because none of the characters were all that likable, but every other game they've done I've enjoyed. 12, my only real complaint was the whiny teen hero. 13 was good, pretty much what I expected, though it could have cut down on the opening cinematics and guided gameplay.
That's something they need to cut down on in general. They need to allow us to get IN to the game faster and actually start doing things. Cut down on the cutscenes, get us interacting with the characters asap. But other than that, I enjoyed the story and the look and feel of the game.
11, I played that at release, and I still play it today. They've put a lot of work into that game and they're continuing to revamp it. I'd say it's better than ever now.
14 was very pretty, but suffered with a clunky, laggy interface. I haven't played it enough to really get into the story, but so far it seems pretty engaging. I think they were pushed to release that game WAY too early, it's still in beta phase. They're listening to customer feedback, though, and I think they'll make good changes to it. In a few months, it will be a game worth playing.
So, my advice to SE:
Stop with the Whiny Teen Hero. Angst is good for characters only when they have a REASON to be angsty, and only when it moves the plot along Cut down on the cutscenes. Those are the most expensive parts of the game anyway. Short, occasional cutscenes can enhance a game, but longer ones detract from gameplay by basically taking control away from the player. If I wanted to watch a CGI FF movie, I'd just pop in Advent Children again. Do more to connect the player to the character. We need to empathize with the characters we play, we need to like them, and we need to feel like we're sharing the adventure.
You shouldn't make a big deal of the US being wealthier and more powerful than Britain. Britain was a major power in the world in its day. It's declined since then, sure, but who's to say that the US won't do the same? Our debt keeps rising, our standards of education keep falling, jobs keep moving overseas... this is not a sustainable structure we have here, and the more we borrow the faster and sooner our collapse will be.
So, I'm not as sure as you are when you say that our current wealth and success is due to a superior culture. Would you say the same if the US economy collapsed and drove the majority of it's citizens into poverty?
You're right about how hard it sometimes is getting executives to see how important security is to a company. Which is why examples come in so handy. So, the one thing about this that could be considered a silver lining is that tons of other companies are watching what's happening and thinking, "Gosh, maybe we should look at our own security, because we don't want to be the next SOE"
The problem is, that's a lesson that tends to be forgotten when it's time to write up the next budget.
Tell me, I'm honestly curious. Do you know the meaning of the word sarcasm? While I understand that sarcasm doesn't travel well via text, I believe my post was positively dripping with it.
Nothing really to do with stupidity. People tend to forget that they're being watched. It's a coping mechanism, I think. We can't always be on guard. Where I work, there are cameras all over the floor. I KNOW that. And I'll still forget every once in a while that those are there. Then I'll see one, and I'll think "Oh, yeah... everything I do is being recorded. Have I done anything embarrassing lately?"
Moving out of a market allows someone else to move in. This is why you'll see large franchises willing to work at a loss in some locations in order to keep a competitor from expanding. I would imagine a company with as much money as Google would see a loss of income in Italy as preferable to having another competitor come in, take the market away and figure out some way to profit off of it.
In fact I would make the argument that only best acting in the original star wars was at most one-dimensional. In the prequels it went down to 0-dimensional, with only the most important character being 2-state with atomic transitions: In love/not in love, evil/not evil.
It's led to a lot of confessions, though. "Your buddy just admitted to everything. We caught you on tape. You were picked out by an eyewitness. We have DNA evidence." Really makes things easier for the police. Of course, they then follow it up with things like "Just admit you did it. You're going to jail either way, but if you cooperate, maybe you'll get less time/avoid the death penalty/go to a minimum security prison".
The combination of those two leads to a lot of FALSE confessions, or statements which, taken out of context or read the wrong way, can be seen as incriminating. Which is why you never ever talk to the police without a lawyer.
Is anyone prepared to say that that's not art, because it's commercial? WTF? When did that idiotic notion originate, anyway?
Speaking from experience, and knowing several artists, the answer to where it comes from is quite easy, and it comes from two places: 1. Artists who aren't commercially successful. See also: Sour grapes. 2. As a tool for artists and art snobs to deride the work of an artist and anyone who likes their art, thus "proving" themselves superior.
Now as to when it originated, that's a bit trickier. My best guess would be the first time an artist who had trouble selling their work heard of another artist who was commercially successful.
