the government knows more and more about what individuals are doing, which allows them to quickly focus on the dangerous ones
Unfortunately, for reasons of "national security" the SIS are above public scrutiney, which means there is no accountability or safeguards (the legal safeguards are effectively useless - you need to prove involvement before you can use them, and you need to use them to prove involvement) - a one way ticket to incompetance and abuse.
As happened in the past, and happens today, the SIS will be too busy pursuing those who deviate from their preferred ideology to ever actually get the real threats.
The classic example: The SIS is charged with defending NZ from enemy intelligence agents. The Rainbow Warrior was bombed by said foreign intelligence agents, and the SIS didn't do squat because they were too busy watching their ideological threat - the anti-nuclear protesters whom the agents bombed. To the SIS, French intelligence were the good guys because France had the Bomb, and anyone who opposed nuclear weapons was either a dumb housewife, a commie terrorist bastard, or both.
The closeted, inbred, secretive, paranoid culture of the SIS precludes them ever being effective, or ever not being a threat to average Joe-on-the-street.
So you tell me whose running the show - it sure ain't the FBI.
I think you're idea of international diplomacy is a little off the mark. The coercion you talk of is far in excess of what is needed to pressure a small nation like NZ. It's done in the name Maintaining Good Relations. Blackmail is unwarrented. This doesn't mean that pressure cannot be applied. (Though as you suggest, it appears to be a case of the pressured party being reasonably willing to head in that direction to begin with...)
Is there a "public discussion" about those things? What about oppositions parties?
The new laws were proposed by the opposition when they were power, and the current government (which Does Not Get Along with the ideas of the previous government) is happily continuing the work.
Unfortunately, if you try to watch the intelligence game, it emerges that all parties who have been in power tend to be enamoured of "intelligence" powers, because (among other things) "national security" is so damn useful for keeping the public from finding out about all the dirty laundry when, ironically, it would be the nation's best interests to know when major botch-ups and gross incompetence takes place:-)
I competely agree about public apathy. Here, if you claim the SIS are watching you (be it because they're so incompetant it's obvious, or that they're overtly trying to intimidate you), the result is public derision and ridicule that "you obviously have an inflated sense of your importance". Most people seem to have the spy-movie idea that these agencies are competent enough (and idealogically balanced enough) to target actual threats and not Joe Bloggs on the street because his flatmate painted a "free Tibet" banner or some other "terrorist" activity...
Given that our SIS can't get into a house without being caught
I have doubts. Incompetant as they clearly are, luck played a significant factor - it would have looked like just a normal burglary otherwise. I know people who have been persecuted by the SIS (for apparently "terrorist" activities like opposing nuclear weapons while the Bomb was still trendy), and it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if they were busy violating civil rights left, right and centre. The only times they even have to admit possible involvement is when the victim happens to have the money, time, and evidence to achieve the half a dozen successfull court verdicts and appeals needed to wring an admission from them. You don't need to be competent when the full force of the law places you above the law (even if, in theory, you're not above it, but it seems that that theory is really just a fairy tale to satisfy the citizens).
Tobacco isn't the issue. (I don't even care about tobacco). I mentioned it because it is a rare case where the corporate mentality was unearthed and revealed, and it happened in the west rather than the 3rd world. As I said, tobacco ain't the worst of them, the point was that the same mentality revealed is driving far nastier criminal action than merely burying working cancer-free cigarette technology in case it made existing products look dangerious. As we all have cushy jobs and live in wealthy nations though, our concept of corporate abuse of power is pretty limited.
If anything, the ultimate irony is that the government does not need to protect me from myself, but does need to protect me from actions forced upon me by corporations against my will. Yet it is the former that makes it through court, and the later that just sits in the "too hard" basket.
All things will die somehow, but the sheep with the shepard lives a longer, richer, fuller, and easier life than the wolf's dinner. Currently, the primary erosion of my rights is not from governemnt, but from the "rights without responsibility" crowd. I believe that the right to swing my fist ends at your nose. Most people today seem to believe that the right to operate a car or SUV upwind of my property simply overrides my right to breath. I find that many, perhaps most of those who clamour for less restriction on their "rights" have no intention whatsoever of accepting the associated responsibility in the use of said rights such that they do not restrict the rights of others.
But I diverge...
You still don't seem to grasp what I'm getting at. I'll have another quick bash, but I doubt it'll help.
(1) So what's the difference from bankrupcy, again? Is the end result any different?
The difference is that bankruptcy does not result from unethical conduct except in extremely rare cases such as successful lawsuits. I think you're assuming that unethical behaviour can and is met with lawsuits. In the real world, such victories are so rare that ethics are simply not a relevant concern to many executives.
(2) What community? What is the community of Coca-Cola?
The people affected by the actions, good and bad, of CocaCola. Unfortunately, most criminal behaviour takes place in the 3rd world, which is even less able to issue "death penalties" than the west.
(3) Victims of a criminal company have recourse to courts. That's what they are for.
