Isn't there a statistic about how 99% of men consider themselves to be "above average drivers?"
I totally agree. Just about everybody thinks that they're a good driver, similar to how nearly everyone thinks that they have an excellent sense of humor.
I also agree that being a good driver takes more than just car control skills (although car control is important). I'd say that it's a mix of awareness, control skills, and judgement. Without situational awareness, judgement and control are nothing (how does one use their judgement and react to a situation that they're unaware is happenning?). Similarly; without good judgement, car control skills and situational awareness don't amount to a hill of beans.
Using your example, a severely fatigued driver will not be able to concentrate as well. This hampers awareness, judgement, and reaction time (and thus car control).
Thats nothing, my CURRENT car has none of that, 150-160hp and the engine is largely behind the rear wheels! Its got so little electronics all its got is a 35 amp alternator.
Cato is a mouthpiece for the defects of capitalism, check out some of their bullshit research on poverty. No one really likes to acknowledge that capitalism couldn't function without one class exploiting another by lowering the value of their wages to levels that they cannot in any security on. Some research may be intriguing but until they focus on the defects of capitalism, most of what they say is a waste, we need to develop better economic systems, you cannot try to fix the status quo, when the status quo is fundamentally flawed in the inherent contradictions of profits versus low wages (and hence reduced standard of living).
You are missing my point entirely. By not taking their research at face value and instead judging whether or not their policital philosophy jives with yours is exactly what I'm being critical of. You're trying to judge Cato by their politics, and pass off all of their research as bullshit, without actually reading the research (in your case, because their research may not meet your political agenda). Furthermore, you're trying to take this point and turn it into a political discussion about what your fundamental problems with capitalism are. This is the wrong place for it, and I'm the wrong person to try to troll (yes, what you did was totally a troll, whether this was your intention or not).
My whole point: regardless of whether not Cato (or any organization) has published bullshit research in the past (they all have), and regardless of whether or not their political philosophy is congruent with yours, read a study before prejudging it. Look at the data and methodology, then read the writer's conclusions -- see if you agree based on merit...not some arbitrary criteria based strictly upon your political convictions.
The Filthy Critic's review is also available. Have a look. Of course, he hates just about everything...but he reserved some of the best words I've seen in any review for Bloodrayne:
Bloodrayne sucks goat tits. It sucks shit and smelly ass. It sucks the husks off corn, the foreskin off dicks, the shit off the submissive in a Dirty Sanchez. It sucks harder and more sloppily than a Bennigan's waitress on her lunch break, but costs slightly less. It is, however, better than Alone in the Dark. That's not to say it's good, it's just that it's like getting a staph infection below the knee instead of the entire leg.
Those are strong words. It must have been a powerful movie:)
Cato is infamous for questionable research that politicians have used to support some ridiculous claims. Nothing different from them here.
I don't think that the Cato institute has ever professed to not be a Libertarian think tank. They've always been pretty up front with their political stance. Some of their research is actually quite intriguing. Other research appears to just be Libertarian banter. It's up to the reader to place judgement on individual articles...however, it would be unwise to dismiss everything that the Cato institute has ever written (regardless of your political leanings). The link you posted tends to rely on citing inflammatory political topics and does not appear to be much more than a political soundboard. Why not take things at face value rather than first assessing whether or not the writer shares your political convictions?
Its massage is that corporations are engaging in racketeering in the developing world and a few power hungry individuals and greedy corporate entities are infringing on privacy and integrity.
Waaaah, those greedy corporations are raping the developing world by making them pay for their copies of Warcraft 3! Developing nations are robbed of their ability to absorb crappy American culture and it's unfair. Wait...aren't there f/oss applications out there which will do what the third-world (nay, the whole world) needs? Are these Swedish pirates suggesting that the developing world needs Clippy in order to write their documents? So why again is selling software racketeering? How is a company infringing on privacy and integrity if they're trying to determine who is pirating their software and then taking civil action against those who break the laws which protect the very existance of their business? Wouldn't you do this if your IP were pirated non or semi-anonymously on a widespread basis?
Awww come on! There are so many slashbots who whine about how crappy American movies and music are, and about how much Microsoft software eats it...and conversely, how much Linux rocks. It seems that the same people who spout this also tend to advocate the ability to copy this crappy data. So...which is it?
Yeah, I get that piracy is not 'stealing' in the traditional sense, but neither is theft of service (cable/telephone/internet/TV service). Guess what, it's still theft, regardless of whether or not a commodity with a limited supply is stolen. If you don't like the license, don't use the software. How difficult is that? (Yeah, predatory click-through EULAs are bullshit too...but that's not what we're talking about)
The fact is that without strong IP laws, we would not have had a personal computer or related market. (Computers would still exist of course, but it is unlikely that the cost would have become this low). Without a PC market, Linux never would have seen fruition, since all of those at-home developers wouldn't have cheap computers kicking around their homes, offices, and labs. In fact -- Linux would not exist, if not for the need created by expensive commercial Unixes (to take it a step further, neither would Unix). Since Macintosh computers are PC's too, the Mac wouldn't exist either. Yes, IP laws have been helpful to us.
Shops who have invested millions into things like user interface design wouldn't have any incentive to invest those dollars because the return on those dollars would not be legally protected. Here's a quasi-analogy: why have a store if a government will not guarantee resasonable protection under the law? If the goods can be stolen by anyone, what is the incentive for putting them into the store? (Yes, I know, everthing should be free, but it isn't.) If commercial developers have no assumption of protection under the law, they will stop producing software for money. Contrary to the free-everything opinion, those developers won't just give up and code for free. They still have to feed their families, and will find another line of work. Not everyone in the world produces out of the goodness of their heart. If that motivates you, fine I appreciate your good heart; but don't expect the rest of us to share what motivates you. We're not all the same.
To all those who are anti-IP law: Just because a system has its problems doesn't mean that the system should be thrown to the curb. Yes, the system needs fixing. Yes, the extension of copyright laws in the US is bullshit. Yes, software and business process patents patents are a lame idea, and yes, the USPTO is badly broken. NONE of these mean that the idea of copyrights and IP should be tossed out. This would be akin to tossing the baby out with the bath water.
