There is a very strong, small, but highly organized group of zealots out there who feel that they must do Something to protect the children. They do care, but they don't know how to go about helping their sons and daughters cope with the realities of a world gone mad (as they perceive it). They were once secure under the iron rule of their religion, and fear the uncertainty inherent in having free will.
Why don't Methodists have sex standing up?
Because it might lead to dancing.
But in modern society with all its temptations, one's immortal soul might go astray and one will be condemned to the fiery pits of Hell for all eternity. Serving God so that we are rewarded a seat at His right hand in the hereafter is what these well-intentioned but misguided souls believe our purpose here on Earth is. "We must keep these images from the eyes of our children, because if they are exposed to them, their soul will become corrupt and they will fall from Grace!"
So when their children finally leave the nest they are wholly unprepared for the realities of Good and Evil in the Real World. These poor misguided people, children of oppressors, must now go out and perpetuate their prison because the Real World is a much scarier place to them than it should be.
That's fine. But why do they have to feel that they must justify their actions by oppressing me and my children? I simply Tell my kids about the evil lurking out there, expose them to it (no, I don't show them porn, but I might show them the links that come up on a search of the word 'oral'), and in good faith and trust give them the power to control their own destinies. It seems to work. The zealots would do well to remember that their God gave His children Free Will for a good Reason, and they might find Great Comfort in Trusting Him that they Worship so much.
I've learned to do with only 5 hours of sleep a night now. It's easy. But I gotta remain disciplined! Bed at 2am, Mister, no more games, and that's final!
You know, I would like to use the expression "Wake Up, People!", but you guys are at least in theory awake and aware of what is happening, but some are just confused about what it means.
As coporations become the new nations, they find it in their interests to squelch public discourse; this is one means to an end. The other recently passed legislation - the one that allows corporations to buy several stations in a single city and provide a very narrowly-defined format on each of them - is another means to the same end.
Public discourse and frank discussion of events and affairs threatens the status quo that the corporations prefer over change. This isn't new. What is new is the willingness of a majority of Congress to go along with the curtailment of basic US rights. It is - what did they call the Los Angeles Police Department under Daryl Gates? - a culture of corruption, a very corrosive atmosphere that would have Mr. Smith selling Willet Creek to Dow Chemical to use as 'a valuable effluent discharge resource vital to the health of our economy'.
What bothers me even further is that NPR is spearheading the attack. How can Nina Totenberg and Cokie Roberts report on this on "All Things Considered" with a straight face? NPR, the benfactor of a concerted public effort to preserve the liberties of our great nation, conspiring to squelch the remainder of our freedom of speech? And why? Because they are no longer any better than any other corporation. They sold their soul for money. Excuse me, I have to go to buy teletubbies and Tickle Me Elmo for my kids for Christmas...
Yah, gaming is escape from reality into a more stimulating experience. We are certainly overstimulated in America. The pace of our lives is accelerated, and we all suffer from a form of ADD that is sensory-overload induced.
What we really want is a real experience, but the relative price is too high. Why leave this world of trinkets and sensory-overload (which is what it would take to have e genuine experience), when you can just flick a switch and get your brain numbed and ego stroked as you play God and General over a legion of loyal mercenaries? Or whichever "reality" you choose...
Yes, Katz mentions that gamers tend to be "narcissistic" and then, knowing full-well that about 75% of his audience are gamers goes on to schmooze 'em by telling them how smart they are; how they are the 'new prophets and story-tellers'. Please tell me your not pandering to us, Jon, I would hate to think that your objectivity could be clouded by some other agenda. Besides, it will never work with this crowd.
As far as gaming goes, I agree that gaming can shape the attitudes and dispositions of impressionable people, but as many posts have pointed out, it may be a case of chicken or egg, are gamers made that way due to the influence of the games, or are people naturally inclined to game aggressive, quick-thinking, prophetic story-tellers? I believe it to be a little of both, and all of neither, as do most. I personally notice that the high tension of my drug of choice (StarCraft - hey, I'm in another clan!) remains imprinted in me long after the game is over. I retain a heightened awareness and I have this aggressiveness that I can tap into; I feel it mostly when I play my daily lunchtime chess game. It doesn't help me to win any more chess, but I feel that I clearly have a more aggressive approach in my chess-thinking after a night of high-intensity strategic gaming.
One more point. I think it might be beneficial to classify gamers and their personalities according to the type of game they prefer: strategy (StarCraft), role-playing (er, Diablo), non-competitive (The Sims, RollerCoaster Tycoon), and probably a few others... maybe "violent" (Doom), and "perverted" (LS Larry??). I assume the study referred to might clarify Sims-types, but its been/.ed...
...the concept that OEMs may be scrambling to put a cheaper OS on their machine in the near future is intriguing. Face it, we (since I use Windows I am one) are Not Idiots because we don't use Linux. Many of us are frustrated, caught between the frustrations of having to deal with Windows and the fact that we would practically have to be Recent Comp Sci graduates to install and run Linux as our primary OS. But we work for companies that use MS products. OEMs and the market in general know a little bit about Linux and in their total frustration they are willing to give it a try.
All Linux needs to give me is:
1) Easy install and mod capability
2) Star Office
3) Many of the games that already exist, and a few new ones
4) A Graphical User Interface that looks and feels like Windows
What of these do we currently lack in Linux?
When I boot up my computer, that is the last time I want to have to deal with my OS. What I want are cool apps that work well together. When all the various tools come together under one umbrella - screw choice, I need basic capabilities here - then people will turn to Linux-based machines if they believe that it is at least as good (and goody-filled) as MS, and if the price tag on their machine is about $200 less.
Unless the DoJ comes down hard on MS, the monopoly ain't going anywhere. But its nice to think that it Might happen in 6 months, because then you have a sense of direction: get some version of Linux that can be pre-eminent in the market quick, so Linux is ready when businesses (and then homes) turn to it.