Dream on. Putting aside for the moment the lobbying power that results in law changes to protect a corp, the average victim has no recourse. Case in point - even 2600, which enjoys _exceptional_ circumstances that most victims could not dream of, as well as the EFF bankrolling their legal defence to the tune of $$$ most victims will never earn in ten lifetimes, the MPAA is still steamrolling right over them.
Sure, victims technically have recourse to the courts, but lets not pretend that this infers justice, or even a motive for ethical behaviour that is on par with with the almighty dollar.
The court system simply does not work to this end. The USA is being sued by a petroleum co. trying to stop California clamping down on a polluting fuel additive that is seeping into their drinking water. That is how the court system "protects" the community.
>Little resemblance? US is the richest country in the world. It is closely followed by Western Europe and Japan. In all these countries corporations,according to you, run rampant.
Countries like Russia or China, on the other hand, killed off their corporations or did not allow them to develop. Are they better off?
?!? Excuse me? It is countries like China and Burma in which (western) corporations run most rampant. You make my point nicely - "Are they better off?"
As a result of the corporate mind-job, and in a similar vein (slightly on-topic), the constant mantra of profit as all important is part of everything now. In order for a government to increase arts funding, they have to try to justify it in terms of long-term economic returns. Likewise when a school or college tries to increase emphasis on humanities, history, philosophy, etc. it is criticised on the grounds that such subjects are not of direct commercial use.
Last time I checked, the economy was a means to an end, not an end in itself. That end is a higher standard of living for society. Arts are also a means to that end - a separate means to that end, and thus do not need to provide an economic return in order to achieve that end (though any impact on the economic "means" should be weighed). But today in business, if the value is measured in anything other than dollars, it's worthless. My standard of living cannot be measured by dollars. Thus the system intended to enhance my and your standard of living seems unable to achieve this (other than by blind luck, of which there is not much around). Under this currant rubbish, my standard of living is apparently a function of home appliances...
So tell me, what difference would it make? Corporation death penalty already exists, it is called bankrupcy
I think you've missed the point. A death penalty that can be issue by the community and/or victims of a criminal company means that everyone involved in the company, from sharholders to managers to cubical slaves, has an motive (even - gasp - a requirement, just like citizens) for ethical conduct. Currently, directors are required by law to maximise share value - a requirement often in direct conflict with ethical conduct - an insane situation. "People before profit" might be a trite-sounding slogan, but when a company will fight tooth and nail for the right to deliberately destroy the lives of millions* merely to give more dollars to its shareholders (who, it might be noted, were wealthy to begin with), the society that habours such a force of destruction is failing to allow the standard of living it is capible of, and may even be in serious trouble.
*while I was thinking of certain documents brought to light in the tobacco trials regarding work on addictiveness and marketing, tobacco is no worse than many.
The fundamental purpose of companies was to provide a society with a mechanism of production and thereby facilitate the raising of the standard of living of the society. The current situation bear little resemblence to this. A death penalty would increase the resemblence. Companies that line the pockets of a few sharehodlers via methods that damage a society on a wider scale have no place in that scheme. Currently, I'd put most large corps in that catagory (but then, I place less value on being able to buy the latest home theatre system or fashion clothing than many.)
Almost all corporate power has been based on one of 4 things: a patent, a copywrite, a trademark, or a trade secret.
I disagree. IP is a mere drop in the bucket - but it happens to be the drop that hits you on the head because of where you work and live.
Corporate power (and abuse of said power) easily extends to destruction, litigation, slavery, injury, and death without an IP issue in sight.
Keep the big picture in mind and IP in perspective - I'm not saying IP practises "aren't that bad really", if anything I'm suggesting that you overlook the sheer magnitude of corporate filth, due to the overwhelming disgusting vastness of the fraction of it that is in your direct view.
>You have no idea how deep the "financial backing" goe.
You think I underestimate the financial backing of the green lobby, while I think you underestimate the financial backing of the industrial lobby. I guess it's even:-)
I've just read a few reviews of the book, if it drops into my lap sometime in the future I'll read it, but the subject matter doesn't seem of particular interest to me so I probably won't go looking for it. It doesn't seem to scream a challenge to any values I hold dear (or promise to fill me with self-rightousness by reinforcing personal prejudices:-), and seems to be as much the product of her initial naivity meeting the real world as a story of actual Epic Wrongdoing. The purpose of NGO's, as I've understood them, does not seem entirely incompatible with things like governmental influence and funding, though I can see how someone could believe otherwise. I suspect I and she are on different wavelengths. Interestingly, my brief foray indicates the green movement seems to consider it a part of the movement rather than threatening or opposing it, I suspect my wavelength is not unique:-)
Did I ever suggest the green movement was pure and wholesome? No. Thank you. The green movement is not even relevant to my point (beyond the (ever-popular) hysterics making their cause easier to mock for those who oppose it).
That you equate oppostion to environmental destruction with support for Greenpeace, is itself something of a victory for the industrial lobby. Kinda depressing.
>That applys to both sides ace.