I trust CR's car data. But for electronics I look elsewhere. They're incompetent.
CU's car data is misinformed as well (I'm still baffled at how they have consistently called the Mazda Miata overpowered...this is a good indicator of the value of their ratings). The problem is that they're generalists, and are not geared towards any specialty items. Because of this, publications geared reviews of speciality items (cars, electronics, computers, etc) tend to deliver more credible results.
[Cthon98] hey, if you type in your pw, it will show as stars
[Cthon98] ********* see!
[AzureDiamond] hunter2
[AzureDiamond] doesnt look like stars to me
[Cthon98] *******
[Cthon98] thats what I see
[AzureDiamond] oh, really?
[Cthon98] Absolutely
[AzureDiamond] you can go hunter2 my hunter2-ing hunter2
[AzureDiamond] haha, does that look funny to you?
[Cthon98] lol, yes. See, when YOU type hunter2, it shows to us as *******
[AzureDiamond] thats neat, I didnt know IRC did that
[Cthon98] yep, no matter how many times you type hunter2, it will show to us as *******
[AzureDiamond] awesome!
[AzureDiamond] wait, how do you know my pw?
[Cthon98] er, I just copy pasted YOUR ******'s and it appears to YOU as hunter2 cause its your pw
[AzureDiamond] oh, ok.
Not only do you have to check that US graduates didn't get something from a degree mill, postgraduate students from a reputatable university don't have a minimum one year for a masters like in other countries so we have to ignore that qualifiaction as well?
Perhaps you have you are not famaliar with the credit hours standard which is common amongst United States colleges and universities. The GP is talking about 30 additional credit hours, not clock hours. A typical courseload is 15 credit hours per semester, 30 hours is usually a full year. Thus, one year plus 30 credit hours adds up to a full 2-year program. 2-year masters programs are fairly common in the United States.
Welcome to the real world, college boy. You don't like something, you're free to bitch about it all you want. However, if others are less than pleased with your comments, they may express their displeasure in ways that adversely affect you.
OTOH, the student is also free to pass his case off to the press (mainstream or otherwise). This will prove to be a major black eye for the university as I've yet to see anything in the blogosphere suggesting that the university took a measured approach. Regardless of whatever the reality of the situation may be, perception is everything. Since it's already hit Slashdot, there is a reasonable chance that it will hit the mainstream press. No private educational institution can afford this type of bad press (which appears far worse than a student badmouthing faculty and students on a blog). Ultimately, this may also serve as a welcome-to-the-real-world for the university bureaucrats (and most colleges and universities tend to be very bureaocratic). The school is going to take such a public lashing over this that they will likely rescind their ruling, either the adminsitrators will make the call or their board of trustees will force it. Remember that universities depend on their image for not only tuition, but for endowment. Call it a business decision.
Next Generation doesn't tell the whole story
on
Why Ebert Was Right
·
· Score: 1
Ebert may be onto something when he says that gaming is an inferior method of storytelling -- it may well be (depending on perspective). However, this isn't the whole picture behind Ebert's contraversial statements.
Ebert has been claiming that he doesn't consider video games an art form in the same way that he considers movies, books, music, or even comic books to be art forms. This and his storytelling statements are quite dissimiliar and should be treated as such. Nice try with the trollish title there.
They reject an offensive idea that may actually, inadvertantly, contain a nugget of truth. In truth I believe there is some desensitization to violence, see the link below. Does it turn a normal person into a maniac? No. Were people who have gone postal defective to begin with? Yes.
Agreed, and you raise a valid point. It seems that people often put their beliefs ahead of a pragmatic goal to find truth. It takes a keen eye to see through the emotional sides of a largely polarized argument. It reminds me of some of the points raised in Freakonomics
In this case, "experts" have taken a point that may have some merit, and blown it out of proportion. It was effective, because it is now a major talking point.
I can't speak to a large range of studies, but I can point to what I've noticed amongst high school students recently. The threshold of violence tolerance is significantly higher than when I was in school. Some groups, of which I know the members have seen violent everything since a young age, will hit each other constantly, as well as degrade each other. Their acts are the kind that would have landed me a suspension or possible explusion years ago, and now basically result in nothing.
Since we're speaking antecdotally, I find that things are the other way around. Schools are often over reacting to items perceived as weapons. After major school shootings, students are now suspended for passing remarks, and students are now suspended for possessing over-the-counter drugs.
Maybe in our discussion, we've hit on something. It is difficult to find the real dangers that modern kids face. According to the statistics, the country is a safer place. According to the news media, it is not. Of course, just because crime is down, I'm not suggesting that we completely drop our guard. Realisticly, however, parents are more paranoid. When I was a kid, we were allowed to play outside wit hthe other neighborhood kids until dark unsupervised. Statistically, the country was less safe then. However, in modern days, parents are less prone to let their kids play outside unsupervised.
My personal opinion (and this uses some contraversial wording...so I'll be careful) is that much of this discussion is really the aftermath of womens' liberation. Not that I have a problem with women in the workplace -- on the contrary, I think it should have happened long ago. However, all of this discussion about who raises our kids; parents, government, or media is actually about figuring out how to parent in this "new world". As a society, we are still trying to figure out how to raise our kids in familys with 2 working parents. There simply isn't enough time to raise kids, and we need to figure out how to manage that. It really has little to do with video games, but more to do with how we want our kids to be raised.
Sure, gaming didn't hurt you. But that's a sample size of one.
OK, then let's talk about a larger sample size...let's say: the entire United States of America. Violent crime is at a record low in this country. The most recent generation to reach adulthood is the generation that grew up owning Atari 2600's, Colecovision, Nintento, Commodore 64's, and PC's. These were all significant gaming platforms, which all had violent titles available for them. Also consider that these are victimization rates of people above 12 years old -- so we can also include the grand poobah of contraversial titles, Grand Theft Auto. How do you correlate the steep decline in violent crime with the dawn of video gaming? If the anti-gaming studies actually warrant concern, shouldn't we be able to find correlations between violent video games and an increase in violent crime (and not just an increase in news stories about violent crime)?
