Leaving aside the technical virtues or defects, which are only engineering issues after all, I think the failure of the Atoms for Peace program had more to do with its policy incompatibility with MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), than the above mentioned tech attributes. For instance, if nukes were generally useful, then you would have a hard time playing non-proliferation policies out. MAD was an evil idea to start with and its persistence has more to do with preserving our empire than with reasonable policy imperatives.
China never bought into MAD, never bought into nuclear non-proliferation, and perhaps its leadership is in some dimensions more sane than ours. I would cite aspects of the response of our elite to Reagan's much aligned "Strategic Defense Initiative" which at the root was an attempt by Reagan and others to end MAD. I would contrast this with the Chinese leadership committment to great development projects, analogous to for instance, our development of a transcontinental railroad among many others.
Obviously, they will consider use of new engineering techniques. There will be dangerous problems. It is well to remember both that once upon a time in our country, bridges regularly fell down, and that now they do not.
The Economist of September 30,2000 noted that "many economists think the dollar is overvalued, and vulnerable, not least because of America's huge and growing current-account deficit."
Deputy Bank of Japan Governor Yutaka Yamaguchi at a conference in Frankfurt two weeks ago warned of the proliferation of globalized leverage which could "cause the evaporation of market liquidity".
Do you agree with the Economist's and Yamaguchi's quoted assessments of our situation? What policies would you follow to prevent financial meltdown from US capital outflows and reverse leverage during your term of office?
My understanding is you have the military training causality backwards. Some developers started on the military training games and then went commericial. It may have now have gone back from commerical to military though. I do not know about that.
The basic observation to be made are that kids are infantile and suggestible. This is the nature of being a kid. If and when they mature, infantile rage for instance is either not experienced or bounded by other considerations. Suggestibility perhaps is not so extremely powerful. This is not to say that the world is such that nothing in it justifies rage in the mature person, but the issues tend to be other than damage to one's own personal ego.
Here is a URL that talks about this:
StarWars amd Littleton
I agree with you. Some subsidiary points:
1) In my personal experience, video games have an addictive component. Most people, even those like myself who are tired of the War on Drugs, would give credence to an argument that addictions that rise to the level of social problems need to be restricted. Closing out video games does not seem to me to cause unacceptable side-effects for a society.
2) Arguably, video games have a negative impact on some users beyond addiction, and since the typical user of concern is a child, it is normative in this society to consider restrictions. Typically, an age restriction passes constitutional muster here. Presumedly, in Malayasia, a ban passes muster.
3) Malayasia has had some success in fighting globalism. For instance, during the "Asian flu", they rejected IMF and World Bank programs, were successful in economic recovery, and our Vice President called for the overthrow of the government! They continue to be leaders in Asia in rejecting the "Washington Consenus". I suggest that video games are one of the cultural components of globalism and the Malaysian's serve their country's general welfare quite well by banning them. And their leadership is known to me to read some of the same material I read on this subject and so I find this connection likely.
They outsourced the voting to elections.com. Bad choice maybe, but it is a little different situation than if they controlled the server.
I was unable to vote Sunday, but was able to vote just now. So try it again.
Barbara Simons is the past ACM President. ACM is the premier academic computer professional organization and has active outreach to practictioners. Full disclosurer: I am a member of ACM, but voted against Simons as ACM President.
ACM Commuications has a very active publication of Intellectual Property concerns and has been deeply involved in ICANN at a institutional level in try to address these concerns. These concerns tend to match yours in many ways.
I think Simons would be a good first choice because her institutional connections to ACM, its people, and its publications, will make her single voice more powerful.
Voting in tis election involves ordering seven people by preference. Your first four preferences should be those who were nominated by the at-large membership, not by the nominating committee. While this is not directly knowable, you can tell from their bios who the establishment candidates are, or you can just go to the ICANN question the candidates forum and see who bothers to answer the questions on Intellectual Property. My casual observation is that only the at-large nominees are there and the nomination committe nominees are not.