Hmmm... I'd agree if you were referring to something like distorted information, but the magnitude of financial backing availible to the industrial lobby (and others) is kinda lop-sided.
>It would be a good thing for commerce if the Artic Ocean melted.
Yes, and it is well established that profits are of greater importance than anything else.
On a related note, I don't know how widely this is known (it will either be common knowledge or esoteric), but it only takes a slight rise in ocean levels to pretty much wipe several pacific island nations off the face the earth. Understandably, they're pretty vocal on global warming issues.
(Pacific island concerns don't get much coverage outside the general area (in which I am in), but on the other hand this is just the kind of story that the media love, so it might have been constantly reported to the rest of the world as well. I don't know which is the case, so I thought I'd note it).
There is a lot of "pretty good" evidence that the world really is warming up in recent centuries. However, there is nothing to prove whether it is man-made or natural. The planet went through changes like this before modern humans existed, so jumping to conclusions should be avoided.
Think about it more closely: Your assuption that global warming is either "man made or natural" is incorrect - it misses the most crucial issue - that the possible presence of natural warming does not negate or neutralize the presence of artifical warming.
For example, what we see today (or ten years from now) might fall within natural boundries, thus you would seem to conclude we had little to worry about and no reason to act, but that warming could be the result of both a slight natural warming and a slight artifical one, which, damaging enough for us as that could be, would be nothing next to the warming of full on natural effects plus full on artifical effects.
You seem to think that warming is ok if it's natural. This maybe true from a holistic view, but as warming from either source could be very bad for us, personally, it seems absolutely ludicrious to exacibate and compound the problem simply because we haven't yet artifically produced a disaster as terrible as what nature can managed (and thus in the process, open ourselves up to a disaster greater than what even nature could produce on its own).
Natural doesn't mean healthy or acceptable. (And I suspect the risks from environmental change outweigh the possible risk that such change might be neccessary for some unknown reason that might turn out to be more important to our wellbeing).
Do some more research in to o-zone. It is very clear that it is not a natural phenomena, nor even (significantly) contributed to by some kind of natural depletion. If there were forces at work that we were not aware of, the models would be way off, and the forces at work that we do know of are man-made beyond doubt and capable of producing everything that is seen.
It's easy to criticize just the surface observations on the grounds that you do, but when you dig deeper and find out the details of mechanisms involved, the big picture is very different. I think you under-estimate how much is known about ozone depletion (which is quite understandable, as the details are pretty much 100% absent from the media).
It might be trendy to doubt environmental problems, but it is no less irrational than the hysterics who claim the world will end with each mis-reported finding. Some nutter making wild claims about global warming is not rational grounds for dismissing global warming.
On a related note, go to www.junkscience.com
You will find lots of people and material that supports your views, and will probably feel you are in smart company. Except that Junkscience is a front funded by industrial interests and basically reads like the who's who list of global polluters and environmentally destructive corporations. There is a lot of dirty money promoting your views and trying to make them seem acceptable and rational. Warning bells should be ringing.
Stating the obvious yet missing the plot...
on
Salon on the XBox
·
· Score: 2
I don't consider myself very knowledgable about consoles, yet I was pretty disapointed by that article. John Carmack's recently posted talk on the issue was infinitely more perceptive. This guy on the other hand, has clued onto half of what is stunningly obvious, yet completely overlooked the other half (that also seems stunningly obvious) and shoots off into staggering conclusions about how game design creativity depends more on unified hardware than anything else. Has he actually actually played games from several different platforms and target markets?
I too can make staggering conclusions (that are just as blind), but I wouldn't publish them.
A bit of Devil's Advocacy on the topic (that complex hardware takes up more programmer hours thus shackling gameplay ideas somehow), complex hardware allows users to make their own quake mods and levels, such that not only can a single game remain fresh and fun for several years (if it's your thing), but cool and zany ideas that a publisher would otherwise not let a house develop, can appear in the user mods, grow in popularity, and are then embraced by dev houses.
Having just one game keep players occupied for years (via free user-made mods) may well have led to a flat market compared to consoles, precisely because it offers value for money that no console can touch. So to suggest that this constitutes evidence that PC gamers would jump ship is bizarre to say the least. (I think he's also overlooking a similar thing with pircacy - the market is flat because a lot of people buy most games but pirate several on top of that. These people likewise not going to move to a console that lacks such a "bonus").*
It will be very interesting to see whether the xbox allows user mods. Carmack seems to put odds on it not being the case, and gives some compelling reasons. It wouldn't surprise me however, if a compromise solution was found in order to best the competiting consoles (eg console can download, but only from a proprietary xbox site, thus they can allow user mods and downloads as they wish yet retain absolute control over what users can get without paying).
*Did I just argue that the PC game market depends on piracy?!? Er, no... I can't have. I'm not suggesting that piracy contributes to the market, I meant that it is a vice that will keep many people hooked on the PC market who otherwise might move to a console.
