One thing I find ironic is that the Zeeland, Michigan Public Schools took Harry Potter off the shelves. The Zeeland Christian Schools (run by a relatively conservative denomination of which I'm member) kept them on the shelves.
I know this because my mom was a teacher in the Zeeland Christian Schools and is currently a media specialist (aka librarian) for them. She likes the books quite a lot herself. She had nothing to to do with the fact that they're still on the shelves though.
I'd say that some Christians try to ban them, but far from all. In fact, I'd say that quite a lot of them like the books.
I suppose it is survival against all odds if what you get out of roleplaying games is the opportunity to kill monsters. A computer game can do that better and with less hassle (and getting one's friends in one room can be a major hassle).
If what you get out of roleplaying games is the opportunity to hang around with your friends, it's not survival against all odds at all. Computers don't do that better.
If what you primarily want to get out of role playing games is the improvised co-creation of a story, it's also not too much of a surprise. Computers allow you to create a story of a kind, but you can only interact with the world in ways that the designers allowed for (I admit that some give you a lot of possibilities).
Basically, table top gaming scratches a different itch. When I play roleplaying games, I come up with an idea for a game, campaign or character and get an experience more similar to creating something. When I play a computer game, I use other people's pre-defined characters or character concepts, explore a pre-defined world and solve pre-defined puzzles.
Once upon a time I was a sociology major/grad student. From what I remember, profs in both schools I attended liked to tell the following story:
Back when the baby boomers were kids, a sociologist predicted that there would be a "crime wave" when they came of age. Most crimes are committed by 16-30 year old men (I'm sure I have the ages wrong, but something like that) and thus once the baby boomers hit those ages, there were more crimes than usual.
Since then of course, police departments have claimed that better police methods have lowered the crime wave, but the reality is that the baby boomers have left the age bracket that does the crime.
Similarly, this study only proves that people who download files for free also are in the same age group as the people most likely to commit crimes.
My wife is a social worker and her place of work has used this program for at least a couple years now. In fact she worked with it's predecessor "Anchor," a system that did much the same thing (and horrifyingly was a database that used Microsoft Access 2.0 as it's dbms)
In short, the government has been using this system and similar systems since at least the middle of the Clinton administration.
As such, I hesitate to regard it as part of the administration's evil plan to take over the world. Especially if they're still using Access 2.0.
While it's not impossible that something like it could be used to create TIA, it seems unlikely. Thi s particular database system is fairly specialized to track use of services by those in poverty.
Social work agencies are required to track these things as part of their grants. For some reason the government wants to know it's funds aren't being wasted.
In this sense it's a good thing. It's also a good thing in the sense that it helps avoid fraud on the part of the person wanting the aid (let me assure you that this sort of fraud exists...).
That being said, I don't at all like the idea that the Secret Service can take a peak at any time and my wife will probably be forwarding info on all this to her supervisor tomorrow...
Seems like this is what they do nowadays despite the fact that their copyrights will last for nearly a century!
Well, that's true. That is what companies do now, but I'd argue that shortening the copyright length to 14 years gives them even less incentive to put out good stuff than they would have at present.
If you've got only 14 years to make a profit before everyone can take it and make a profit, you think in the short term. If you have some confidence that a revenue stream will be there in the future you can think in the longer term, nurture new and interesting ideas, and use the endless stream of crap to help support the new and interesting ideas.
That's how the publishing industry has worked in the past and how smaller publishing houses work today.
Bigger houses tend to be much more market driven, much like the music labels and movie studios.
Knowing this, it might be worth asking what changed between now and the past.
Part of it is simply a greater understanding of demographics. Due to better techniques of market research, companies can make better guesses as to which groups actually buy what they're selling and attempt to sell art that people actually want (or that brings them the most profit).
An example: Despite being canceled, Star Trek ruled the reruns in syndication for years. Why? Did the powers that be decide it was a great show? No. They found out that the audience had a lot of money to spend.
At the same time shows with a rural focus (like Green Acres, the Beverly Hillbillies) were cancelled despite greater viewership because their audiences weren't so attractive.
This kind of demographic focus makes it easier to put out crap in the first place because market research firms (I've worked for a large one) can only usefully ask questions about familiar ideas.