Slashdot Mirror
Leaving aside the technical virtues or defects, which are only engineering issues after all, I think the failure of the Atoms for Peace program had more to do with its policy incompatibility with MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction), than the above mentioned tech attributes. For instance, if nukes were generally useful, then you would have a hard time playing non-proliferation policies out. MAD was an evil idea to start with and its persistence has more to do with preserving our empire than with reasonable policy imperatives. China never bought into MAD, never bought into nuclear non-proliferation, and perhaps its leadership is in some dimensions more sane than ours. I would cite aspects of the response of our elite to Reagan's much aligned "Strategic Defense Initiative" which at the root was an attempt by Reagan and others to end MAD. I would contrast this with the Chinese leadership committment to great development projects, analogous to for instance, our development of a transcontinental railroad among many others. Obviously, they will consider use of new engineering techniques. There will be dangerous problems. It is well to remember both that once upon a time in our country, bridges regularly fell down, and that now they do not.
The Economist of September 30,2000 noted that "many economists think the dollar is overvalued, and vulnerable, not least because of America's huge and growing current-account deficit." Deputy Bank of Japan Governor Yutaka Yamaguchi at a conference in Frankfurt two weeks ago warned of the proliferation of globalized leverage which could "cause the evaporation of market liquidity". Do you agree with the Economist's and Yamaguchi's quoted assessments of our situation? What policies would you follow to prevent financial meltdown from US capital outflows and reverse leverage during your term of office?
My understanding is you have the military training causality backwards. Some developers started on the military training games and then went commericial. It may have now have gone back from commerical to military though. I do not know about that. The basic observation to be made are that kids are infantile and suggestible. This is the nature of being a kid. If and when they mature, infantile rage for instance is either not experienced or bounded by other considerations. Suggestibility perhaps is not so extremely powerful. This is not to say that the world is such that nothing in it justifies rage in the mature person, but the issues tend to be other than damage to one's own personal ego. Here is a URL that talks about this: StarWars amd Littleton
I agree with you. Some subsidiary points: 1) In my personal experience, video games have an addictive component. Most people, even those like myself who are tired of the War on Drugs, would give credence to an argument that addictions that rise to the level of social problems need to be restricted. Closing out video games does not seem to me to cause unacceptable side-effects for a society. 2) Arguably, video games have a negative impact on some users beyond addiction, and since the typical user of concern is a child, it is normative in this society to consider restrictions. Typically, an age restriction passes constitutional muster here. Presumedly, in Malayasia, a ban passes muster. 3) Malayasia has had some success in fighting globalism. For instance, during the "Asian flu", they rejected IMF and World Bank programs, were successful in economic recovery, and our Vice President called for the overthrow of the government! They continue to be leaders in Asia in rejecting the "Washington Consenus". I suggest that video games are one of the cultural components of globalism and the Malaysian's serve their country's general welfare quite well by banning them. And their leadership is known to me to read some of the same material I read on this subject and so I find this connection likely.
They outsourced the voting to elections.com. Bad choice maybe, but it is a little different situation than if they controlled the server. I was unable to vote Sunday, but was able to vote just now. So try it again.
Barbara Simons is the past ACM President. ACM is the premier academic computer professional organization and has active outreach to practictioners. Full disclosurer: I am a member of ACM, but voted against Simons as ACM President. ACM Commuications has a very active publication of Intellectual Property concerns and has been deeply involved in ICANN at a institutional level in try to address these concerns. These concerns tend to match yours in many ways. I think Simons would be a good first choice because her institutional connections to ACM, its people, and its publications, will make her single voice more powerful. Voting in tis election involves ordering seven people by preference. Your first four preferences should be those who were nominated by the at-large membership, not by the nominating committee. While this is not directly knowable, you can tell from their bios who the establishment candidates are, or you can just go to the ICANN question the candidates forum and see who bothers to answer the questions on Intellectual Property. My casual observation is that only the at-large nominees are there and the nomination committe nominees are not.