While a nice idea, I'm in New Zealand and I've been logged on browsing since before the story broke on/. yet haven't noticed the slightest decrease in bandwidth, so we'll have to assume the/. effect is restricted to the server in question, and instead reminisce over the days when id software made a spectacular attempt at crashing the net with their Quake release.
At best the frames are 4000x4000x4 (i.e. 32bpp) or 61 MB a piece.
And to create that frame you might need 100+ texture, bump, opacity, etc maps, some over 50 meg in themselves, lightmaps likewise. The rendering operations themself may be done in 48 or 64 bit colour, with many of the map types being operated on in the same depth. Then there is all the megs of 3d model data, and on top of that all the animation and deformation data, and you're dealing with gigs already.
In addition, we may be talking about greater rendering complexity than has ever been attempted before.
But still - is it feasible to split the process up into simple tasks that require a lot of computing (eg seti@home), or are we inescapably talking about a huge multitude of tasks that require bulk resources but little computing?
Hate to break it to you guys, but when you're doing "real work" like rendering (or anything else), the OS is 100% totally and completely IRRELIVANT.
I keep assuming people keep things in perspective, but I think you're right in that this sort of thing does seem to need saying on a regular basis.
Of course, while Linux might not be making a contribution to the film beyond being cheap (which is far from insignificant), the film may make a contribution to Linux by demonstrating that the biggest budget production ever used Linux, and thus it is presumably commercially usable.
On the other hand, people in the industry are also aware that the nature of big budget productions means pretty much everything under the sun gets used for something or other. (Recalls particularly zealous Lightwave advocates who would not accept that "Lightwave used in the production of Jurrassic Park" did not necesarily mean "Lightwave-rendered graphics featured in the finished film"). Pick up a quasi-trade rag when LoTR hits the theatres and I'm sure every software company under the sun will be advertising that their product underpinned LoTR (despite custom software doing most of the key stuff).
As if buying the same brand of pencil as H. R. Giger means you're more able to emulate his success...
(But this principle seems to work for the Nike marketers)
A lot of comments here equate LoTR with the MPAA. While the film is being produced for and funded by a MPAA member, I think it bears pointing out that the LoTR people have negotiated a fair amount of freedom from MPAA influence, and that the production companies involved (WetaFX for example) are not subsidiaries of MPAA companies (even if most of their more recent income has come from MPAA members).
(And just to rub it in, the MPAA's region coding system is an illegal trade barrier in New Zealand:-))
Unfortunately, if LoTR is as cool as it looks so far, the MPAA will reap the financial reward. On the bright side, it might convince them to break the mould again rather pump out more purile cringe-comedy films and the other garbage they won't leave alone.
Another pain for the boycott idea - how to support people like the LOTR teams while not supporting the MPAA. Sigh.
As some bright spark pointed out (#443), the people that should really be taking our message to the MPAA are the big open-source baddies, like SGI, VA Linux, Penguin Computing, IBM etc. that Hollywood actually depends on to some extent.
I've made a start by finding SGI's feedback section, and have posted to both their open source and community areas. Might I humbly suggest that others also write to this and the other companies. As he pointed out, just a few letters from these companies may have significantly more effect than hundreds written by us.
And to those who work at these companies - if you can get away with writing to the MPAA on company letterhead, please do so!:-)
If anyone is interested, my letter went something like this:
As a highly-regarded company and a leader in Open Source software, I thought SGI might be concerned (as I am) at recent claims that tar SGI and others, made by the MPAA in their recent opposition brief in one of the DVD cases.
An example is the opening sentence of the brief: "Defendant Pavlovich is a leader in the so-called "open source" movement, which is dedicated to the proposition that material, copyrighted or not, should be made available over the Internet for free."
As SGI is not, in fact, dedicated to piracy - indeed is highly esteemed in Hollywood - I feel that a simple letter of concern from your company to the MPAA would be an enormous (and greatly appreciated) contribution to our efforts to maintain the reputation of "open source" as a commercially acceptable practise.
A copy of the brief is at http://cryptome.org/dvd-v-521-opq.htm
I completely agree - getting the companies that supply the big studios to write letters of "concern" regarding "innacurate and degrading comments about us" could have a fantasic effect.
I only hope that said companies would not be put off by the comments (ie not wish the negative publicity of drawing attention to the fact that they are part of a community that the public is increasingly viewing as bad and wrong.)
I have an application that could potentially suit this technology, and it sounds easy enough to do at home once you have some magnesium chloride tetrahydrate, but does anyone have the following info:
1) Is magnesium chloride tetrahydrate dangerous? Poisonous? Carcenogenic?
2) Is it expensive?
3) Is it difficult to get hold of?
4) Is it a major component in some esoteric nerve gas such that my purchase of it would bar me from international travel for life?:-)
Slashdot Mirror
the government knows more and more about what individuals are doing, which allows them to quickly focus on the dangerous ones
Unfortunately, for reasons of "national security" the SIS are above public scrutiney, which means there is no accountability or safeguards (the legal safeguards are effectively useless - you need to prove involvement before you can use them, and you need to use them to prove involvement) - a one way ticket to incompetance and abuse.