New ideas are too hard to explain--and often affect the culture at large differently than they do a focus group. As such, music labels/movie studios/publishing houses tend to put out stuff they think will make a profit. And thus they tend to rehash things.
I think this has a much stronger effect on the quality of what you see than copyright. And while I think copyright should not be seventy years or even fifty after the person's death, I do think that a person should have copyright over things that they've created for their lifetime.
Big companies don't deserve a massive copyright length, but the creators do. The salary of most professional writers is closer to that of a schoolteacher than it is to Stephen King. Why make it harder for them?
Making it harder to survive as a writer seems unlikely to result in more good stories.
As such, I'm all for putting things into the public domain sooner, but I'd suggest doing it in a way that allows the creators a good chance to make a living, the distributors a reasonable chance to make a profit, and a realistic chance for good art to be created.
I agree with you that copyright needs reform. The creator's lifetime plus 70 years seems much too long to me.
But I don't think it's as simple as making the copyright length 14 years.
To my mind there should be at least two major considerations in deciding how copyright should work:
Does the author have control of his/her own work?
What does the length cause the (movie studio/record label/publishing house) to do?
I'd argue that shorter copyright laws would likely cause the creation of more crap and not less in that companies would tend to pump out stuff that seems likely to earn a profit right now rather than in a couple years.
If there's no future, there's no reason to keep much of a backlist in print, and no reason to nurture an author/band/whatever... Just sell whatever's hot now. Also, you can distribute stuff that's lost copyright cause that way you don't have to pay the creator...
Worse, to my mind, having an author lose control of their own work in 14 years just seems unfair. If you created it, you should be able to control it as long as you live--at least if it's art...
Copyright for the lifetime of the author seems like a better idea to me. That way, the various distribution companies will do their best to get things sold while the author is still living and can actually benefit...
Lifetime of the author plus 20 years also has some good points in that if an author dies young, at least his/her family will recieve royalties for while.
Another possibility might be staying with your job. I'm not suggesting that you divorce, but you might want to try a commuter marriage for a short time.
Despite what you might expect, statistics show that people in commuter marriages are actually less likely to divorce than married people who are actually living together. At least according to the textbook of my sociology of the family class...
There are obvious problems (like not being anywhere near each other), but you can arrange things such that you see each other on weekends.
My Dad's a college professor and spends a semester in Washington D.C. every 2-4 years. My Mom stays home (she's an elementary school teacher). So far (some 20 years into this arrangement) it goes okay.
Granted it's not the same thing as staying home while your significant other begins her career, but at least for a couple years, it might be a worth considering.
At any rate it's better than heading off to get another degree (as suggested above...).
Of course, Lyndon Larouche also believes that the Jews and the English have evolved into species separate from humankind.
Not the same one, mind you, completely different ones.
And a member of his political party believes drug pushers should be hunted in the street with tanks.
In short, Larouche is utterly and completely bugfuck.
That being said, he is entertaining in a completely unintentional way...
My Webhosting Provider Actually Did this Recently
on
Mobile IT Education?
·
· Score: 1
I don't know all the details, but a local non-profit (local to Grand Rapids, Michigan anyway) recently did exactly what you're talking about.
I doubt that their budget was very large. On the other hand, they may have just gotten a grant (standard procedure for a non-profit).
Here's what they call what they did:
"MOLLIE (Mobile Learning Laboratory for Information Education--20 laptops connected wirelessly to hub which is connected to Internet)".
If you're interested, I can connect you with Ray Hoag and Dirk Koning (the people behind the project.
Otherwise, you can probably get in touch with them through http://www.grcmc.org.
Re:Lord of Light as CIA ruse?
on
Lord of Light
·
· Score: 1
Zelazny's "mysterious" government job?
Zelazny worked as a claims representative for Social Security. While I admit that I'm not sure what a claims representative does, I'm betting it doesn't involve epsionage.
While the ideal is that Plex86 will support all operating systems, I assume that you've made choices as to which ones you're going to work on first.
Your site mentioned Dos, NT, Win95, Linux and QNX as OSes that PLex86 currently runs.
As someone who tends to use FreeBSD when I use a free OS, I'm curious as to where the BSDs rate in your priorities and what about BeOS, Plan 9, etc...