I read his article in Wired magazine a month or so ago, and my immediate impression was that he is a little bit pedantic, very smart, but somewhat hard to understand (like Katz? maybe). I really felt the urge to hold him to one of his points and have him explain what seem to be feelings on his part more than insightful near-certainties. Which is okay! We are feeling our way through software development, and it is a dark and murky place. I got some benefit out of reading it: I remember getting the same creepy, ominous feeling that I got when I read Bill Joy's GNR (genetics-nanotech-robotics) essay... that things are bad because they are out of control. And this: that our belief in AI has led to that stupid MS paperclip that always wants to help me but instead annoys the crap out of me.
His concept of a hierarchy in software design has great merit, and should be explored further. I recall being able to do all my engineering in DEC VAXes using DCL (Digital Control Language) running FORTRAN. Then they took that platform away faster than they took away vinyl record albums (but not as fast as 8-track tapes). For years I struggled to get a platform on the PC with as much power as DCL. All I got was DOS command files, woefully inadequate to that task. My other alternative was to learn MS VBasic, as we don't use Unix on our PCs. My point? Software development currently is subject to the winds of business logic, and unless his hierarchical, tiered strategy (this concept could use a lot of fleshing out, as do a lot of Lanier's points) shows benefit to a corporate bottom line (which is always short-sighted), it will not be adopted. Some fledgling company might come up with a new OS, a whole new concept of how to use the hardware. But the business world has to allow and provide for that, and right now we got a 300-pound gorilla sitting on top of it all running the show.
This is Libertarian talk, isn't it? It is a very fresh approach to Government, I will admit. I suppose the devil is in the details when we start talking about seriously implementing these policies. There is an awful lot of growing pain involved in weaning people off of reliance on the Government and onto themselves. But, to stay on topic, isn't the fact of Government regulations a sort of necessary evil? What would MS do without them, seeing as they already have tried to circumvent them. Let's see - here in California enterprising free-marketers hire Hispanics for poverty wages, flaunting the fact that the workers, although they live in deplorable conditions compared to the rest of America (ask Cesar Chavez), are still better off than they were back home, and as such are loathe to be revealed to La Migra, so accept whatever conditions are handed to them. I know of one guy who works about 50 hours a week for $75, though, since he is provided shelter (an old Airstream trailer), water and electricity, he Is 'earning a living wage'. This is of course, another illegal but accepted practice; just ask our Senator (a Democrat, by the way, who was found to have hired an illegal to watch her kid - was it Feinstein or Boxer?).
So what would MS do? I suspect they would undercut the job market just as much as they could, producing company towns full of Cannery Rows. Dude, we have been down this path more than once, and unless you can tell me how it is fundamentally different this time around - say, capitalists are no longer greedy at the expense of their humanity, or even "the internet disseminates information so rapidly that such injustices will be revealed before they can become endemic" - I maintain that only the government can protect the rights of workers in a capitalist society.
If you remove regulations from the marketplace, wages and quality of life for the underpriveleged will fall faster than teenage lady garment workers onto a hot New York sidewalk.
I agree that the combination of Government regulations and corporate tendencies can make life harder. But I contend and maintain that removing regulations without understanding what replacement force will guarantee worker protection is potentially much worse, and for more people.
They lost a lawsuit, so obviously some lawyer was able to convince some judge that MS was in the wrong. It seems that they were keeping 'temps' for more than a year. Look at it this way: you go to a Temp Agency and they line you up with a job. "Yay! A job! Now we can get off welfare and eat!" (Not: 'oooh, another offer from yet another computer firm vying for my unique perl-scripting skillz. I can add it to my stack of offers.') Now you're working there, bringing home a paycheck. But they keep you year after year without a raise, without benefits, without vacation. You lose.
Of course, since the lawsuit in 97, they now terminate you after that year, and you can't go back to work for them for over three months.
Guess what. You still lose. Sucks being on the bottom of the pile, doesn't it?
I am one of those proponents of a so-called 'living wage' for the poorest folks. I really would like to see a man be able to raise a family of two kids or so, with the mother at home for the first five years of the child's life, working 8-5 five days a week. I really believe that, no matter what we would have to sacrifice to achieve that (stock bonuses for the ten top execs? Seminars in Aruba? The Corporate jet?), all of us would agree it was worth it.
This sort of thing happens so often that I wasn't sure it was illegal. Here in California it is a common practice to hire people as temps and have them work exactly 32 hours so they remain ineligible for benefits, which are mandated by law for full-time employees.
There is the flip side to being such a large corporation: whereas small corps only shaft five or six employees at a time, MS generates 8-12000 disgruntled disenfranchised ex-serf-wanna-bes. Those kinds of numbers seem to generate sufficient land-shark interest.
I bet Jenny Craig is laughing in her size 5 grave right now.
Oh my God. I now see an argument for email stamps and charging to deliver bulk email. The spammers are basically a threat to our free and easy way of life here. But the only answer the Government can provide are such toothless provisions as requiring the word "Ad:" on the front of all advertising email headers, or requiring the sender to allow you to "just reply with the word "ScrewOff" in the title and we'll quietly go away." Hah! Have you ever tried that?
So the only answer is email tax. Nothing else will work. Let's see, if we are charged 0.1 cent per email, that would work out to...
... about $40 US per month for me.
Then I wouldn't get those six emails a day telling me how to lose weight (how in the hell did I get on that one, I weigh 165 lbs and am 6 ft tall), where to find porn (these are all written in Spanish), and of course, the ubiquitous MMF!
I gotta stop clicking on the URL's in suck.com, yeah, that must be it...:)
Last time I checked, spamming in itself was not a crime. Am I wrong here?