As happened in the past, and happens today, the SIS will be too busy pursuing those who deviate from their preferred ideology to ever actually get the real threats.
The classic example: The SIS is charged with defending NZ from enemy intelligence agents. The Rainbow Warrior was bombed by said foreign intelligence agents, and the SIS didn't do squat because they were too busy watching their ideological threat - the anti-nuclear protesters whom the agents bombed. To the SIS, French intelligence were the good guys because France had the Bomb, and anyone who opposed nuclear weapons was either a dumb housewife, a commie terrorist bastard, or both.
The closeted, inbred, secretive, paranoid culture of the SIS precludes them ever being effective, or ever not being a threat to average Joe-on-the-street.
So you tell me whose running the show - it sure ain't the FBI.
I think you're idea of international diplomacy is a little off the mark. The coercion you talk of is far in excess of what is needed to pressure a small nation like NZ. It's done in the name Maintaining Good Relations. Blackmail is unwarrented. This doesn't mean that pressure cannot be applied. (Though as you suggest, it appears to be a case of the pressured party being reasonably willing to head in that direction to begin with...)
Is there a "public discussion" about those things? What about oppositions parties?
:-)
The new laws were proposed by the opposition when they were power, and the current government (which Does Not Get Along with the ideas of the previous government) is happily continuing the work.
Unfortunately, if you try to watch the intelligence game, it emerges that all parties who have been in power tend to be enamoured of "intelligence" powers, because (among other things) "national security" is so damn useful for keeping the public from finding out about all the dirty laundry when, ironically, it would be the nation's best interests to know when major botch-ups and gross incompetence takes place
I competely agree about public apathy. Here, if you claim the SIS are watching you (be it because they're so incompetant it's obvious, or that they're overtly trying to intimidate you), the result is public derision and ridicule that "you obviously have an inflated sense of your importance". Most people seem to have the spy-movie idea that these agencies are competent enough (and idealogically balanced enough) to target actual threats and not Joe Bloggs on the street because his flatmate painted a "free Tibet" banner or some other "terrorist" activity...
Given that our SIS can't get into a house without being caught
I have doubts. Incompetant as they clearly are, luck played a significant factor - it would have looked like just a normal burglary otherwise. I know people who have been persecuted by the SIS (for apparently "terrorist" activities like opposing nuclear weapons while the Bomb was still trendy), and it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if they were busy violating civil rights left, right and centre. The only times they even have to admit possible involvement is when the victim happens to have the money, time, and evidence to achieve the half a dozen successfull court verdicts and appeals needed to wring an admission from them. You don't need to be competent when the full force of the law places you above the law (even if, in theory, you're not above it, but it seems that that theory is really just a fairy tale to satisfy the citizens).
Not only do I want one of these puppies, but it is actually a puppy.
Any chance of the first gen coming down in price, or will they simply not manufacturing any more?
This is not to say I have anything worthwhile to contribute to the discussion though.
Sorry.
:)
Tobacco isn't the issue. (I don't even care about tobacco). I mentioned it because it is a rare case where the corporate mentality was unearthed and revealed, and it happened in the west rather than the 3rd world. As I said, tobacco ain't the worst of them, the point was that the same mentality revealed is driving far nastier criminal action than merely burying working cancer-free cigarette technology in case it made existing products look dangerious. As we all have cushy jobs and live in wealthy nations though, our concept of corporate abuse of power is pretty limited.
If anything, the ultimate irony is that the government does not need to protect me from myself, but does need to protect me from actions forced upon me by corporations against my will. Yet it is the former that makes it through court, and the later that just sits in the "too hard" basket.
All things will die somehow, but the sheep with the shepard lives a longer, richer, fuller, and easier life than the wolf's dinner. Currently, the primary erosion of my rights is not from governemnt, but from the "rights without responsibility" crowd. I believe that the right to swing my fist ends at your nose. Most people today seem to believe that the right to operate a car or SUV upwind of my property simply overrides my right to breath. I find that many, perhaps most of those who clamour for less restriction on their "rights" have no intention whatsoever of accepting the associated responsibility in the use of said rights such that they do not restrict the rights of others.
But I diverge...
You make no sense.
You still don't seem to grasp what I'm getting at. I'll have another quick bash, but I doubt it'll help.
(1) So what's the difference from bankrupcy, again? Is the end result any different?
The difference is that bankruptcy does not result from unethical conduct except in extremely rare cases such as successful lawsuits. I think you're assuming that unethical behaviour can and is met with lawsuits. In the real world, such victories are so rare that ethics are simply not a relevant concern to many executives.
(2) What community? What is the community of Coca-Cola?
The people affected by the actions, good and bad, of CocaCola. Unfortunately, most criminal behaviour takes place in the 3rd world, which is even less able to issue "death penalties" than the west.
(3) Victims of a criminal company have recourse to courts. That's what they are for.
