I wonder how successful Kennedy would have been without the Soviet 'threat' (red scare).
I would argue that our problem isn't the lack of a visionary leader, but a lack of long term motivating factor so that a program can maintain progress for 15+ years. Congress and the Presidency change too often for long term projects to survive.
And unfortunately, the only long term motivating factor that I can see working in our political climate is something like a cold war with China.
I was trying to find that documentary about those guys that walked across America to specifically challenge cops who demanded ID. In summary, it was basically 90% of the cops wrongly detained them (or ticketed) over not producing ID, and 10% of the cops actually knew the law, and let them go after some simple questioning to determine if they were up to no good or just walking (they also had on silly costumes sometimes to get attention).
So you're right that cops have effectively been allowed to do unlawful things. But it still isn't the law, and you are still able to win in court. I doubt the same could be said of Nazi Germany, which is what jabberw0k said the USA had become, and to which I responded.
From reading the Miller Test, it seems that a normal sex scene or two in a game wouldn't be considered obscene, and would therefore be protected 'speech'.
" Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law,
Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.[3] "
It could, however, be labeled obscene at a state level, so of course no video game maker wants to lose entire state markets. Personally I think it's silly that either sex or violence is restricted in any media because there is next to zero proof that it has any negative effects on adults or children. (That said, I (irrationally, because I have no proof of negative effects) still wouldn't let children play mortal kombat).
I won't weigh in on whether Mortal Kombat should be allowed to go as far as they did, but I find it interesting to see that as graphics have improved, the violence debate appears to be increasing.
Mortal Kombat fatalities have always been very brutal. But as graphics are approaching TV show quality, it is starting to turn some stomachs.
Once game graphics become 100% indistinguishable from TV/movies realism levels, I suspect a future supreme court make a different decision.
From your description, it seems that Texas is only less judgmental because the culture there lives by a "don't ask, don't tell policy". In that situation, there isn't anything for someone to judge, because no new idea/lifestyle is ever confronted, discussed, considered, or accepted.
I live in Portland OR, and while I respect a person or community who wants to live in a non-confrontational (don't ask don't tell) manner, I believe that some things do deserve to be judged. There are unhealthy opinions out there, and discussing, debating, and learning about each others beliefs is the only way to better ourselves.
Certain segments of our society have occasionally become more or less liberal in any given period of history, but that has never extended to Radio or TV. I don't recall any nudity on TV in the 60's.
I'd say that the drug selling/using, and subsequent high number of arrests, is more a symptom of the real problem: the poverty cycle in the inner cities of the USA. Poverty always, with any population, means more violence, drugs, less education, and with that more arrests.
There are a ton of factors involved (some levels of racism included), but the point is that it is a pretty hard climb to get out of an inner city if you are an average person, with an average person's motivation level. Just imagine being raised and surrounded by people who were not educated, did not value education, fed you poorly, couldn't help you with homework, in a community with horrible schools, in an neighborhood with high crime and gangs, etc.... you need to be above average, and immune to peer pressure, to climb out of that situation.
Add to the fact that when you exist on the poverty line, any slight downturn in the economy can basically make you homeless over night. Any progress you made can be reset at a moments notice. Interesting stats: Remembering the millions the American Dream left behind.
You are free to walk with no ID cards. You are free to drive if you have a driver's license. You are free to sail across the ocean. We are still free to associate with whoever we want, wherever we want. But because that doesn't extend to every mode of transportation doesn't mean freedom of association is being violated.
Now, once we have space colonies and the single only way to get there is to fly, then you might have a point.
(I agree with your point in general though, our liberties have really diminished over time. )
The same could be said about search engines. Who would have guessed that google's plain, ad free, search home page, would take over Yahoo and other serach engines of the time.
What your concerns boil down to, is how does one monetize a social network site. Its obvious that google has a very good track record monetizing things that other companies couldn't do without going 'full evil'.
The could also afford to operate at a loss until the user base was gigantic. If the service is simple, useful, has unobtrusive ads, and works better than facebook, users will start migrating. Once the user base is large enough, momentum keeps it going, and that tiny targeted ad brings in serious cash.
I could press a button right now and have FF5 on 40k desktops by midnight..
Well since you have that control, I assume you can wait any length of time you choose. Web standards evolve slowly, and Firefox builds to web standards. Even if Mozilla releases a new version every week, there shouldn't be any reason for you to have to upgrade. Firefox 3.6 still works fine to browse the web.
I'm not sure what level of control you have, but we have local plugin repositories for the various Firefox versions. I have Firefox 3.6 and 4.0 running on the same computer, each with their appropriate plugins. You can't lock your users down to using a version of Firefox that has been tested?