BTW, this link http://belps.freewebsites.com/index2.htm
is funny as hell!!!
Re:Knowledge of Why One is Where One Is
on
The Renaissance
·
· Score: 1
Yah, I was referring to the frustration expressed by the main character in Pirsig's book over what he perceived as the domination of Socratic philosophy over Sophistic. Now, I don't really understand any of this, but it fascinated me much like a dog is fascinated by quantum mechanics. I think my point relates to why we are the way we are today, and Pirsig rails against the status quo and our ancestors who arranged to have it be that way. Insane? Well, it's tough to get back at them now...
Again, my point was: If we learn to understand how issues in the past and the resolution of them by the people at the time have shaped our thinking today, then perhaps we can gain guidance as we sort through today's problems. Maybe it's no more profound than "he who fails to learn the lessons of history is condemned to repeat it", but there seems to be more there than just that. In any case, since I have failed to learn enough about philosophy to even begin to discuss with any alacrity (I got that word from Monday Night Football) the difference between socratic and sophistic realms of thought, I might actually be talking nonsense and trying to make it sound pretty...:/
I can sympathize. I've got a whole truckload of vinyl albums at home. Soon I will have a bunch of VCR tapes laying around, too. But that's how it goes...
Kodak wanted to sue Paul Simon for his song "Kodachrome", then they realized it was better PR to allow the free publicity to be left alone.
SPAM should be grateful.
Knowledge of Why One is Where One Is
on
The Renaissance
·
· Score: 1
I think it's interesting that - as far as I know - no one at the time seemed very aware of the nature of the influence the new media had on them. Let me phrase it as a question: are there any references (written scrolls of the time) to the fact that the dissemination of information (i.e., the printing press) is the genesis and/or prime mover of this inspirational time? That they were aware that all this media was causing all this smart thinking?
I am often reminded of the nature of the evolution of the mind of man when I think of the fact that, before the 15th century, artists did not employ the concept of perspective and the vanishing point in their works! They were more like cave paintings before that time, with all figures about the same size regardless of their placement. But the mankind himself trained the mind to see things as they actually were and to portray them as such on paper. In a similar manner, we learned - according to Robert Pirsig - to think Socratically and logically (to categorize things according to Aristotelian logic, if I remember correctly) because the Socratics won the day, philosophically, over the Sophists, and from that day forward, virtually the fiber and wiring of our brain was forever conditioned toward viewing the world Socratically rather than like a Sophist. It drove the protagonist of "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintainence" insane, of course ('they forgot about QUALITY!!!').
Although no one would argue that we should abandon perspective in representational Art, it is fascinating to ponder on what other aspects of our daily lives have been formed so long ago in such an unknowing and unforseen fashion (again I refer to Crichton's "Timeline"). Accurately understanding how those tiny pebbles of insight and belief changed the course of the mighty river of humanity might help us to understand the impact of the decisions we make today, and so guide our hand in shaping our collective destiny. Sounds like a good read.
How is that argument Not like saying "Once we let the Government build the roads, they will own the roads and then they will tell you what you can and cannot ride on the roads"? Sorry if I seem facetious, but I do believe that Our Government is often the best answer for services that become corrupted when profitability becomes the dominant theme. They are not supposed to have any self-interests other than that of the collective public. The fact that they do have other interests than the good of the public - and DMCA is a Very Good example of this - is due only to the undue influence of corporations. Fix that, and you have a better, more responsive Government. Give the power of the connection to a company, allow it to become monopolized, and you have a much worse situation, IMO. You have something with potential power greater than Microsoft. I'm sorry, but it seems to me that you may be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, here.
Ask a San Diegan what he thinks of electric power deregulation after he paid about 3 times his average summer electricity bill this summer. The jury is still out on power deregulation, and the 10% discount period is only in its second year out of four. To our collective joy, we hear them threatening to have rolling blackouts this Christmas as they can't keep up with demand.
I am sure it isn't the same with phone companies. Although it might become that way as phone service moves from a luxury (it is still taxed that way) to a commodity, like electricity. People tend to have an inertia with these things, they will stay with one company unless extremely incentivized. I am always willing to switch long-distance companies to save a cent a minute, but do I have a choice in local phone service? Can I select a new local provider out of a list of a number of local providers? Please, someone, tell me if I can, because I have never seen another phone company in my neighborhood except for GTE/Verizon. There is much much more at stake than phone calls now, of course. It relates to how you hook up to the world now, and who calls the shots. I think it may be time to consider the government's ideal role (governement is corrupt enough that they may not be the ones who should decide that as corporations may pull the strings in the politician dummy's back) in providing the "Internet Dial Tone" that is everyone's "basic human right" (quotes intended to illustrate skepticism).
But it is time to consider whether or not it would be smart to have the government provide internet service to the home, perhaps via fiber hookup. After the "end-to-end" discussion of the past two days, I tend to think that no one company should be allowed to monopolize this highly lucrative prospect, like Verizon is at my house. Then again, look how the industry ripped us off with HDTV and satellite frequency band assignments... it will be a very hard war for the people to win, IMHO.
It wasn't a role-playing game or a door (I don't think), but does anyone remember Flash Tank? I Loved that game! It was an ascii-based strategy game in which you drove your little diamonds around (tanks) searching for the enemies' base and then killed it to win the game.
>>BBS systems allowed for much more social interaction between users"
I agree. In fact, I like this/. forum because it reminds me of the old message boards of BBSes, and we actually used to learn things there. Personalities tended to stand out more because there wasn't as much "commercial noise" (For Lack of a Better Word) in the BBSes. In fact, they were commercial-free.