Before you fly off the handle, RTFA, check out their arguments, see if you can find any validity in their studies, think about the implications.
And then err on the side of safety. In truth, not allowing your children to play some -- or all -- video games is not harmful to them.
I read the article...and their conclusions were largely bullshit, and can be easily picked apart. Tripmaster Monkey has already done a good job of debunking the claims in the article, so I won't re-hash his well-worded argument. I do, however, have a problem with one of your contentions. Backing up a bogus claim with horrendous implications does not make the claim more valid. Think about these two statements (both false): "Chocolate causes acne." "Chocolate causes heart disease, as well as serious developmental disabilities in children". They are both patently false, but one has more serious implications. We know that it won't harm children too not eat chocolate, but does the latter claim make you more likely to prohibit your children from eating chocolate?
Using your logic, by making bogus claims with severe implications and using a so-called expert to back them up, you can be easily coerced into changing your behavior in just about any way. If you disagree, perhaps you should revisit your previous logic.
What people here seem to have an objection to is a sense of misdirected hysterical alarmism. Video games have become a scapegoat, especially since they represent a real disconnect between generations. Referencing recent studies on violent crime (and even property crimes) the "problem" isn't even demonstrable. It would be easier to draw parallels between arguments against video games and arguments against rock 'n roll decaying our nation's moral fiber. In actually...the kids are alright. It appears that the parents the ones who are screwed up here.
...Well, Ebert how many hours have you spent watching films that you have given a thumbs down too? The film industry is full of crap that has no artistic merit whatsover. There is as much shovel-ware in cinema as there is in video games. The basic situation is that Ebert does not understand games and is just the old guard of an older medium...
I couldn't agree with you more. Ebert is trying to hang on to what he knows and undestands. It's not not that video games are above or beneath him...he has just failed to embrace this new medium. It is alien to him, and he has chosen to (largely) ignore it.
What's interesting is that this argument is old...and I'm not talking about the argument over whether or not video games are art. Every time a new artistic medium arises, participants (artists, critics, educators, people involved in the business around other mediums) claim that the new medium isn't "art".
Many universities are still entrenched in the debate over whether or not to consider photography a classical art. One-by-one, educational institutions are accepting photography as a form of classical art. The fact is that over time, new mediums are eventually accepted as art, and the naysayers lose. The media with which Roger Ebert is a critic, film, was not always considered art either. There was debate over this media as well. Of course, TFA puts this argument much more eloquiently than I can.
It is irrelevant whether or not there is a unanimous acceptance of video games as art. All it takes is a critical mass of participants to consider a media art, and it's pretty much there. The credibility of an art form amongst educators doesn't really matter, except maybe in a legal (first amendment) sense.
The fact is that this is more of a generational issue. Video games are especially new to a fellow like Ebert, who is entrenched in the media that he is famaliar with. It is clear that Ebert is stuck in his ways and does not want to accept any new media into his worldview. Ebert admits to making a judgement of video games while being unfamaliar with video games. He claims that since the user is required to make choices and participate, that it is somehow inferior to other forms of art. I tend to disagree, since the viewer/reader/listener must take an active role in interpreting the art, thus taking an active role and making decisions in the outcome of their experience in the work itself.
This kind of attitude is exactly why nobody is ever going to take Wikipedia seriously.
I take it seriously, and others take it seriously as well. Read The World is Flat -- that author takes Wikipedia seriously. What's funny is that you appear to be participating in the behavior you are criticizing Wikipedia of. (Although in your defense, you are not a reference text.)
In any case, it's clear that there are some issues with a community-based encyclopedia which have yet to be worked out. Wikipedia is a relatively new concept, and every new concept has issues which need to be resolved. However, these issues do not totally invalidate the entire excercise. I still prefer it over any other encyclopedia that I've ever read. Further, like any other source of text (including reference texts), it must be carefully read, and the references cited must be researched and verified. A single article, with a contribution from a seemingly malicious (ananymous) user does not make Wikipedia useless.
...was that there actually were high ranking US government officials who were Soviet spies, including some paid by the Soviets.
The funny thing about the VENONA files was that McCarthy had no access to them. Further, many of the people who he accused of being Communists weren't in the Venona papers.
You may be reading too much into Ann Coulter's writings -- your argument sounds suspicously similar to hers...and has the same flaws.
The fact is that it's simply not OK to make accusations with no proof. The man was grandstanding, and failed to offer any evidence...ever. Regardless of whether or not the evidence later surfaced, he never offered it, which suggests that this was speculative.
Finally, his goals weren't so much to expose traitors on the Soviet payroll, because he never offered an iota of evidence showing this. Instead, he attacked people as communists and communists sympathizers, thus advocating American thought police. You can substitute Communism with quite a few ideals or even religions and the whole concept of McCarthyism begins to crumble. Should Americans have a right to know who the Jews and Jewish sympathizers are? What about gays and gay sympathyzers? Libertarian and libertarian sympathizers? Republicans and republican sympathizers? It is all silly, because IMO, one of our deepest core values is freedom of thought.
Ultimately, it shows that the ends don't justify the means. McCarthy felt that his cause transcended the American justice system -- so he blew lots of smoke and used his power to ruin public figures. It's funny that you should advocate McCarthyism, since there are so many parallels which can be drawn to modern issues. The problem is that what all of these parallels have in common are paranoia, xenophobia, and intolerance...and I'm just not sure how I feel about these being our core values.
I mean, if you shouldn't try to stop people who are paid by your national enemies, or who espouse the core political and ideological ideals of your national enemies, then why even have nations and borders? If any national government is legitimate, it stands to be protected, else, what is its purpose?
I just want to point out that you are making a straw-man argument. Nobody is arguing against looking out for our national interests. If someone is on our enemy's payroll and thus committing treason, bring them to justice. Put them in front of a jury of their peers, and try them using real evidence. The accusers should have proper oversight all the way. What opponents of McCarthyism (and opponents of the erosion of oversight and civil liberties) argue against is bypassing the justice system that helps make America free. IMO, this is more unamerican and more dangerous than the Commuinism/terrorism that we fight.