I apologize, I actually meant to reply to the person above you (arth1). I don't disagree with anything you've said, and in fact I find it very insightful, which is how I would have moderated you if I had mod points right now, rather than replying.
Again, sorry for the confusion. It's entirely my fault for being careless where I click.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course there's a right to bear cameras. Just because it isn't spelled out in the Constitution doesn't mean it's not a right. Look through the Constitution and tell me where it says you have a right to breathe, walk, read, or have consensual sex. Should the state be allowed to take any of those away because "it's not written in the Constitution"? No, of course not.
It's important to remember that the Constitution doesn't GRANT rights. It's assumed that, unless otherwise noted, those rights exist and are protected. There are very specific ways in which the state can violate those rights, and the Constitution spells those out (such as: needing probable cause or a warrant for a search).
There are these things that float on water, I forget what they're called.
Bread?
Apples!
Very small rocks!
Wait, no.
Churches!
Evidenced by those potential terrorists who did manage to get past airport security but were stopped by alert passengers and flight crew. The TSA security is a joke, because it's predictable and therefore can be countered. Anyone who tried a 9/11 style plane takeover now would likely be beaten down well before they even reached the cockpit door.
Problems may appear down the road, yes, but there is one effect it has that is both immediate and very troubling.
That effect is that the child is taught that someone with authority over them has the right to touch them in whatever way they wish without the child's consent.
"Think of the children" is very appropriate in this context, even though that's just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to these abuses.
Sadly, what I can see happening is if you decrypt your drive and they don't see the data they assumed was in there, they will most likely assume that you have a hidden volume as well, and hold you in contempt until you divulge THAT password... even if one doesn't exist.
I never assume law enforcement will be practical or reasonable when it comes to people getting caught in the gears.
Which is a major reason why drugs should be legalized in the US (and probably other countries, but I can't speak for them as I live in the US)
I'm going to go off on a tangent/mini-rant, here:
The expense is in large part due to criminal control of the source and the expense involved in hiding the activity. In addition, legal drugs would free up resources in law enforcement and the courts, as well as prison space, for people who actually hurt OTHER people, rather than causing debatable self-inflicted damage. Added tax revenue from the sale of those products could be funneled into recovery programs for those that want to get off drugs. Also, legal drugs means that legitimate businesses would be selling them, thus robbing most criminal organizations of that income, which would hamstring a large part of the gang violence we see here in the US.
It's a win/win situation that we won't pursue because of the puritanical morality that we have here in the US and insist on keeping even though it runs counter to the supposed ideals of our country (meaning: personal freedom and responsibility).
I don't hold this position because I want to do drugs (I've got no interest), I'm just tired of all the many various ways in which my country manufactures criminals, and our drug policy is the primary reason why we have such ridiculous criminal statistics (in my opinion). It's insane.
It would have made a lot more sense if they hadn't cut the line "Thank goodness we crashed into a pillow factory!"
Zack McKracken and the Alien Mindbenders, excellent game. I think I still have my original disk of that around somewhere.
As an adult, I fully support keeping kids learning as much as possible. In fact, cancel all holidays and summer vacation. It's for their own good! And it keeps them off my lawn.
Of course, if I were still a child, I suppose I'd see the massive injustice in all of this.
I didn't realize that Vaan and Penelo were tacked on, but it makes sense that they were. They felt tacked on even while I was playing it the first time. Most of my attention was on the other characters. And I REALLY didn't like Vaan at all.
I agree, the first one was a breakthrough. It wouldn't have mattered WHAT the character was; male, female, hermaphrodite, small blob of goo, the gameplay was just that good that it still would have been successful. Maybe not AS successful, but still... :P
And as for T&A... hah, polygonal uniboob, no thanks
Mileage varies, of course... I didn't like 8 because none of the characters were all that likable, but every other game they've done I've enjoyed. 12, my only real complaint was the whiny teen hero. 13 was good, pretty much what I expected, though it could have cut down on the opening cinematics and guided gameplay.
That's something they need to cut down on in general. They need to allow us to get IN to the game faster and actually start doing things. Cut down on the cutscenes, get us interacting with the characters asap. But other than that, I enjoyed the story and the look and feel of the game.
11, I played that at release, and I still play it today. They've put a lot of work into that game and they're continuing to revamp it. I'd say it's better than ever now.