I used to play TW for an hour every day, until the Ferrengi towed my craft and impounded it for some nonsense. I remember feeling like a total newbie compared to some of these conglomerates that literally ruled the universe. Um, make that 'figuratively'... it seemed like the universe.:)
Since we are relating subjective experiences and extrapolating them to the outside world - an honest and perfectly valid method of gaining insight for most sane people - lemme relate my experiences on my personal gaming addiction, Starcraft.
Kids of ten, eleven, whatever age, seem to have no qualms with being just as nasty as they can while enagaging in the game. SOME kids, of course! But it is accepted behavior. Slim Shady is a big hero to many there, and backstabbing and map hacking are so commonplace that we losers routinely suspect the other of cheating, and must guard against even our partner during a match.
But pro football is no different anymore. There was a code of ethics, I recall: you didn't spit at your opponent, taunting was beneath your dignity, and self-respect meant respect for others. Honor is gone from sport for the most part, as it is in on-line gaming, politics, and every other aspect of our culture. The nasty element of SC behavior will only spread due to the PS2 effect, as on-line gaming becomes more commonplace. The only answer is for parents - once again, here I go - to participate in their children's lives as a group.
It's the only answer I can see, anyway. The parents who are experiencing moral crises are parents who cannot relate to their children. You cannot help a situation if you refuse to understand it.
The context in which it must be placed relates to the accelerated pace we are living in. My children know much, much more about sex than I ever did, but their attitude toward it is different, tainted by music and TV.
We are struggling, still, to become a nation with an identity formed by the land. We are a unique culture, one immersed in shiny objects and glittering prizes. Never before have so many been showered with such an array of stimulating toys, images, sounds, and ideas. In our numbness we seek out authentic experiences and find them - ironically - in virtual realities. Michael Crichton has something to say about this in his book "Timeline": the only authentic experiences left for modern man are to be found in the distant past before reality was processed and fabricated by service providers.
We bemoan our children's development proportionately to the extent that they are growing up differently than we did. The village that is raising the child today is electronic and immediate. Our children feed on all this information indiscriminately until we the parents provide them with the filters they need to separate good nutritious food from brain candy and mind poison. It is our role in this society to resist and temper the development of our culture, because it is the traditional role of parents (the 'village') to help shape the culture. That role has been largely usurped, and we feel and respond to a great lack of control over our cultural destiny as evidenced by our children. We become alienated from each other.
I personally have become alternately fascinated, shocked, intrigued, and bewildered by the aspects of all this technology. I can only stand in awe of the rapid pace of gaming development and hope that those who are greedy purveyors pandering to the baser instincts of our children today, will someday learn to listen to the small voice in their souls as they gain wisdom seeing the awful consequences of their evil and stupid mistakes. But first they will have to admit to their own culpability, and that will take an awful lot of growing up.
"Journalist Duncan Campbell has spent much of his life investigating Echelon. In a report commissioned by the European Parliament he produced evidence that the NSA snooped on phone calls from a French firm bidding for a contract in Brazil. They passed the information on to an American competitor, which won the contract."
And from
http://fly.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/echelon.html
"An office was created within the Department of Commerce, the Office of Intelligence Liaison, to forward intercepted materials to major US corporations."
Let's focus on this for a minute: In light of the fact that corporations are quickly becoming more powerful than governments - I support a theory I heard somewhere that corporations are the new nations of the world - isn't it sad to realize that our freedoms are being taken away from us by the very same people who provide us with all these glittering toys? This ain't good if true.
You know, I support my government, and I believe that our government is still the best weapon of resort to preserve our freedoms (even though I'm across the pond!). It is individuals within the government and the resulting systems of - for lack of a better word - evil conspiracies that leech our liberties. I can only hope that responsible people will continue to watch and report. And that responsible citizens will take an interest: stop playing PS2 for a minute and find out what is really going on. But then again, one can live a whole life in blissful ignorance...
The fact that Carnivore won't work well should not let you rest easy. The fact that the FBI can ask for (in the name of stopping drug dealers and kiddie porn) and get this level of power over the people of our beloved US should keep us up nights. The analogy is that of the phone company. It would be as if the FBI routinely could have people tape record conversations they have with you without your knowledge - you speak freely thinking you are having a private conversation, and then they present the tapes in court, using them against you. Oh, wait, I forgot about Linda Tripp. My point here is: it is the erosion of our civil rights that need concern us, not how many terabytes it will take.
Man, I am glad I don't think about Linda Tripp when I have phone sex! Whew!
Another thing: if the FBI were truly justified in their pursuit of this sort of power then any crypto could be construed as obstruction of justice, making us all potential criminals as we protect our cyber sex and lingerie purchases.
But the FBI is in the wrong here, so, unless Lenin pulls up at the train station, we as free American citizens still have the right to protect ourselves from our own government. Great.
Yes, I suppose that British Subjects can trust their government to look after their interests. But the question of what is a British Subject is an important one. We the Yanks wrote laws into our Constitution to prevent the excesses of power that your very government seemed to wield over its very Subjects. Or were the Americans at the time not considered British Subjects? In any case, it is the same argument I hear over here across the pond: "I don't have anything to hide, so why should I care if my neighbor is being hauled off?" That makes you one of those who are sympathetic to those who seek more power, believing the ends justifies the means. We used to call them Tories a while back. Now we call them Conservatives. But the fact remains that they could care not one whit for the excesses of their government over people they don't like.
Recall the excesses of government portrayed in the movie "Brazil"? Please rent that and watch: it is really pretty funny. Kind of Monty Python meets 1984, you know? I love some aspects of the British: their embrace of brutality I fairly loathe and would curtail it even if I were sympathetic to it as a Subject. Any true patriot would, really, when you think of it. You may trust your government to leave you well alone. But should every British Subject... er, citizen? Sorry, I am not sure what you mean by Subject. It sounds suspiciously like a member of a club, one of the inner circle...