What sites are you seeing a decline in Firefox use on? Our community college web site from March 2010 to now had about 16,000,000 visits, with a very steady 30% using Firefox.
I posted up above about that very statement by Scalia.
It just doesn't make sense to me why history has anything to do with it. Both sex and violence in books, movies, etc.. have been protected by the first amendment for a very long time.
Scalia's reason has no legal weight (I assume he had more reasons though...I hope). A post higher up mentioned that one of the legal precedents for banning/restricting speech if it can cause immediate harm. Yelling fire in a theater, inciting violence, etc.. Scalia's reason would have made more sense if he said that cases x,y,z have shown that pornography is harmful to young children, whereas cases a,b,c have shown that violence has been around for a very long time with minimal harm done to children's development.
Instead he just says, "well, kids have always had violence, so its protected. Whereas kids haven't been exposed to a lot of sexuality, so its not protected".
What I don't understand is why the court can make a ruling like this about violent 'speech' but in the same ruling elude to it being alright to limit sex 'speech'.
One justice explains that historically we have regulated sex, but historically we have not regulated violence. And that was partially his basis for protecting violent content based on the first amendment.
It seems to me that history shouldn't have any impact on what is or isn't free speech. Both sex and violence in a game, book, movie, etc.. have been upheld as an artistic right under the first amendment many times. Why our historical regulation of sex has bearing on whether the first amendment protects it isn't logical.
Real designers study UX design and perform comprehensive useability tests against a wide range of different customers. No software developer is going to have the time to do that level of inquiry.
Your high school had classes in things like the philosophy of mind? Or required you to write 30-40 page papers? There's a major difference between basic reading and writing, and learning how to remain concise, focused, and coherent on a single subject over 40 pages.
Likewise on reason. I don't know of any high schools that teach formal logic. You may become better at comprehending and reasoning as a result of exposure to general high school courses, but you won't come out knowing things about the theory of knowledge or formal logic.
I wish my high school had, but those things I was only exposed to at a University level.
I think we'll like reach a limit where it doesn't make sense to have any more data, because our senses can't make use of it. At least for audio/video in games, tv, and music. That seems to be one of the reasons that blue ray is adopting so slowly. People just don't see a noticeable difference between a dvd and a blue ray, unless they own a really large tv.
Now for other things, your probably right. "Dad, why is the library of Congress taking so long to download?":)
Who has actually had any significant issues with the recent upgrades?
I see a lot of people freaking out, but there hasn't been one person in my entire IT (developers, plugin heavy) office that had a problem with the upgrade. We each probably use 5-10 plugins.
And as far as I can tell, each new release has continue to support web standards, so it's not like any properly designed web site is going to fail. Now if you're in the boat of supporting some really old web code or web apps, I can understand that a browser moving to a 'agile/rapid' development cycle could pose some headaches, but that is just yet another good reason to start coding to standards. And coding so that dynamic features fail gracefully if your conditions are meant. Flashy/jquery/fancy stuff should add value to a site, not be necessary for it to function.
Most web developers I know just code to standards and that works for the vast majority of situations. And of course coding so that things fail gracefully means that even if a new browser update comes out that breaks some aspect of your site, it isn't a major detriment for users, just a minor annoyance. For instance, if you have fancy css3/jquery collapsible menu items, make it so that if it breaks, the menu just remains expanded. It might look a bit funny, but the user can still reach the link.
As long as wc3 standards are supported release by release, there should be close to zero issues for web development.
** And yes, yes, it's stealing to view a website without viewing the ads. When adverts don't 1) take up half the page with all the bouncing and the colours and the sounds and memememememepayattentiontoMENOW for crap I have zero interest in 2) use up large chunks of limited, metered bandwidth 3) provide a massive vector for drive-by malware and 4) make the page load grind to a halt while it waits for the bloody ad server or google analytics or whatever to kick in, feel free to get back to me. For my own use, I do whitelist some sites I care about that don't give separately give me an option to disable ads.
I don't know why anyone still thinks its stealing if you block ads. It is common in most households nowadays to have a DVR that lets you fast foward or skip ads. And its interesting to me that if I see a humorous or novel TV add (when fast forwarding), I'll often stop and watch it. The internet could learn something from that.
But don't try to make wind/solar artificially cost effective my making coal/natural gas/nuclear more expensive by taxing it via "carbon credits" or some other half baked idea.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder how successful Kennedy would have been without the Soviet 'threat' (red scare).
I would argue that our problem isn't the lack of a visionary leader, but a lack of long term motivating factor so that a program can maintain progress for 15+ years. Congress and the Presidency change too often for long term projects to survive.
And unfortunately, the only long term motivating factor that I can see working in our political climate is something like a cold war with China.