Slashdot Mirror
If you go to Monkey House Games' website (owned by V&V's creators), you'll find that the 3rd edition is in the works.
She did try that. It went nowhere with Amazon. They won't relist your ebook until the trademark owner says it's okay.
When she contacted Games Workshop, they made it quite clear that they would not do that.
One thing I find ironic is that the Zeeland, Michigan Public Schools took Harry Potter off the shelves. The Zeeland Christian Schools (run by a relatively conservative denomination of which I'm member) kept them on the shelves.
I know this because my mom was a teacher in the Zeeland Christian Schools and is currently a media specialist (aka librarian) for them. She likes the books quite a lot herself. She had nothing to to do with the fact that they're still on the shelves though.
I'd say that some Christians try to ban them, but far from all. In fact, I'd say that quite a lot of them like the books.
I suppose it is survival against all odds if what you get out of roleplaying games is the opportunity to kill monsters. A computer game can do that better and with less hassle (and getting one's friends in one room can be a major hassle).
If what you get out of roleplaying games is the opportunity to hang around with your friends, it's not survival against all odds at all. Computers don't do that better.
If what you primarily want to get out of role playing games is the improvised co-creation of a story, it's also not too much of a surprise. Computers allow you to create a story of a kind, but you can only interact with the world in ways that the designers allowed for (I admit that some give you a lot of possibilities).
Basically, table top gaming scratches a different itch. When I play roleplaying games, I come up with an idea for a game, campaign or character and get an experience more similar to creating something. When I play a computer game, I use other people's pre-defined characters or character concepts, explore a pre-defined world and solve pre-defined puzzles.
Once upon a time I was a sociology major/grad student. From what I remember, profs in both schools I attended liked to tell the following story:
Back when the baby boomers were kids, a sociologist predicted that there would be a "crime wave" when they came of age. Most crimes are committed by 16-30 year old men (I'm sure I have the ages wrong, but something like that) and thus once the baby boomers hit those ages, there were more crimes than usual.
Since then of course, police departments have claimed that better police methods have lowered the crime wave, but the reality is that the baby boomers have left the age bracket that does the crime.
Similarly, this study only proves that people who download files for free also are in the same age group as the people most likely to commit crimes.
This is not exactly news.
My wife is a social worker and her place of work has used this program for at least a couple years now. In fact she worked with it's predecessor "Anchor," a system that did much the same thing (and horrifyingly was a database that used Microsoft Access 2.0 as it's dbms)
In short, the government has been using this system and similar systems since at least the middle of the Clinton administration.
As such, I hesitate to regard it as part of the administration's evil plan to take over the world. Especially if they're still using Access 2.0.
While it's not impossible that something like it could be used to create TIA, it seems unlikely. Thi s particular database system is fairly specialized to track use of services by those in poverty.
Social work agencies are required to track these things as part of their grants. For some reason the government wants to know it's funds aren't being wasted.
In this sense it's a good thing. It's also a good thing in the sense that it helps avoid fraud on the part of the person wanting the aid (let me assure you that this sort of fraud exists...).
That being said, I don't at all like the idea that the Secret Service can take a peak at any time and my wife will probably be forwarding info on all this to her supervisor tomorrow...
Seems like this is what they do nowadays despite the fact that their copyrights will last for nearly a century!
Well, that's true. That is what companies do now, but I'd argue that shortening the copyright length to 14 years gives them even less incentive to put out good stuff than they would have at present.
If you've got only 14 years to make a profit before everyone can take it and make a profit, you think in the short term. If you have some confidence that a revenue stream will be there in the future you can think in the longer term, nurture new and interesting ideas, and use the endless stream of crap to help support the new and interesting ideas.
That's how the publishing industry has worked in the past and how smaller publishing houses work today.
Bigger houses tend to be much more market driven, much like the music labels and movie studios.
Knowing this, it might be worth asking what changed between now and the past.
Part of it is simply a greater understanding of demographics. Due to better techniques of market research, companies can make better guesses as to which groups actually buy what they're selling and attempt to sell art that people actually want (or that brings them the most profit).
An example: Despite being canceled, Star Trek ruled the reruns in syndication for years. Why? Did the powers that be decide it was a great show? No. They found out that the audience had a lot of money to spend.