Slashdot Mirror
There is a very strong, small, but highly organized group of zealots out there who feel that they must do Something to protect the children. They do care, but they don't know how to go about helping their sons and daughters cope with the realities of a world gone mad (as they perceive it). They were once secure under the iron rule of their religion, and fear the uncertainty inherent in having free will.
Why don't Methodists have sex standing up?
Because it might lead to dancing.
But in modern society with all its temptations, one's immortal soul might go astray and one will be condemned to the fiery pits of Hell for all eternity. Serving God so that we are rewarded a seat at His right hand in the hereafter is what these well-intentioned but misguided souls believe our purpose here on Earth is. "We must keep these images from the eyes of our children, because if they are exposed to them, their soul will become corrupt and they will fall from Grace!"
So when their children finally leave the nest they are wholly unprepared for the realities of Good and Evil in the Real World. These poor misguided people, children of oppressors, must now go out and perpetuate their prison because the Real World is a much scarier place to them than it should be.
That's fine. But why do they have to feel that they must justify their actions by oppressing me and my children? I simply Tell my kids about the evil lurking out there, expose them to it (no, I don't show them porn, but I might show them the links that come up on a search of the word 'oral'), and in good faith and trust give them the power to control their own destinies. It seems to work. The zealots would do well to remember that their God gave His children Free Will for a good Reason, and they might find Great Comfort in Trusting Him that they Worship so much.
I've learned to do with only 5 hours of sleep a night now. It's easy. But I gotta remain disciplined! Bed at 2am, Mister, no more games, and that's final!
StarCraft, my addiction. *sigh*
You know, I would like to use the expression "Wake Up, People!", but you guys are at least in theory awake and aware of what is happening, but some are just confused about what it means.
As coporations become the new nations, they find it in their interests to squelch public discourse; this is one means to an end. The other recently passed legislation - the one that allows corporations to buy several stations in a single city and provide a very narrowly-defined format on each of them - is another means to the same end.
Public discourse and frank discussion of events and affairs threatens the status quo that the corporations prefer over change. This isn't new. What is new is the willingness of a majority of Congress to go along with the curtailment of basic US rights. It is - what did they call the Los Angeles Police Department under Daryl Gates? - a culture of corruption, a very corrosive atmosphere that would have Mr. Smith selling Willet Creek to Dow Chemical to use as 'a valuable effluent discharge resource vital to the health of our economy'.
What bothers me even further is that NPR is spearheading the attack. How can Nina Totenberg and Cokie Roberts report on this on "All Things Considered" with a straight face? NPR, the benfactor of a concerted public effort to preserve the liberties of our great nation, conspiring to squelch the remainder of our freedom of speech? And why? Because they are no longer any better than any other corporation. They sold their soul for money. Excuse me, I have to go to buy teletubbies and Tickle Me Elmo for my kids for Christmas...
This is a case where the guys who can tell you anything probably shouldn't. And anything you think you might know can't be confirmed.
Which is just as it should be.
Yah, gaming is escape from reality into a more stimulating experience. We are certainly overstimulated in America. The pace of our lives is accelerated, and we all suffer from a form of ADD that is sensory-overload induced.
What we really want is a real experience, but the relative price is too high. Why leave this world of trinkets and sensory-overload (which is what it would take to have e genuine experience), when you can just flick a switch and get your brain numbed and ego stroked as you play God and General over a legion of loyal mercenaries? Or whichever "reality" you choose...
Yes, Katz mentions that gamers tend to be "narcissistic" and then, knowing full-well that about 75% of his audience are gamers goes on to schmooze 'em by telling them how smart they are; how they are the 'new prophets and story-tellers'. Please tell me your not pandering to us, Jon, I would hate to think that your objectivity could be clouded by some other agenda. Besides, it will never work with this crowd.
... maybe "violent" (Doom), and "perverted" (LS Larry??). I assume the study referred to might clarify Sims-types, but its been /.ed...
As far as gaming goes, I agree that gaming can shape the attitudes and dispositions of impressionable people, but as many posts have pointed out, it may be a case of chicken or egg, are gamers made that way due to the influence of the games, or are people naturally inclined to game aggressive, quick-thinking, prophetic story-tellers? I believe it to be a little of both, and all of neither, as do most. I personally notice that the high tension of my drug of choice (StarCraft - hey, I'm in another clan!) remains imprinted in me long after the game is over. I retain a heightened awareness and I have this aggressiveness that I can tap into; I feel it mostly when I play my daily lunchtime chess game. It doesn't help me to win any more chess, but I feel that I clearly have a more aggressive approach in my chess-thinking after a night of high-intensity strategic gaming.
One more point. I think it might be beneficial to classify gamers and their personalities according to the type of game they prefer: strategy (StarCraft), role-playing (er, Diablo), non-competitive (The Sims, RollerCoaster Tycoon), and probably a few others
...the concept that OEMs may be scrambling to put a cheaper OS on their machine in the near future is intriguing. Face it, we (since I use Windows I am one) are Not Idiots because we don't use Linux. Many of us are frustrated, caught between the frustrations of having to deal with Windows and the fact that we would practically have to be Recent Comp Sci graduates to install and run Linux as our primary OS. But we work for companies that use MS products. OEMs and the market in general know a little bit about Linux and in their total frustration they are willing to give it a try.
All Linux needs to give me is:
1) Easy install and mod capability
2) Star Office
3) Many of the games that already exist, and a few new ones
4) A Graphical User Interface that looks and feels like Windows
What of these do we currently lack in Linux?
When I boot up my computer, that is the last time I want to have to deal with my OS. What I want are cool apps that work well together. When all the various tools come together under one umbrella - screw choice, I need basic capabilities here - then people will turn to Linux-based machines if they believe that it is at least as good (and goody-filled) as MS, and if the price tag on their machine is about $200 less.