Dream on. Putting aside for the moment the lobbying power that results in law changes to protect a corp, the average victim has no recourse. Case in point - even 2600, which enjoys _exceptional_ circumstances that most victims could not dream of, as well as the EFF bankrolling their legal defence to the tune of $$$ most victims will never earn in ten lifetimes, the MPAA is still steamrolling right over them.
Sure, victims technically have recourse to the courts, but lets not pretend that this infers justice, or even a motive for ethical behaviour that is on par with with the almighty dollar.
The court system simply does not work to this end. The USA is being sued by a petroleum co. trying to stop California clamping down on a polluting fuel additive that is seeping into their drinking water. That is how the court system "protects" the community.
>Little resemblance? US is the richest country in the world. It is closely followed by Western Europe and Japan. In all these countries corporations,according to you, run rampant.
Countries like Russia or China, on the other hand, killed off their corporations or did not allow them to develop. Are they better off?
?!? Excuse me? It is countries like China and Burma in which (western) corporations run most rampant. You make my point nicely - "Are they better off?"
I give up.
As a result of the corporate mind-job, and in a similar vein (slightly on-topic), the constant mantra of profit as all important is part of everything now. In order for a government to increase arts funding, they have to try to justify it in terms of long-term economic returns. Likewise when a school or college tries to increase emphasis on humanities, history, philosophy, etc. it is criticised on the grounds that such subjects are not of direct commercial use.
Last time I checked, the economy was a means to an end, not an end in itself. That end is a higher standard of living for society. Arts are also a means to that end - a separate means to that end, and thus do not need to provide an economic return in order to achieve that end (though any impact on the economic "means" should be weighed). But today in business, if the value is measured in anything other than dollars, it's worthless. My standard of living cannot be measured by dollars. Thus the system intended to enhance my and your standard of living seems unable to achieve this (other than by blind luck, of which there is not much around). Under this currant rubbish, my standard of living is apparently a function of home appliances...
So tell me, what difference would it make? Corporation death penalty already exists, it is called bankrupcy
I think you've missed the point. A death penalty that can be issue by the community and/or victims of a criminal company means that everyone involved in the company, from sharholders to managers to cubical slaves, has an motive (even - gasp - a requirement, just like citizens) for ethical conduct. Currently, directors are required by law to maximise share value - a requirement often in direct conflict with ethical conduct - an insane situation. "People before profit" might be a trite-sounding slogan, but when a company will fight tooth and nail for the right to deliberately destroy the lives of millions* merely to give more dollars to its shareholders (who, it might be noted, were wealthy to begin with), the society that habours such a force of destruction is failing to allow the standard of living it is capible of, and may even be in serious trouble.
*while I was thinking of certain documents brought to light in the tobacco trials regarding work on addictiveness and marketing, tobacco is no worse than many.
The fundamental purpose of companies was to provide a society with a mechanism of production and thereby facilitate the raising of the standard of living of the society. The current situation bear little resemblence to this. A death penalty would increase the resemblence. Companies that line the pockets of a few sharehodlers via methods that damage a society on a wider scale have no place in that scheme. Currently, I'd put most large corps in that catagory (but then, I place less value on being able to buy the latest home theatre system or fashion clothing than many.)
Almost all corporate power has been based on one of 4 things: a patent, a copywrite, a trademark, or a trade secret.
I disagree. IP is a mere drop in the bucket - but it happens to be the drop that hits you on the head because of where you work and live.
Corporate power (and abuse of said power) easily extends to destruction, litigation, slavery, injury, and death without an IP issue in sight.
Keep the big picture in mind and IP in perspective - I'm not saying IP practises "aren't that bad really", if anything I'm suggesting that you overlook the sheer magnitude of corporate filth, due to the overwhelming disgusting vastness of the fraction of it that is in your direct view.
>You have no idea how deep the "financial backing" goe.
:-)
:-), and seems to be as much the product of her initial naivity meeting the real world as a story of actual Epic Wrongdoing. The purpose of NGO's, as I've understood them, does not seem entirely incompatible with things like governmental influence and funding, though I can see how someone could believe otherwise. I suspect I and she are on different wavelengths. Interestingly, my brief foray indicates the green movement seems to consider it a part of the movement rather than threatening or opposing it, I suspect my wavelength is not unique :-)
You think I underestimate the financial backing of the green lobby, while I think you underestimate the financial backing of the industrial lobby. I guess it's even
I've just read a few reviews of the book, if it drops into my lap sometime in the future I'll read it, but the subject matter doesn't seem of particular interest to me so I probably won't go looking for it. It doesn't seem to scream a challenge to any values I hold dear (or promise to fill me with self-rightousness by reinforcing personal prejudices
Did I ever suggest the green movement was pure and wholesome? No. Thank you. The green movement is not even relevant to my point (beyond the (ever-popular) hysterics making their cause easier to mock for those who oppose it).
That you equate oppostion to environmental destruction with support for Greenpeace, is itself something of a victory for the industrial lobby. Kinda depressing.
>That applys to both sides ace.