Sorry for the delay in my response. I've been out of town and away from a computer.
I think one of the major problems is how corporations are treated as a living citizen when it comes to the rights they enjoy, but escape many of the consequences that accrue to a living individual for bad/illegal behaviour.
A corporation does something bad/illegal, gets caught, fires the individual employee(s) involved and perhaps pays a fine, and goes on its' merry way, the corporation still intact. An individuals' life under similar circumstances would be over, as an individual can't figuratively send just one of his replaceable hands to jail for bribing a congressman.
This reduces the decisions on corporate behaviour to a simple one of if the behaviour will profit them enough to offset the loss if caught, and the likelyhood of being caught at all.
This, along with the huge financial differences, gives corporations a powers-of-magnitude advantage over individuals when it comes to the ability to exert influence and power.
So if a business breaks a law, do you suggest closing their doors forever? This may be a bit shortsighted, since large businesses employ thousands of 'regular folks' (presumably, like you and I). Further, much of our economy is built on the backs of these large corporations. Wouldn't it be better to weed out (prosecute) the individuals who participate in the illegal activity and serve them their justice than shut the lights and harm the thousands of us regular folks employed by the corporation? Even when companies are just fined, the people who will pay the most are the 'regular' folks who work for the company (layoffs), and the consumer -- the other regular folks. The latter will be handed the bill for increased costs of doing business by way of higher prices to cover those costs. I'm sort of with you -- not really in the shutting the doors, but in less slap-on-the-wrist fining, but going after the law-breakers personally. I'll get into this later.
As far as individual rights going to corporations, I think that you should read more about corporations and try to put the anti-business propaganda aside (the 'rights' issue has been a rallying cry for the anti-business crowd for some time -- it can really be narrowed down to this part of the article). You may find yourself a little more in the center if you consider all sides of this equally. There is a reason for treating a business like a person, and there is good reason for this not going away. However, all interests may be better served by simply defining a corporation's responsibilities better. If you're not into reading all of the Wiki stuff that I've linked, the idea is that if we're going to allow many people to own a business and not make it impossible to grow beyond the status of a small business (owned by a single individual), we have to establish certains rights and responsibilities, and make them as clear as possible. This is the cornerstone of our laws which govern businesses (the aforementioned rights and responsibilities). Again, much of our economy is built on this, and Americans would certainly not enjoy our high standard of living without it. Without these rules, rights, and responsibilities, we would not have a stock market, and companies would not be able to do things like raise money for high-ticket infrastructure items -- like a telephone network, cable TV, large international data pipes, or private communications satellites. Furthermore, it is important to indemnify shareholders...for example -- if the Coca Cola corporation kills a person and you are a shareholder, you shouldn't be held criminally responsible. To take it a step further, if you hold shares in a Mutual Fund, which also owns shares in the Coca Cola corporation (maybe even unbeknownst to yo
"And for generations, students have spent their hard-earned dollars on the music they love in the local college record store. How many of those stores are left now? Makes you realize just what the impact of illegal downloading can be, and why we've taken the actions we have."
What a load of horse crap. Local record stores were going the way of the dinosaur long before illegal downloads. The Best Buys of the world, which subsidized below-cost album sales in order to attract buyers to their higher-margin electronic gear are what drove the local record store out of the market. The situation was made worse by cheap albums being sold via mail-order online distributors. (Made cheap by the high volume of the online retailers).
I don't know how much money the record stores and IP owners lost on online piracy. The truth is that nobody really knows. Record companies exaggerate one way, and the free-everything people exaggerate the other way. However, it seems pretty reasonable to assume that with college kid dollars going into online music stores and forced buy-ins to the university music repository, the dollars will not flow into local record stores.
Besides, the recording industry could care less about the mom and pop record stores. Those guys sold in crappy volume compared to the larger chains. Further, the local stores sold indy music, and any profits from that never touched the coffers of the RIAA member companies.
Sherman/RIAA have to know that they're bullshitting. I mean, these are shrewd businesspeople. I can see right through the bullshit -- and I'm just some dork posting on Slashdot. This stuff is really simple -- do they think that this will pass muster with most of the American public? We're not that dumb, are we?
Free market ain't going to do anything to these "Cartels", unless something radically changes
You mean a radical change like...high quality recording equipment becoming cheaper, which will drive down the cost of studio time and thus drop the cost of album production? Another radical change that may help to flatten the marketplace is an Internet distribution model.
As far as I can tell, RIAA (and its member companies) do the following:
Finance/oversee content production
Finance/oversee content marketing
Content distribution
Fight IP violators
Lobby for industry-favorable IP laws
Of these, the content production/marketing/distribution are the only parts of their profit chain. With studio time getting cheaper, and with home recording studios becoming a reality for the average hobbyist, RIAA's part in production is at risk. With an Internet marketplace, distribution is also at risk. Two out of three parts of RIAA's parofit chain are directly threatened. RIAA members are still able to market their product, and the indy marketplace doesn't have this down yet...especially because this is the part that takes money. RIAA/members may be able to use their marketing dollars to adapt to the new marketplace, but I (frankly) don't see these dinosaurs adapting. They have shown little adaptation to the Internet marketplace thus far.
Rather than adapting, RIAA has resisted, showing their sense of entitlement to a profit. Profits don't come from entitlement -- they come from innovation. If businesses want to sit on their laurels and watch the dollars roll in, they will be surpassed by the next guy, who is motivated to find a way in.
"Free market" is defined by the guys like RIAA, MPAA and all those lobbyists associations you or I probably haven't heard of and certainly not your average Joe six-pack.
So...they've got lobbying power. What's your point? Shouldn't businesses have the right to look after their interests (whether or not your agree with those interests)? I mean, if you can write your congressman, or have a group like the EFF or the ACLU trying to stop interests like the RIAA, why can't those groups do the same to protect what they view as their interests? I know that you never explicitly said it -- but you've implied that they shouldn't be able to do this. Is it because you think that they're wrong, or because they have more resources than you? IMO, yours is a defeatist attitude. Have you done anything to stop the RIAA's foray into legislature (like written your congress critters or donated to the EFF), or just accepted defeat and complain about it on slashdot?