Unless the DoJ comes down hard on MS, the monopoly ain't going anywhere. But its nice to think that it Might happen in 6 months, because then you have a sense of direction: get some version of Linux that can be pre-eminent in the market quick, so Linux is ready when businesses (and then homes) turn to it.
I read his article in Wired magazine a month or so ago, and my immediate impression was that he is a little bit pedantic, very smart, but somewhat hard to understand (like Katz? maybe). I really felt the urge to hold him to one of his points and have him explain what seem to be feelings on his part more than insightful near-certainties. Which is okay! We are feeling our way through software development, and it is a dark and murky place. I got some benefit out of reading it: I remember getting the same creepy, ominous feeling that I got when I read Bill Joy's GNR (genetics-nanotech-robotics) essay... that things are bad because they are out of control. And this: that our belief in AI has led to that stupid MS paperclip that always wants to help me but instead annoys the crap out of me.
His concept of a hierarchy in software design has great merit, and should be explored further. I recall being able to do all my engineering in DEC VAXes using DCL (Digital Control Language) running FORTRAN. Then they took that platform away faster than they took away vinyl record albums (but not as fast as 8-track tapes). For years I struggled to get a platform on the PC with as much power as DCL. All I got was DOS command files, woefully inadequate to that task. My other alternative was to learn MS VBasic, as we don't use Unix on our PCs. My point? Software development currently is subject to the winds of business logic, and unless his hierarchical, tiered strategy (this concept could use a lot of fleshing out, as do a lot of Lanier's points) shows benefit to a corporate bottom line (which is always short-sighted), it will not be adopted. Some fledgling company might come up with a new OS, a whole new concept of how to use the hardware. But the business world has to allow and provide for that, and right now we got a 300-pound gorilla sitting on top of it all running the show.
This is Libertarian talk, isn't it? It is a very fresh approach to Government, I will admit. I suppose the devil is in the details when we start talking about seriously implementing these policies. There is an awful lot of growing pain involved in weaning people off of reliance on the Government and onto themselves. But, to stay on topic, isn't the fact of Government regulations a sort of necessary evil? What would MS do without them, seeing as they already have tried to circumvent them. Let's see - here in California enterprising free-marketers hire Hispanics for poverty wages, flaunting the fact that the workers, although they live in deplorable conditions compared to the rest of America (ask Cesar Chavez), are still better off than they were back home, and as such are loathe to be revealed to La Migra, so accept whatever conditions are handed to them. I know of one guy who works about 50 hours a week for $75, though, since he is provided shelter (an old Airstream trailer), water and electricity, he Is 'earning a living wage'. This is of course, another illegal but accepted practice; just ask our Senator (a Democrat, by the way, who was found to have hired an illegal to watch her kid - was it Feinstein or Boxer?).
So what would MS do? I suspect they would undercut the job market just as much as they could, producing company towns full of Cannery Rows. Dude, we have been down this path more than once, and unless you can tell me how it is fundamentally different this time around - say, capitalists are no longer greedy at the expense of their humanity, or even "the internet disseminates information so rapidly that such injustices will be revealed before they can become endemic" - I maintain that only the government can protect the rights of workers in a capitalist society.
If you remove regulations from the marketplace, wages and quality of life for the underpriveleged will fall faster than teenage lady garment workers onto a hot New York sidewalk.
I agree that the combination of Government regulations and corporate tendencies can make life harder. But I contend and maintain that removing regulations without understanding what replacement force will guarantee worker protection is potentially much worse, and for more people.
They lost a lawsuit, so obviously some lawyer was able to convince some judge that MS was in the wrong. It seems that they were keeping 'temps' for more than a year. Look at it this way: you go to a Temp Agency and they line you up with a job. "Yay! A job! Now we can get off welfare and eat!" (Not: 'oooh, another offer from yet another computer firm vying for my unique perl-scripting skillz. I can add it to my stack of offers.') Now you're working there, bringing home a paycheck. But they keep you year after year without a raise, without benefits, without vacation. You lose.
Of course, since the lawsuit in 97, they now terminate you after that year, and you can't go back to work for them for over three months.
Guess what. You still lose. Sucks being on the bottom of the pile, doesn't it?
I am one of those proponents of a so-called 'living wage' for the poorest folks. I really would like to see a man be able to raise a family of two kids or so, with the mother at home for the first five years of the child's life, working 8-5 five days a week. I really believe that, no matter what we would have to sacrifice to achieve that (stock bonuses for the ten top execs? Seminars in Aruba? The Corporate jet?), all of us would agree it was worth it.
This sort of thing happens so often that I wasn't sure it was illegal. Here in California it is a common practice to hire people as temps and have them work exactly 32 hours so they remain ineligible for benefits, which are mandated by law for full-time employees.
There is the flip side to being such a large corporation: whereas small corps only shaft five or six employees at a time, MS generates 8-12000 disgruntled disenfranchised ex-serf-wanna-bes. Those kinds of numbers seem to generate sufficient land-shark interest.
I bet Jenny Craig is laughing in her size 5 grave right now.
Oh my God. I now see an argument for email stamps and charging to deliver bulk email. The spammers are basically a threat to our free and easy way of life here. But the only answer the Government can provide are such toothless provisions as requiring the word "Ad:" on the front of all advertising email headers, or requiring the sender to allow you to "just reply with the word "ScrewOff" in the title and we'll quietly go away." Hah! Have you ever tried that?
:)
So the only answer is email tax. Nothing else will work. Let's see, if we are charged 0.1 cent per email, that would work out to...
... about $40 US per month for me.
Then I wouldn't get those six emails a day telling me how to lose weight (how in the hell did I get on that one, I weigh 165 lbs and am 6 ft tall), where to find porn (these are all written in Spanish), and of course, the ubiquitous MMF!