At the same time shows with a rural focus (like Green Acres, the Beverly Hillbillies) were cancelled despite greater viewership because their audiences weren't so attractive.
This kind of demographic focus makes it easier to put out crap in the first place because market research firms (I've worked for a large one) can only usefully ask questions about familiar ideas.
New ideas are too hard to explain--and often affect the culture at large differently than they do a focus group. As such, music labels/movie studios/publishing houses tend to put out stuff they think will make a profit. And thus they tend to rehash things.
I think this has a much stronger effect on the quality of what you see than copyright. And while I think copyright should not be seventy years or even fifty after the person's death, I do think that a person should have copyright over things that they've created for their lifetime.
Big companies don't deserve a massive copyright length, but the creators do. The salary of most professional writers is closer to that of a schoolteacher than it is to Stephen King. Why make it harder for them?
Making it harder to survive as a writer seems unlikely to result in more good stories.
As such, I'm all for putting things into the public domain sooner, but I'd suggest doing it in a way that allows the creators a good chance to make a living, the distributors a reasonable chance to make a profit, and a realistic chance for good art to be created.
I don't think a 14 year copyright will do that.
But I don't think it's as simple as making the copyright length 14 years.
To my mind there should be at least two major considerations in deciding how copyright should work:
I'd argue that shorter copyright laws would likely cause the creation of more crap and not less in that companies would tend to pump out stuff that seems likely to earn a profit right now rather than in a couple years.
If there's no future, there's no reason to keep much of a backlist in print, and no reason to nurture an author/band/whatever... Just sell whatever's hot now. Also, you can distribute stuff that's lost copyright cause that way you don't have to pay the creator...
Worse, to my mind, having an author lose control of their own work in 14 years just seems unfair. If you created it, you should be able to control it as long as you live--at least if it's art...
Copyright for the lifetime of the author seems like a better idea to me. That way, the various distribution companies will do their best to get things sold while the author is still living and can actually benefit...
Lifetime of the author plus 20 years also has some good points in that if an author dies young, at least his/her family will recieve royalties for while.
Another possibility might be staying with your job. I'm not suggesting that you divorce, but you might want to try a commuter marriage for a short time.
Despite what you might expect, statistics show that people in commuter marriages are actually less likely to divorce than married people who are actually living together. At least according to the textbook of my sociology of the family class...
There are obvious problems (like not being anywhere near each other), but you can arrange things such that you see each other on weekends.
My Dad's a college professor and spends a semester in Washington D.C. every 2-4 years. My Mom stays home (she's an elementary school teacher). So far (some 20 years into this arrangement) it goes okay.
Granted it's not the same thing as staying home while your significant other begins her career, but at least for a couple years, it might be a worth considering.
At any rate it's better than heading off to get another degree (as suggested above...).
Of course, Lyndon Larouche also believes that the Jews and the English have evolved into species separate from humankind.
Not the same one, mind you, completely different ones.
And a member of his political party believes drug pushers should be hunted in the street with tanks.
In short, Larouche is utterly and completely bugfuck.
That being said, he is entertaining in a completely unintentional way...
I don't know all the details, but a local non-profit (local to Grand Rapids, Michigan anyway) recently did exactly what you're talking about.
I doubt that their budget was very large. On the other hand, they may have just gotten a grant (standard procedure for a non-profit).
Here's what they call what they did:
"MOLLIE (Mobile Learning Laboratory for Information Education--20 laptops connected wirelessly to hub which is connected to Internet)".
If you're interested, I can connect you with Ray Hoag and Dirk Koning (the people behind the project.
Otherwise, you can probably get in touch with them through http://www.grcmc.org.
Zelazny's "mysterious" government job? Zelazny worked as a claims representative for Social Security. While I admit that I'm not sure what a claims representative does, I'm betting it doesn't involve epsionage.
While the ideal is that Plex86 will support all operating systems, I assume that you've made choices as to which ones you're going to work on first. Your site mentioned Dos, NT, Win95, Linux and QNX as OSes that PLex86 currently runs. As someone who tends to use FreeBSD when I use a free OS, I'm curious as to where the BSDs rate in your priorities and what about BeOS, Plan 9, etc...