With Half Life 2, if I put the CD into my machine, it is "bound" to that machine. If my son then tries to put it into his machine and activate it, it will terminate my original account's access to the game and *not* grant the other machine access either. Valve has been bragging up how they have disabled 30,000 steam accounts. That's 30,000 *valid* purchases that were disabled because of potentially the situation described. Wow, sign me up for a reaming up the... well you get the point.
I got HL2 for free with a graphics card purchase. I downloaded the game via Steam, and remained skeptical throughout the process. To my surprise, it worked very well. When I bought a new computer, I was able to install Steam on the new machine, sign into the original account, and move the game content over my local network. It worked fine, no problems.
As far as the 30,000 users disabled...your assumption that every account that Valve disabled was a legitimately purchased copy is quite a stretch. In fact, I'd say that the chances are greater that the people who didn't call in to get their account fixed were likely not legitimate users. I know that if my account were disabled, I would simply contact Valve and ask them to fix it. If they asked why I was installing it on two computers, I'd explain why, and suggest that they fix their system to allow for this.
Copy protection for games is a fact. There is no getting around it. Nobody likes it. Entering serial numbers for games is stupid, and treats customers like theives. Further, as a paying customer, I'm paying for the cost of their copy protection model. Very lame. However, this is how the industry works, and consumers have made it clear that they don't really care (with their dollars). I like my games more than my principle that serial numbers and copy protection are lame, so I put up with it.
The traditional retail distribution model leaves something to be desired. The transition to a download-based model seems like a foregone conclusion. However, it makes sense to me that developers still want some assurances that their new distribution model won't be a piracy free-for-all, and Steam actually does seem pretty good at prevent casual piracy. As a consumer, I like Steam because I don't have to spend extra money on a paper box for a game, and don't have to deal with serial numbers. I have an account, and that tracks what I own. Do you have a better suggestion for how developers can protect their content using this new distribution model, or is this just about a desire for free games?
It's not like people will be taking their hybrid batteries out and tossing them into the dump. This is in stark constrast to non-hybrids that dump their excess pollutants into the air without care. Yes yes, they have catalytic convertors. They also burn a finite resource faster and emit more carbon to the atmosphere.
Actually, hybrid cars dump their excess pollutants into the air without care too.
Look at the real world averages of MPG. Buy a diesel, have a nicer car with better fuel economy. If you really care about the environment, get a Greasecar (which burns used cooking oil) or burn 100% biodiesel -- both release ZERO net carbon dioxide into the air...unlike a Hybrid, which dumps carbon into the air whenever you fire the motor up (every time you run on the highway or idle to charge the battery).
In fifty years, which do you think will be cheaper and more abundant: materials for batteries or oil? I think the former. Yes, it requires effort and energy, but it doesn't require oil.
The majority of US power plants burn coal, which is pretty unfriendly to our environment. I'm all for nuclear power, but most self-dubbed environmentalists don't seem to like it (for the same reason they seem to like electric cars). In any case, back to diesel -- it doesn't require any fossil fuel to run. Diesel was originally designed to run off of vegetable oil. Fossil fuel was later adapted to be burned by diesel because fossil oil is so damned cheap.
My point: if you want to make a statement, buy a hybrid. If you actually want your travel to have less impact on the environment, buy a diesel.
Slashdot Mirror
I totally agree. Just about everybody thinks that they're a good driver, similar to how nearly everyone thinks that they have an excellent sense of humor.
I also agree that being a good driver takes more than just car control skills (although car control is important). I'd say that it's a mix of awareness, control skills, and judgement. Without situational awareness, judgement and control are nothing (how does one use their judgement and react to a situation that they're unaware is happenning?). Similarly; without good judgement, car control skills and situational awareness don't amount to a hill of beans.
Using your example, a severely fatigued driver will not be able to concentrate as well. This hampers awareness, judgement, and reaction time (and thus car control).
Early 70's 911?
You are missing my point entirely. By not taking their research at face value and instead judging whether or not their policital philosophy jives with yours is exactly what I'm being critical of. You're trying to judge Cato by their politics, and pass off all of their research as bullshit, without actually reading the research (in your case, because their research may not meet your political agenda). Furthermore, you're trying to take this point and turn it into a political discussion about what your fundamental problems with capitalism are. This is the wrong place for it, and I'm the wrong person to try to troll (yes, what you did was totally a troll, whether this was your intention or not).
My whole point: regardless of whether not Cato (or any organization) has published bullshit research in the past (they all have), and regardless of whether or not their political philosophy is congruent with yours, read a study before prejudging it. Look at the data and methodology, then read the writer's conclusions -- see if you agree based on merit...not some arbitrary criteria based strictly upon your political convictions.
The Filthy Critic's review is also available. Have a look. Of course, he hates just about everything...but he reserved some of the best words I've seen in any review for Bloodrayne:
Those are strong words. It must have been a powerful movie :)
I don't think that the Cato institute has ever professed to not be a Libertarian think tank. They've always been pretty up front with their political stance. Some of their research is actually quite intriguing. Other research appears to just be Libertarian banter. It's up to the reader to place judgement on individual articles...however, it would be unwise to dismiss everything that the Cato institute has ever written (regardless of your political leanings). The link you posted tends to rely on citing inflammatory political topics and does not appear to be much more than a political soundboard. Why not take things at face value rather than first assessing whether or not the writer shares your political convictions?
Awww come on! There are so many slashbots who whine about how crappy American movies and music are, and about how much Microsoft software eats it...and conversely, how much Linux rocks. It seems that the same people who spout this also tend to advocate the ability to copy this crappy data. So...which is it?