I gotta stop clicking on the URL's in suck.com, yeah, that must be it...
Last time I checked, spamming in itself was not a crime. Am I wrong here?
BTW, this link http://belps.freewebsites.com/index2.htm
is funny as hell!!!
Yah, I was referring to the frustration expressed by the main character in Pirsig's book over what he perceived as the domination of Socratic philosophy over Sophistic. Now, I don't really understand any of this, but it fascinated me much like a dog is fascinated by quantum mechanics. I think my point relates to why we are the way we are today, and Pirsig rails against the status quo and our ancestors who arranged to have it be that way. Insane? Well, it's tough to get back at them now...
:/
Again, my point was: If we learn to understand how issues in the past and the resolution of them by the people at the time have shaped our thinking today, then perhaps we can gain guidance as we sort through today's problems. Maybe it's no more profound than "he who fails to learn the lessons of history is condemned to repeat it", but there seems to be more there than just that. In any case, since I have failed to learn enough about philosophy to even begin to discuss with any alacrity (I got that word from Monday Night Football) the difference between socratic and sophistic realms of thought, I might actually be talking nonsense and trying to make it sound pretty...
I can sympathize. I've got a whole truckload of vinyl albums at home. Soon I will have a bunch of VCR tapes laying around, too. But that's how it goes...
Kodak wanted to sue Paul Simon for his song "Kodachrome", then they realized it was better PR to allow the free publicity to be left alone.
SPAM should be grateful.
I think it's interesting that - as far as I know - no one at the time seemed very aware of the nature of the influence the new media had on them. Let me phrase it as a question: are there any references (written scrolls of the time) to the fact that the dissemination of information (i.e., the printing press) is the genesis and/or prime mover of this inspirational time? That they were aware that all this media was causing all this smart thinking?
I am often reminded of the nature of the evolution of the mind of man when I think of the fact that, before the 15th century, artists did not employ the concept of perspective and the vanishing point in their works! They were more like cave paintings before that time, with all figures about the same size regardless of their placement. But the mankind himself trained the mind to see things as they actually were and to portray them as such on paper. In a similar manner, we learned - according to Robert Pirsig - to think Socratically and logically (to categorize things according to Aristotelian logic, if I remember correctly) because the Socratics won the day, philosophically, over the Sophists, and from that day forward, virtually the fiber and wiring of our brain was forever conditioned toward viewing the world Socratically rather than like a Sophist. It drove the protagonist of "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintainence" insane, of course ('they forgot about QUALITY!!!').
Although no one would argue that we should abandon perspective in representational Art, it is fascinating to ponder on what other aspects of our daily lives have been formed so long ago in such an unknowing and unforseen fashion (again I refer to Crichton's "Timeline"). Accurately understanding how those tiny pebbles of insight and belief changed the course of the mighty river of humanity might help us to understand the impact of the decisions we make today, and so guide our hand in shaping our collective destiny. Sounds like a good read.
How is that argument Not like saying "Once we let the Government build the roads, they will own the roads and then they will tell you what you can and cannot ride on the roads"? Sorry if I seem facetious, but I do believe that Our Government is often the best answer for services that become corrupted when profitability becomes the dominant theme. They are not supposed to have any self-interests other than that of the collective public. The fact that they do have other interests than the good of the public - and DMCA is a Very Good example of this - is due only to the undue influence of corporations. Fix that, and you have a better, more responsive Government. Give the power of the connection to a company, allow it to become monopolized, and you have a much worse situation, IMO. You have something with potential power greater than Microsoft. I'm sorry, but it seems to me that you may be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, here.
Ask a San Diegan what he thinks of electric power deregulation after he paid about 3 times his average summer electricity bill this summer. The jury is still out on power deregulation, and the 10% discount period is only in its second year out of four. To our collective joy, we hear them threatening to have rolling blackouts this Christmas as they can't keep up with demand.
I am sure it isn't the same with phone companies. Although it might become that way as phone service moves from a luxury (it is still taxed that way) to a commodity, like electricity. People tend to have an inertia with these things, they will stay with one company unless extremely incentivized. I am always willing to switch long-distance companies to save a cent a minute, but do I have a choice in local phone service? Can I select a new local provider out of a list of a number of local providers? Please, someone, tell me if I can, because I have never seen another phone company in my neighborhood except for GTE/Verizon. There is much much more at stake than phone calls now, of course. It relates to how you hook up to the world now, and who calls the shots. I think it may be time to consider the government's ideal role (governement is corrupt enough that they may not be the ones who should decide that as corporations may pull the strings in the politician dummy's back) in providing the "Internet Dial Tone" that is everyone's "basic human right" (quotes intended to illustrate skepticism).
But it is time to consider whether or not it would be smart to have the government provide internet service to the home, perhaps via fiber hookup. After the "end-to-end" discussion of the past two days, I tend to think that no one company should be allowed to monopolize this highly lucrative prospect, like Verizon is at my house. Then again, look how the industry ripped us off with HDTV and satellite frequency band assignments... it will be a very hard war for the people to win, IMHO.
It wasn't a role-playing game or a door (I don't think), but does anyone remember Flash Tank? I Loved that game! It was an ascii-based strategy game in which you drove your little diamonds around (tanks) searching for the enemies' base and then killed it to win the game.
>>BBS systems allowed for much more social interaction between users"
/. forum because it reminds me of the old message boards of BBSes, and we actually used to learn things there. Personalities tended to stand out more because there wasn't as much "commercial noise" (For Lack of a Better Word) in the BBSes. In fact, they were commercial-free.
:)
I agree. In fact, I like this
I used to play TW for an hour every day, until the Ferrengi towed my craft and impounded it for some nonsense. I remember feeling like a total newbie compared to some of these conglomerates that literally ruled the universe. Um, make that 'figuratively'... it seemed like the universe.