I was trying to find that documentary about those guys that walked across America to specifically challenge cops who demanded ID. In summary, it was basically 90% of the cops wrongly detained them (or ticketed) over not producing ID, and 10% of the cops actually knew the law, and let them go after some simple questioning to determine if they were up to no good or just walking (they also had on silly costumes sometimes to get attention).
So you're right that cops have effectively been allowed to do unlawful things. But it still isn't the law, and you are still able to win in court. I doubt the same could be said of Nazi Germany, which is what jabberw0k said the USA had become, and to which I responded.
From reading the Miller Test, it seems that a normal sex scene or two in a game wouldn't be considered obscene, and would therefore be protected 'speech'.
" Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law,
Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.[3]
"
It could, however, be labeled obscene at a state level, so of course no video game maker wants to lose entire state markets. Personally I think it's silly that either sex or violence is restricted in any media because there is next to zero proof that it has any negative effects on adults or children. (That said, I (irrationally, because I have no proof of negative effects) still wouldn't let children play mortal kombat).
I won't weigh in on whether Mortal Kombat should be allowed to go as far as they did, but I find it interesting to see that as graphics have improved, the violence debate appears to be increasing.
Mortal Kombat fatalities have always been very brutal. But as graphics are approaching TV show quality, it is starting to turn some stomachs.
Once game graphics become 100% indistinguishable from TV/movies realism levels, I suspect a future supreme court make a different decision.
From your description, it seems that Texas is only less judgmental because the culture there lives by a "don't ask, don't tell policy". In that situation, there isn't anything for someone to judge, because no new idea/lifestyle is ever confronted, discussed, considered, or accepted.
I live in Portland OR, and while I respect a person or community who wants to live in a non-confrontational (don't ask don't tell) manner, I believe that some things do deserve to be judged. There are unhealthy opinions out there, and discussing, debating, and learning about each others beliefs is the only way to better ourselves.
Roaring 20's, etc..
Certain segments of our society have occasionally become more or less liberal in any given period of history, but that has never extended to Radio or TV. I don't recall any nudity on TV in the 60's.
I'd say that the drug selling/using, and subsequent high number of arrests, is more a symptom of the real problem: the poverty cycle in the inner cities of the USA. Poverty always, with any population, means more violence, drugs, less education, and with that more arrests.
There are a ton of factors involved (some levels of racism included), but the point is that it is a pretty hard climb to get out of an inner city if you are an average person, with an average person's motivation level. Just imagine being raised and surrounded by people who were not educated, did not value education, fed you poorly, couldn't help you with homework, in a community with horrible schools, in an neighborhood with high crime and gangs, etc.... you need to be above average, and immune to peer pressure, to climb out of that situation.
Add to the fact that when you exist on the poverty line, any slight downturn in the economy can basically make you homeless over night. Any progress you made can be reset at a moments notice. Interesting stats: Remembering the millions the American Dream left behind.
You are free to walk with no ID cards. You are free to drive if you have a driver's license. You are free to sail across the ocean. We are still free to associate with whoever we want, wherever we want. But because that doesn't extend to every mode of transportation doesn't mean freedom of association is being violated.
Now, once we have space colonies and the single only way to get there is to fly, then you might have a point.
(I agree with your point in general though, our liberties have really diminished over time. )
The same could be said about search engines. Who would have guessed that google's plain, ad free, search home page, would take over Yahoo and other serach engines of the time.
What your concerns boil down to, is how does one monetize a social network site. Its obvious that google has a very good track record monetizing things that other companies couldn't do without going 'full evil'.
The could also afford to operate at a loss until the user base was gigantic. If the service is simple, useful, has unobtrusive ads, and works better than facebook, users will start migrating. Once the user base is large enough, momentum keeps it going, and that tiny targeted ad brings in serious cash.
I could press a button right now and have FF5 on 40k desktops by midnight. .
Well since you have that control, I assume you can wait any length of time you choose. Web standards evolve slowly, and Firefox builds to web standards. Even if Mozilla releases a new version every week, there shouldn't be any reason for you to have to upgrade. Firefox 3.6 still works fine to browse the web.
I'm not sure what level of control you have, but we have local plugin repositories for the various Firefox versions. I have Firefox 3.6 and 4.0 running on the same computer, each with their appropriate plugins. You can't lock your users down to using a version of Firefox that has been tested?
What sites are you seeing a decline in Firefox use on? Our community college web site from March 2010 to now had about 16,000,000 visits, with a very steady 30% using Firefox.
Google this phrase:
rootkit pci device site:blackhat.com
It should pull up a link to a pdf explaining how its done.
And yet somehow that same court (Scalia), in the same case, said the same is not true for sexually explicit material.
Score one for selective enforcement.