Yeah, I get that piracy is not 'stealing' in the traditional sense, but neither is theft of service (cable/telephone/internet/TV service). Guess what, it's still theft, regardless of whether or not a commodity with a limited supply is stolen. If you don't like the license, don't use the software. How difficult is that? (Yeah, predatory click-through EULAs are bullshit too...but that's not what we're talking about)
The fact is that without strong IP laws, we would not have had a personal computer or related market. (Computers would still exist of course, but it is unlikely that the cost would have become this low). Without a PC market, Linux never would have seen fruition, since all of those at-home developers wouldn't have cheap computers kicking around their homes, offices, and labs. In fact -- Linux would not exist, if not for the need created by expensive commercial Unixes (to take it a step further, neither would Unix). Since Macintosh computers are PC's too, the Mac wouldn't exist either. Yes, IP laws have been helpful to us.
Shops who have invested millions into things like user interface design wouldn't have any incentive to invest those dollars because the return on those dollars would not be legally protected. Here's a quasi-analogy: why have a store if a government will not guarantee resasonable protection under the law? If the goods can be stolen by anyone, what is the incentive for putting them into the store? (Yes, I know, everthing should be free, but it isn't.) If commercial developers have no assumption of protection under the law, they will stop producing software for money. Contrary to the free-everything opinion, those developers won't just give up and code for free. They still have to feed their families, and will find another line of work. Not everyone in the world produces out of the goodness of their heart. If that motivates you, fine I appreciate your good heart; but don't expect the rest of us to share what motivates you. We're not all the same.
To all those who are anti-IP law: Just because a system has its problems doesn't mean that the system should be thrown to the curb. Yes, the system needs fixing. Yes, the extension of copyright laws in the US is bullshit. Yes, software and business process patents patents are a lame idea, and yes, the USPTO is badly broken. NONE of these mean that the idea of copyrights and IP should be tossed out. This would be akin to tossing the baby out with the bath water.
Any massage with a happy ending wins, regardless of nationality.
CU's car data is misinformed as well (I'm still baffled at how they have consistently called the Mazda Miata overpowered...this is a good indicator of the value of their ratings). The problem is that they're generalists, and are not geared towards any specialty items. Because of this, publications geared reviews of speciality items (cars, electronics, computers, etc) tend to deliver more credible results.
Perhaps you have you are not famaliar with the credit hours standard which is common amongst United States colleges and universities. The GP is talking about 30 additional credit hours, not clock hours. A typical courseload is 15 credit hours per semester, 30 hours is usually a full year. Thus, one year plus 30 credit hours adds up to a full 2-year program. 2-year masters programs are fairly common in the United States.
OTOH, the student is also free to pass his case off to the press (mainstream or otherwise). This will prove to be a major black eye for the university as I've yet to see anything in the blogosphere suggesting that the university took a measured approach. Regardless of whatever the reality of the situation may be, perception is everything. Since it's already hit Slashdot, there is a reasonable chance that it will hit the mainstream press. No private educational institution can afford this type of bad press (which appears far worse than a student badmouthing faculty and students on a blog). Ultimately, this may also serve as a welcome-to-the-real-world for the university bureaucrats (and most colleges and universities tend to be very bureaocratic). The school is going to take such a public lashing over this that they will likely rescind their ruling, either the adminsitrators will make the call or their board of trustees will force it. Remember that universities depend on their image for not only tuition, but for endowment. Call it a business decision.
Ebert may be onto something when he says that gaming is an inferior method of storytelling -- it may well be (depending on perspective). However, this isn't the whole picture behind Ebert's contraversial statements.
Ebert has been claiming that he doesn't consider video games an art form in the same way that he considers movies, books, music, or even comic books to be art forms. This and his storytelling statements are quite dissimiliar and should be treated as such. Nice try with the trollish title there.
Agreed, and you raise a valid point. It seems that people often put their beliefs ahead of a pragmatic goal to find truth. It takes a keen eye to see through the emotional sides of a largely polarized argument. It reminds me of some of the points raised in Freakonomics
In this case, "experts" have taken a point that may have some merit, and blown it out of proportion. It was effective, because it is now a major talking point.
Since we're speaking antecdotally, I find that things are the other way around. Schools are often over reacting to items perceived as weapons. After major school shootings, students are now suspended for passing remarks, and students are now suspended for possessing over-the-counter drugs.
Maybe in our discussion, we've hit on something. It is difficult to find the real dangers that modern kids face. According to the statistics, the country is a safer place. According to the news media, it is not. Of course, just because crime is down, I'm not suggesting that we completely drop our guard. Realisticly, however, parents are more paranoid. When I was a kid, we were allowed to play outside wit hthe other neighborhood kids until dark unsupervised. Statistically, the country was less safe then. However, in modern days, parents are less prone to let their kids play outside unsupervised.
My personal opinion (and this uses some contraversial wording...so I'll be careful) is that much of this discussion is really the aftermath of womens' liberation. Not that I have a problem with women in the workplace -- on the contrary, I think it should have happened long ago. However, all of this discussion about who raises our kids; parents, government, or media is actually about figuring out how to parent in this "new world". As a society, we are still trying to figure out how to raise our kids in familys with 2 working parents. There simply isn't enough time to raise kids, and we need to figure out how to manage that. It really has little to do with video games, but more to do with how we want our kids to be raised.
OK, then let's talk about a larger sample size...let's say: the entire United States of America. Violent crime is at a record low in this country. The most recent generation to reach adulthood is the generation that grew up owning Atari 2600's, Colecovision, Nintento, Commodore 64's, and PC's. These were all significant gaming platforms, which all had violent titles available for them. Also consider that these are victimization rates of people above 12 years old -- so we can also include the grand poobah of contraversial titles, Grand Theft Auto. How do you correlate the steep decline in violent crime with the dawn of video gaming? If the anti-gaming studies actually warrant concern, shouldn't we be able to find correlations between violent video games and an increase in violent crime (and not just an increase in news stories about violent crime)?
I read the article...and their conclusions were largely bullshit, and can be easily picked apart. Tripmaster Monkey has already done a good job of debunking the claims in the article, so I won't re-hash his well-worded argument. I do, however, have a problem with one of your contentions. Backing up a bogus claim with horrendous implications does not make the claim more valid. Think about these two statements (both false): "Chocolate causes acne." "Chocolate causes heart disease, as well as serious developmental disabilities in children". They are both patently false, but one has more serious implications. We know that it won't harm children too not eat chocolate, but does the latter claim make you more likely to prohibit your children from eating chocolate?