Hmmm... I'd agree if you were referring to something like distorted information, but the magnitude of financial backing availible to the industrial lobby (and others) is kinda lop-sided.
>It would be a good thing for commerce if the Artic Ocean melted.
Yes, and it is well established that profits are of greater importance than anything else.
On a related note, I don't know how widely this is known (it will either be common knowledge or esoteric), but it only takes a slight rise in ocean levels to pretty much wipe several pacific island nations off the face the earth. Understandably, they're pretty vocal on global warming issues.
(Pacific island concerns don't get much coverage outside the general area (in which I am in), but on the other hand this is just the kind of story that the media love, so it might have been constantly reported to the rest of the world as well. I don't know which is the case, so I thought I'd note it).
There is a lot of "pretty good" evidence that the world really is warming up in recent centuries. However, there is nothing to prove whether it is man-made or natural. The planet went through changes like this before modern humans existed, so jumping to conclusions should be avoided.
Think about it more closely: Your assuption that global warming is either "man made or natural" is incorrect - it misses the most crucial issue - that the possible presence of natural warming does not negate or neutralize the presence of artifical warming.
For example, what we see today (or ten years from now) might fall within natural boundries, thus you would seem to conclude we had little to worry about and no reason to act, but that warming could be the result of both a slight natural warming and a slight artifical one, which, damaging enough for us as that could be, would be nothing next to the warming of full on natural effects plus full on artifical effects.
You seem to think that warming is ok if it's natural. This maybe true from a holistic view, but as warming from either source could be very bad for us, personally, it seems absolutely ludicrious to exacibate and compound the problem simply because we haven't yet artifically produced a disaster as terrible as what nature can managed (and thus in the process, open ourselves up to a disaster greater than what even nature could produce on its own).
Natural doesn't mean healthy or acceptable. (And I suspect the risks from environmental change outweigh the possible risk that such change might be neccessary for some unknown reason that might turn out to be more important to our wellbeing).
>Persoanlly I don't think the Chinese can stand a Everybody else vs. China senario.
Yeah, but the annoying catch of MAD is that nobody else can survive an Everybody else vs. China scenario either...
:-)
Do some more research in to o-zone. It is very clear that it is not a natural phenomena, nor even (significantly) contributed to by some kind of natural depletion. If there were forces at work that we were not aware of, the models would be way off, and the forces at work that we do know of are man-made beyond doubt and capable of producing everything that is seen.
It's easy to criticize just the surface observations on the grounds that you do, but when you dig deeper and find out the details of mechanisms involved, the big picture is very different. I think you under-estimate how much is known about ozone depletion (which is quite understandable, as the details are pretty much 100% absent from the media).
It might be trendy to doubt environmental problems, but it is no less irrational than the hysterics who claim the world will end with each mis-reported finding. Some nutter making wild claims about global warming is not rational grounds for dismissing global warming.
On a related note, go to www.junkscience.com
You will find lots of people and material that supports your views, and will probably feel you are in smart company. Except that Junkscience is a front funded by industrial interests and basically reads like the who's who list of global polluters and environmentally destructive corporations. There is a lot of dirty money promoting your views and trying to make them seem acceptable and rational. Warning bells should be ringing.
I don't consider myself very knowledgable about consoles, yet I was pretty disapointed by that article. John Carmack's recently posted talk on the issue was infinitely more perceptive. This guy on the other hand, has clued onto half of what is stunningly obvious, yet completely overlooked the other half (that also seems stunningly obvious) and shoots off into staggering conclusions about how game design creativity depends more on unified hardware than anything else. Has he actually actually played games from several different platforms and target markets?
I too can make staggering conclusions (that are just as blind), but I wouldn't publish them.
A bit of Devil's Advocacy on the topic (that complex hardware takes up more programmer hours thus shackling gameplay ideas somehow), complex hardware allows users to make their own quake mods and levels, such that not only can a single game remain fresh and fun for several years (if it's your thing), but cool and zany ideas that a publisher would otherwise not let a house develop, can appear in the user mods, grow in popularity, and are then embraced by dev houses.
Having just one game keep players occupied for years (via free user-made mods) may well have led to a flat market compared to consoles, precisely because it offers value for money that no console can touch. So to suggest that this constitutes evidence that PC gamers would jump ship is bizarre to say the least. (I think he's also overlooking a similar thing with pircacy - the market is flat because a lot of people buy most games but pirate several on top of that. These people likewise not going to move to a console that lacks such a "bonus").*
It will be very interesting to see whether the xbox allows user mods. Carmack seems to put odds on it not being the case, and gives some compelling reasons. It wouldn't surprise me however, if a compromise solution was found in order to best the competiting consoles (eg console can download, but only from a proprietary xbox site, thus they can allow user mods and downloads as they wish yet retain absolute control over what users can get without paying).
*Did I just argue that the PC game market depends on piracy?!? Er, no... I can't have. I'm not suggesting that piracy contributes to the market, I meant that it is a vice that will keep many people hooked on the PC market who otherwise might move to a console.