I posted up above about that very statement by Scalia.
It just doesn't make sense to me why history has anything to do with it. Both sex and violence in books, movies, etc.. have been protected by the first amendment for a very long time.
Scalia's reason has no legal weight (I assume he had more reasons though...I hope). A post higher up mentioned that one of the legal precedents for banning/restricting speech if it can cause immediate harm. Yelling fire in a theater, inciting violence, etc.. Scalia's reason would have made more sense if he said that cases x,y,z have shown that pornography is harmful to young children, whereas cases a,b,c have shown that violence has been around for a very long time with minimal harm done to children's development.
Instead he just says, "well, kids have always had violence, so its protected. Whereas kids haven't been exposed to a lot of sexuality, so its not protected".
What I don't understand is why the court can make a ruling like this about violent 'speech' but in the same ruling elude to it being alright to limit sex 'speech'.
One justice explains that historically we have regulated sex, but historically we have not regulated violence. And that was partially his basis for protecting violent content based on the first amendment.
It seems to me that history shouldn't have any impact on what is or isn't free speech. Both sex and violence in a game, book, movie, etc.. have been upheld as an artistic right under the first amendment many times. Why our historical regulation of sex has bearing on whether the first amendment protects it isn't logical.
Real designers study UX design and perform comprehensive useability tests against a wide range of different customers. No software developer is going to have the time to do that level of inquiry.
Your high school had classes in things like the philosophy of mind? Or required you to write 30-40 page papers? There's a major difference between basic reading and writing, and learning how to remain concise, focused, and coherent on a single subject over 40 pages.
Likewise on reason. I don't know of any high schools that teach formal logic. You may become better at comprehending and reasoning as a result of exposure to general high school courses, but you won't come out knowing things about the theory of knowledge or formal logic.
I wish my high school had, but those things I was only exposed to at a University level.
Amazon unbox does that with movies you purchase. Some sort of drm, but it is stored locally.
I think we'll like reach a limit where it doesn't make sense to have any more data, because our senses can't make use of it. At least for audio/video in games, tv, and music. That seems to be one of the reasons that blue ray is adopting so slowly. People just don't see a noticeable difference between a dvd and a blue ray, unless they own a really large tv.
Now for other things, your probably right. "Dad, why is the library of Congress taking so long to download?":)
Who has actually had any significant issues with the recent upgrades?
I see a lot of people freaking out, but there hasn't been one person in my entire IT (developers, plugin heavy) office that had a problem with the upgrade. We each probably use 5-10 plugins.
And as far as I can tell, each new release has continue to support web standards, so it's not like any properly designed web site is going to fail. Now if you're in the boat of supporting some really old web code or web apps, I can understand that a browser moving to a 'agile/rapid' development cycle could pose some headaches, but that is just yet another good reason to start coding to standards. And coding so that dynamic features fail gracefully if your conditions are meant. Flashy/jquery/fancy stuff should add value to a site, not be necessary for it to function.
Most web developers I know just code to standards and that works for the vast majority of situations. And of course coding so that things fail gracefully means that even if a new browser update comes out that breaks some aspect of your site, it isn't a major detriment for users, just a minor annoyance. For instance, if you have fancy css3/jquery collapsible menu items, make it so that if it breaks, the menu just remains expanded. It might look a bit funny, but the user can still reach the link.
As long as wc3 standards are supported release by release, there should be close to zero issues for web development.
** And yes, yes, it's stealing to view a website without viewing the ads. When adverts don't 1) take up half the page with all the bouncing and the colours and the sounds and memememememepayattentiontoMENOW for crap I have zero interest in 2) use up large chunks of limited, metered bandwidth 3) provide a massive vector for drive-by malware and 4) make the page load grind to a halt while it waits for the bloody ad server or google analytics or whatever to kick in, feel free to get back to me. For my own use, I do whitelist some sites I care about that don't give separately give me an option to disable ads.
I don't know why anyone still thinks its stealing if you block ads. It is common in most households nowadays to have a DVR that lets you fast foward or skip ads. And its interesting to me that if I see a humorous or novel TV add (when fast forwarding), I'll often stop and watch it. The internet could learn something from that.
It is really prevalent in the web design/development world. 'Agile' approach.
I upgraded and nothing broke. DNS Flusher, Firebug, Page Saver, User Agent Switcher, Web Developer.
If you have users that require you to install a browser for them, I'm guessing they aren't users who make heavy use of plugins.
But don't try to make wind/solar artificially cost effective my making coal/natural gas/nuclear more expensive by taxing it via "carbon credits" or some other half baked idea.
Maybe we could start by ending the subsidizes that make oil and coal cheaper. http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/energy/subsidies/ check out Exhibit 28-5