Using your logic, by making bogus claims with severe implications and using a so-called expert to back them up, you can be easily coerced into changing your behavior in just about any way. If you disagree, perhaps you should revisit your previous logic.
What people here seem to have an objection to is a sense of misdirected hysterical alarmism. Video games have become a scapegoat, especially since they represent a real disconnect between generations. Referencing recent studies on violent crime (and even property crimes) the "problem" isn't even demonstrable. It would be easier to draw parallels between arguments against video games and arguments against rock 'n roll decaying our nation's moral fiber. In actually...the kids are alright. It appears that the parents the ones who are screwed up here.
I couldn't agree with you more. Ebert is trying to hang on to what he knows and undestands. It's not not that video games are above or beneath him...he has just failed to embrace this new medium. It is alien to him, and he has chosen to (largely) ignore it.
What's interesting is that this argument is old...and I'm not talking about the argument over whether or not video games are art. Every time a new artistic medium arises, participants (artists, critics, educators, people involved in the business around other mediums) claim that the new medium isn't "art".
Many universities are still entrenched in the debate over whether or not to consider photography a classical art. One-by-one, educational institutions are accepting photography as a form of classical art. The fact is that over time, new mediums are eventually accepted as art, and the naysayers lose. The media with which Roger Ebert is a critic, film, was not always considered art either. There was debate over this media as well. Of course, TFA puts this argument much more eloquiently than I can.
It is irrelevant whether or not there is a unanimous acceptance of video games as art. All it takes is a critical mass of participants to consider a media art, and it's pretty much there. The credibility of an art form amongst educators doesn't really matter, except maybe in a legal (first amendment) sense.
The fact is that this is more of a generational issue. Video games are especially new to a fellow like Ebert, who is entrenched in the media that he is famaliar with. It is clear that Ebert is stuck in his ways and does not want to accept any new media into his worldview. Ebert admits to making a judgement of video games while being unfamaliar with video games. He claims that since the user is required to make choices and participate, that it is somehow inferior to other forms of art. I tend to disagree, since the viewer/reader/listener must take an active role in interpreting the art, thus taking an active role and making decisions in the outcome of their experience in the work itself.
I take it seriously, and others take it seriously as well. Read The World is Flat -- that author takes Wikipedia seriously. What's funny is that you appear to be participating in the behavior you are criticizing Wikipedia of. (Although in your defense, you are not a reference text.)
In any case, it's clear that there are some issues with a community-based encyclopedia which have yet to be worked out. Wikipedia is a relatively new concept, and every new concept has issues which need to be resolved. However, these issues do not totally invalidate the entire excercise. I still prefer it over any other encyclopedia that I've ever read. Further, like any other source of text (including reference texts), it must be carefully read, and the references cited must be researched and verified. A single article, with a contribution from a seemingly malicious (ananymous) user does not make Wikipedia useless.
The funny thing about the VENONA files was that McCarthy had no access to them. Further, many of the people who he accused of being Communists weren't in the Venona papers.
You may be reading too much into Ann Coulter's writings -- your argument sounds suspicously similar to hers...and has the same flaws.
The fact is that it's simply not OK to make accusations with no proof. The man was grandstanding, and failed to offer any evidence...ever. Regardless of whether or not the evidence later surfaced, he never offered it, which suggests that this was speculative.
Finally, his goals weren't so much to expose traitors on the Soviet payroll, because he never offered an iota of evidence showing this. Instead, he attacked people as communists and communists sympathizers, thus advocating American thought police. You can substitute Communism with quite a few ideals or even religions and the whole concept of McCarthyism begins to crumble. Should Americans have a right to know who the Jews and Jewish sympathizers are? What about gays and gay sympathyzers? Libertarian and libertarian sympathizers? Republicans and republican sympathizers? It is all silly, because IMO, one of our deepest core values is freedom of thought.
Ultimately, it shows that the ends don't justify the means. McCarthy felt that his cause transcended the American justice system -- so he blew lots of smoke and used his power to ruin public figures. It's funny that you should advocate McCarthyism, since there are so many parallels which can be drawn to modern issues. The problem is that what all of these parallels have in common are paranoia, xenophobia, and intolerance...and I'm just not sure how I feel about these being our core values.
I just want to point out that you are making a straw-man argument. Nobody is arguing against looking out for our national interests. If someone is on our enemy's payroll and thus committing treason, bring them to justice. Put them in front of a jury of their peers, and try them using real evidence. The accusers should have proper oversight all the way. What opponents of McCarthyism (and opponents of the erosion of oversight and civil liberties) argue against is bypassing the justice system that helps make America free. IMO, this is more unamerican and more dangerous than the Commuinism/terrorism that we fight.
All of my stickers go onto toolboxes. They're non obtrusive, and they look OK there.
Sorry for the delay in my response. I've been out of town and away from a computer.
So if a business breaks a law, do you suggest closing their doors forever? This may be a bit shortsighted, since large businesses employ thousands of 'regular folks' (presumably, like you and I). Further, much of our economy is built on the backs of these large corporations. Wouldn't it be better to weed out (prosecute) the individuals who participate in the illegal activity and serve them their justice than shut the lights and harm the thousands of us regular folks employed by the corporation? Even when companies are just fined, the people who will pay the most are the 'regular' folks who work for the company (layoffs), and the consumer -- the other regular folks. The latter will be handed the bill for increased costs of doing business by way of higher prices to cover those costs. I'm sort of with you -- not really in the shutting the doors, but in less slap-on-the-wrist fining, but going after the law-breakers personally. I'll get into this later.