"Oh my god, you Slashdotted New Zealand!"
/. yet haven't noticed the slightest decrease in bandwidth, so we'll have to assume the /. effect is restricted to the server in question, and instead reminisce over the days when id software made a spectacular attempt at crashing the net with their Quake release.
While a nice idea, I'm in New Zealand and I've been logged on browsing since before the story broke on
At best the frames are 4000x4000x4 (i.e. 32bpp) or 61 MB a piece.
And to create that frame you might need 100+ texture, bump, opacity, etc maps, some over 50 meg in themselves, lightmaps likewise. The rendering operations themself may be done in 48 or 64 bit colour, with many of the map types being operated on in the same depth. Then there is all the megs of 3d model data, and on top of that all the animation and deformation data, and you're dealing with gigs already.
In addition, we may be talking about greater rendering complexity than has ever been attempted before.
But still - is it feasible to split the process up into simple tasks that require a lot of computing (eg seti@home), or are we inescapably talking about a huge multitude of tasks that require bulk resources but little computing?
Hate to break it to you guys, but when you're doing "real work" like rendering (or anything else), the OS is 100% totally and completely IRRELIVANT.
I keep assuming people keep things in perspective, but I think you're right in that this sort of thing does seem to need saying on a regular basis.
Of course, while Linux might not be making a contribution to the film beyond being cheap (which is far from insignificant), the film may make a contribution to Linux by demonstrating that the biggest budget production ever used Linux, and thus it is presumably commercially usable.
On the other hand, people in the industry are also aware that the nature of big budget productions means pretty much everything under the sun gets used for something or other. (Recalls particularly zealous Lightwave advocates who would not accept that "Lightwave used in the production of Jurrassic Park" did not necesarily mean "Lightwave-rendered graphics featured in the finished film"). Pick up a quasi-trade rag when LoTR hits the theatres and I'm sure every software company under the sun will be advertising that their product underpinned LoTR (despite custom software doing most of the key stuff).
As if buying the same brand of pencil as H. R. Giger means you're more able to emulate his success...
(But this principle seems to work for the Nike marketers)
A lot of comments here equate LoTR with the MPAA. While the film is being produced for and funded by a MPAA member, I think it bears pointing out that the LoTR people have negotiated a fair amount of freedom from MPAA influence, and that the production companies involved (WetaFX for example) are not subsidiaries of MPAA companies (even if most of their more recent income has come from MPAA members).
:-))
(And just to rub it in, the MPAA's region coding system is an illegal trade barrier in New Zealand
Unfortunately, if LoTR is as cool as it looks so far, the MPAA will reap the financial reward. On the bright side, it might convince them to break the mould again rather pump out more purile cringe-comedy films and the other garbage they won't leave alone.
Another pain for the boycott idea - how to support people like the LOTR teams while not supporting the MPAA. Sigh.
Wish I could mod that up :-)
As some bright spark pointed out (#443), the people that should really be taking our message to the MPAA are the big open-source baddies, like SGI, VA Linux, Penguin Computing, IBM etc. that Hollywood actually depends on to some extent. :-)
I've made a start by finding SGI's feedback section, and have posted to both their open source and community areas. Might I humbly suggest that others also write to this and the other companies. As he pointed out, just a few letters from these companies may have significantly more effect than hundreds written by us.
And to those who work at these companies - if you can get away with writing to the MPAA on company letterhead, please do so!
If anyone is interested, my letter went something like this:
As a highly-regarded company and a leader in Open Source software, I thought SGI might be concerned (as I am) at recent claims that tar SGI and others, made by the MPAA in their recent opposition brief in one of the DVD cases.
An example is the opening sentence of the brief: "Defendant Pavlovich is a leader in the so-called "open source" movement, which is dedicated to the proposition that material, copyrighted or not, should be made available over the Internet for free."
As SGI is not, in fact, dedicated to piracy - indeed is highly esteemed in Hollywood - I feel that a simple letter of concern from your company to the MPAA would be an enormous (and greatly appreciated) contribution to our efforts to maintain the reputation of "open source" as a commercially acceptable practise.
A copy of the brief is at http://cryptome.org/dvd-v-521-opq.htm
Sincerely,
J. Fisher
Lead Designer
eCOSM Ltd.
I completely agree - getting the companies that supply the big studios to write letters of "concern" regarding "innacurate and degrading comments about us" could have a fantasic effect.
I only hope that said companies would not be put off by the comments (ie not wish the negative publicity of drawing attention to the fact that they are part of a community that the public is increasingly viewing as bad and wrong.)
I have an application that could potentially suit this technology, and it sounds easy enough to do at home once you have some magnesium chloride tetrahydrate, but does anyone have the following info:
:-)
1) Is magnesium chloride tetrahydrate dangerous? Poisonous? Carcenogenic?
2) Is it expensive?
3) Is it difficult to get hold of?
4) Is it a major component in some esoteric nerve gas such that my purchase of it would bar me from international travel for life?