14 was very pretty, but suffered with a clunky, laggy interface. I haven't played it enough to really get into the story, but so far it seems pretty engaging. I think they were pushed to release that game WAY too early, it's still in beta phase. They're listening to customer feedback, though, and I think they'll make good changes to it. In a few months, it will be a game worth playing.
So, my advice to SE:
Stop with the Whiny Teen Hero. Angst is good for characters only when they have a REASON to be angsty, and only when it moves the plot along
Cut down on the cutscenes. Those are the most expensive parts of the game anyway. Short, occasional cutscenes can enhance a game, but longer ones detract from gameplay by basically taking control away from the player. If I wanted to watch a CGI FF movie, I'd just pop in Advent Children again.
Do more to connect the player to the character. We need to empathize with the characters we play, we need to like them, and we need to feel like we're sharing the adventure.
You shouldn't make a big deal of the US being wealthier and more powerful than Britain. Britain was a major power in the world in its day. It's declined since then, sure, but who's to say that the US won't do the same? Our debt keeps rising, our standards of education keep falling, jobs keep moving overseas... this is not a sustainable structure we have here, and the more we borrow the faster and sooner our collapse will be.
So, I'm not as sure as you are when you say that our current wealth and success is due to a superior culture. Would you say the same if the US economy collapsed and drove the majority of it's citizens into poverty?
You're right about how hard it sometimes is getting executives to see how important security is to a company. Which is why examples come in so handy. So, the one thing about this that could be considered a silver lining is that tons of other companies are watching what's happening and thinking, "Gosh, maybe we should look at our own security, because we don't want to be the next SOE"
The problem is, that's a lesson that tends to be forgotten when it's time to write up the next budget.
The Fourth Doctor dropped her off in the wrong place AND two years late!
Agreed... she had class both in and out of the role she played on the show. She will be sorely missed.
Tell me, I'm honestly curious. Do you know the meaning of the word sarcasm? While I understand that sarcasm doesn't travel well via text, I believe my post was positively dripping with it.
It's not a lie. It's PR. It's spin. It's a euphemism. It's misdirection. But not a lie!
Nothing really to do with stupidity. People tend to forget that they're being watched. It's a coping mechanism, I think. We can't always be on guard.
Where I work, there are cameras all over the floor. I KNOW that. And I'll still forget every once in a while that those are there. Then I'll see one, and I'll think "Oh, yeah... everything I do is being recorded. Have I done anything embarrassing lately?"
Moving out of a market allows someone else to move in. This is why you'll see large franchises willing to work at a loss in some locations in order to keep a competitor from expanding. I would imagine a company with as much money as Google would see a loss of income in Italy as preferable to having another competitor come in, take the market away and figure out some way to profit off of it.
In fact I would make the argument that only best acting in the original star wars was at most one-dimensional. In the prequels it went down to 0-dimensional, with only the most important character being 2-state with atomic transitions: In love/not in love, evil/not evil.
Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
ohwait...
It's led to a lot of confessions, though. "Your buddy just admitted to everything. We caught you on tape. You were picked out by an eyewitness. We have DNA evidence." Really makes things easier for the police. Of course, they then follow it up with things like "Just admit you did it. You're going to jail either way, but if you cooperate, maybe you'll get less time/avoid the death penalty/go to a minimum security prison".
The combination of those two leads to a lot of FALSE confessions, or statements which, taken out of context or read the wrong way, can be seen as incriminating. Which is why you never ever talk to the police without a lawyer.
Is anyone prepared to say that that's not art, because it's commercial? WTF? When did that idiotic notion originate, anyway?
Speaking from experience, and knowing several artists, the answer to where it comes from is quite easy, and it comes from two places:
1. Artists who aren't commercially successful. See also: Sour grapes.
2. As a tool for artists and art snobs to deride the work of an artist and anyone who likes their art, thus "proving" themselves superior.
Now as to when it originated, that's a bit trickier. My best guess would be the first time an artist who had trouble selling their work heard of another artist who was commercially successful.
Okay... But sticking them in your ass and running down the street naked yelling "I'm a camera! I'm a camera!" is hardly normal use.
Though it might explain why all your pictures look like shit.
I apologize, I actually meant to reply to the person above you (arth1). I don't disagree with anything you've said, and in fact I find it very insightful, which is how I would have moderated you if I had mod points right now, rather than replying.
Again, sorry for the confusion. It's entirely my fault for being careless where I click.