As far as individual rights going to corporations, I think that you should read more about corporations and try to put the anti-business propaganda aside (the 'rights' issue has been a rallying cry for the anti-business crowd for some time -- it can really be narrowed down to this part of the article). You may find yourself a little more in the center if you consider all sides of this equally. There is a reason for treating a business like a person, and there is good reason for this not going away. However, all interests may be better served by simply defining a corporation's responsibilities better. If you're not into reading all of the Wiki stuff that I've linked, the idea is that if we're going to allow many people to own a business and not make it impossible to grow beyond the status of a small business (owned by a single individual), we have to establish certains rights and responsibilities, and make them as clear as possible. This is the cornerstone of our laws which govern businesses (the aforementioned rights and responsibilities). Again, much of our economy is built on this, and Americans would certainly not enjoy our high standard of living without it. Without these rules, rights, and responsibilities, we would not have a stock market, and companies would not be able to do things like raise money for high-ticket infrastructure items -- like a telephone network, cable TV, large international data pipes, or private communications satellites. Furthermore, it is important to indemnify shareholders...for example -- if the Coca Cola corporation kills a person and you are a shareholder, you shouldn't be held criminally responsible. To take it a step further, if you hold shares in a Mutual Fund, which also owns shares in the Coca Cola corporation (maybe even unbeknownst to yo
What a load of horse crap. Local record stores were going the way of the dinosaur long before illegal downloads. The Best Buys of the world, which subsidized below-cost album sales in order to attract buyers to their higher-margin electronic gear are what drove the local record store out of the market. The situation was made worse by cheap albums being sold via mail-order online distributors. (Made cheap by the high volume of the online retailers).
I don't know how much money the record stores and IP owners lost on online piracy. The truth is that nobody really knows. Record companies exaggerate one way, and the free-everything people exaggerate the other way. However, it seems pretty reasonable to assume that with college kid dollars going into online music stores and forced buy-ins to the university music repository, the dollars will not flow into local record stores.
Besides, the recording industry could care less about the mom and pop record stores. Those guys sold in crappy volume compared to the larger chains. Further, the local stores sold indy music, and any profits from that never touched the coffers of the RIAA member companies.
Sherman/RIAA have to know that they're bullshitting. I mean, these are shrewd businesspeople. I can see right through the bullshit -- and I'm just some dork posting on Slashdot. This stuff is really simple -- do they think that this will pass muster with most of the American public? We're not that dumb, are we?
You mean a radical change like...high quality recording equipment becoming cheaper, which will drive down the cost of studio time and thus drop the cost of album production? Another radical change that may help to flatten the marketplace is an Internet distribution model.
As far as I can tell, RIAA (and its member companies) do the following:
Of these, the content production/marketing/distribution are the only parts of their profit chain. With studio time getting cheaper, and with home recording studios becoming a reality for the average hobbyist, RIAA's part in production is at risk. With an Internet marketplace, distribution is also at risk. Two out of three parts of RIAA's parofit chain are directly threatened. RIAA members are still able to market their product, and the indy marketplace doesn't have this down yet...especially because this is the part that takes money. RIAA/members may be able to use their marketing dollars to adapt to the new marketplace, but I (frankly) don't see these dinosaurs adapting. They have shown little adaptation to the Internet marketplace thus far.
Rather than adapting, RIAA has resisted, showing their sense of entitlement to a profit. Profits don't come from entitlement -- they come from innovation. If businesses want to sit on their laurels and watch the dollars roll in, they will be surpassed by the next guy, who is motivated to find a way in.
So...they've got lobbying power. What's your point? Shouldn't businesses have the right to look after their interests (whether or not your agree with those interests)? I mean, if you can write your congressman, or have a group like the EFF or the ACLU trying to stop interests like the RIAA, why can't those groups do the same to protect what they view as their interests? I know that you never explicitly said it -- but you've implied that they shouldn't be able to do this. Is it because you think that they're wrong, or because they have more resources than you? IMO, yours is a defeatist attitude. Have you done anything to stop the RIAA's foray into legislature (like written your congress critters or donated to the EFF), or just accepted defeat and complain about it on slashdot?
I got HL2 for free with a graphics card purchase. I downloaded the game via Steam, and remained skeptical throughout the process. To my surprise, it worked very well. When I bought a new computer, I was able to install Steam on the new machine, sign into the original account, and move the game content over my local network. It worked fine, no problems.
As far as the 30,000 users disabled...your assumption that every account that Valve disabled was a legitimately purchased copy is quite a stretch. In fact, I'd say that the chances are greater that the people who didn't call in to get their account fixed were likely not legitimate users. I know that if my account were disabled, I would simply contact Valve and ask them to fix it. If they asked why I was installing it on two computers, I'd explain why, and suggest that they fix their system to allow for this.
Copy protection for games is a fact. There is no getting around it. Nobody likes it. Entering serial numbers for games is stupid, and treats customers like theives. Further, as a paying customer, I'm paying for the cost of their copy protection model. Very lame. However, this is how the industry works, and consumers have made it clear that they don't really care (with their dollars). I like my games more than my principle that serial numbers and copy protection are lame, so I put up with it.
The traditional retail distribution model leaves something to be desired. The transition to a download-based model seems like a foregone conclusion. However, it makes sense to me that developers still want some assurances that their new distribution model won't be a piracy free-for-all, and Steam actually does seem pretty good at prevent casual piracy. As a consumer, I like Steam because I don't have to spend extra money on a paper box for a game, and don't have to deal with serial numbers. I have an account, and that tracks what I own. Do you have a better suggestion for how developers can protect their content using this new distribution model, or is this just about a desire for free games?
Actually, hybrid cars dump their excess pollutants into the air without care too.
Look at the real world averages of MPG. Buy a diesel, have a nicer car with better fuel economy. If you really care about the environment, get a Greasecar (which burns used cooking oil) or burn 100% biodiesel -- both release ZERO net carbon dioxide into the air...unlike a Hybrid, which dumps carbon into the air whenever you fire the motor up (every time you run on the highway or idle to charge the battery).
The majority of US power plants burn coal, which is pretty unfriendly to our environment. I'm all for nuclear power, but most self-dubbed environmentalists don't seem to like it (for the same reason they seem to like electric cars). In any case, back to diesel -- it doesn't require any fossil fuel to run. Diesel was originally designed to run off of vegetable oil. Fossil fuel was later adapted to be burned by diesel because fossil oil is so damned cheap.
My point: if you want to make a statement, buy a hybrid. If you actually want your travel to have less impact on the environment, buy a diesel.