Since we are relating subjective experiences and extrapolating them to the outside world - an honest and perfectly valid method of gaining insight for most sane people - lemme relate my experiences on my personal gaming addiction, Starcraft.
Kids of ten, eleven, whatever age, seem to have no qualms with being just as nasty as they can while enagaging in the game. SOME kids, of course! But it is accepted behavior. Slim Shady is a big hero to many there, and backstabbing and map hacking are so commonplace that we losers routinely suspect the other of cheating, and must guard against even our partner during a match.
But pro football is no different anymore. There was a code of ethics, I recall: you didn't spit at your opponent, taunting was beneath your dignity, and self-respect meant respect for others. Honor is gone from sport for the most part, as it is in on-line gaming, politics, and every other aspect of our culture. The nasty element of SC behavior will only spread due to the PS2 effect, as on-line gaming becomes more commonplace. The only answer is for parents - once again, here I go - to participate in their children's lives as a group.
It's the only answer I can see, anyway. The parents who are experiencing moral crises are parents who cannot relate to their children. You cannot help a situation if you refuse to understand it.
The context in which it must be placed relates to the accelerated pace we are living in. My children know much, much more about sex than I ever did, but their attitude toward it is different, tainted by music and TV.
We are struggling, still, to become a nation with an identity formed by the land. We are a unique culture, one immersed in shiny objects and glittering prizes. Never before have so many been showered with such an array of stimulating toys, images, sounds, and ideas. In our numbness we seek out authentic experiences and find them - ironically - in virtual realities. Michael Crichton has something to say about this in his book "Timeline": the only authentic experiences left for modern man are to be found in the distant past before reality was processed and fabricated by service providers.
We bemoan our children's development proportionately to the extent that they are growing up differently than we did. The village that is raising the child today is electronic and immediate. Our children feed on all this information indiscriminately until we the parents provide them with the filters they need to separate good nutritious food from brain candy and mind poison. It is our role in this society to resist and temper the development of our culture, because it is the traditional role of parents (the 'village') to help shape the culture. That role has been largely usurped, and we feel and respond to a great lack of control over our cultural destiny as evidenced by our children. We become alienated from each other.
I personally have become alternately fascinated, shocked, intrigued, and bewildered by the aspects of all this technology. I can only stand in awe of the rapid pace of gaming development and hope that those who are greedy purveyors pandering to the baser instincts of our children today, will someday learn to listen to the small voice in their souls as they gain wisdom seeing the awful consequences of their evil and stupid mistakes. But first they will have to admit to their own culpability, and that will take an awful lot of growing up.
I like this quote:
"Journalist Duncan Campbell has spent much of his life investigating Echelon. In a report commissioned by the European Parliament he produced evidence that the NSA snooped on phone calls from a French firm bidding for a contract in Brazil. They passed the information on to an American competitor, which won the contract."
And from
http://fly.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/echelon.html
"An office was created within the Department of Commerce, the Office of Intelligence Liaison, to forward intercepted materials to major US corporations."
Let's focus on this for a minute: In light of the fact that corporations are quickly becoming more powerful than governments - I support a theory I heard somewhere that corporations are the new nations of the world - isn't it sad to realize that our freedoms are being taken away from us by the very same people who provide us with all these glittering toys? This ain't good if true.
You know, I support my government, and I believe that our government is still the best weapon of resort to preserve our freedoms (even though I'm across the pond!). It is individuals within the government and the resulting systems of - for lack of a better word - evil conspiracies that leech our liberties. I can only hope that responsible people will continue to watch and report. And that responsible citizens will take an interest: stop playing PS2 for a minute and find out what is really going on. But then again, one can live a whole life in blissful ignorance...
The fact that Carnivore won't work well should not let you rest easy. The fact that the FBI can ask for (in the name of stopping drug dealers and kiddie porn) and get this level of power over the people of our beloved US should keep us up nights. The analogy is that of the phone company. It would be as if the FBI routinely could have people tape record conversations they have with you without your knowledge - you speak freely thinking you are having a private conversation, and then they present the tapes in court, using them against you. Oh, wait, I forgot about Linda Tripp. My point here is: it is the erosion of our civil rights that need concern us, not how many terabytes it will take.
Man, I am glad I don't think about Linda Tripp when I have phone sex! Whew!
Another thing: if the FBI were truly justified in their pursuit of this sort of power then any crypto could be construed as obstruction of justice, making us all potential criminals as we protect our cyber sex and lingerie purchases.
But the FBI is in the wrong here, so, unless Lenin pulls up at the train station, we as free American citizens still have the right to protect ourselves from our own government. Great.
Yes, I suppose that British Subjects can trust their government to look after their interests. But the question of what is a British Subject is an important one. We the Yanks wrote laws into our Constitution to prevent the excesses of power that your very government seemed to wield over its very Subjects. Or were the Americans at the time not considered British Subjects? In any case, it is the same argument I hear over here across the pond: "I don't have anything to hide, so why should I care if my neighbor is being hauled off?" That makes you one of those who are sympathetic to those who seek more power, believing the ends justifies the means. We used to call them Tories a while back. Now we call them Conservatives. But the fact remains that they could care not one whit for the excesses of their government over people they don't like.
Recall the excesses of government portrayed in the movie "Brazil"? Please rent that and watch: it is really pretty funny. Kind of Monty Python meets 1984, you know? I love some aspects of the British: their embrace of brutality I fairly loathe and would curtail it even if I were sympathetic to it as a Subject. Any true patriot would, really, when you think of it. You may trust your government to leave you well alone. But should every British Subject... er, citizen? Sorry, I am not sure what you mean by Subject. It sounds suspiciously like a member of a club, one of the inner circle...