But what if it was a wrong place, wrong time drunken haze kind of thing.
So...now you shouldn't be held responsible for your actions against a 12 year old? What is up with that? Or, to make it less senstational, remove the age (the law deals with attacks on pre-teen children).
I understand you are making the "slippery slope" argument. Anyone out there reading can keep the obligatory Voltaire quote to themselves. What I want to know is when we start holding people responsible for their actions?
People, actions have consequences. You commit a felony, you pay a price. Go through rehab, work out your problems, bully on you. That's great. There is still, depending upon what you may have done, a price to be paid: in this case, you wear the monitor for life or until you can prove you were innocent (in other cases, you have a "record", etc.).
"Judge, I didn't know what I was doing when I traumatized that girl/boy/woman/man because I was drunk/intoxicated/out of my mind/whatever. Honestly, Judge, I was in the wrong place at the wrong time and she just looked soooo good." That's bullshit. "Well...she said 'No', but I knew she meant 'Yes'". That's even greater bullshit.
Maybe the reality is: you could not handle the freedom. If you cannot handle the freedom, maybe it should be limited.
There are two kinds of freedom in this world: Freedom to and Freedom from. These two kinds of freedom are in balance. If your society leans towards Free "from" (the United States, for example), you are secure at the expense of civil liberties; if your society leans towards Free "to", you have lots of civil liberty but opportunities are greater for social breakdown (not that it will happen - just that it is harder to control the population if you emphasize civil liberty at the expense of security).
What is the correct balance? Not where the United States is at or presently heading (depending upon your opinion). My opinion, however, is that the United States courts do not adequately hold people responsible for their actions; there is too much leniency and sixth chances and "oh-he's-such-a-good-boy-give-him-another-chance-y our -honor" crap that an attitude of disdain and disrespect for what it means to be a productive member of society is being sown. We need to hold people responsible for their actions; sometimes a bad decision should impact you for life - especially when your bad decision impacts someone else for life.
Florida should have been on the ball in the mid 90s when GPS became mainstream.
Article 1,Clause 3 of the US constitution: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
What the heck are you talking about? The clause you quote from the US Constitution states that you cannot create a law in order to prosecute me for something that was legal at the time I did it (ex post facto ~= after the fact).
It has nothing to do with deciding to write a new law to use a technology that was not previously available. If you RTFA you'll note that
Some offenders already on the street could be ordered back to jail or be placed under GPS monitoring if they violated their probation.
In other words, a current offender would have to offend again (or break the rules again) before they could be sentenced under this new law.
Except there *are* computer/console based RPG games that actually *are* RPG games. MUDs on computers, for instance, or a game like Morrowind-- it would be hard to argue that a MUD isn't a RPG, or that Morrowind isn't an RPG.
I've actually considered MUDs for some time and am not sure whether or not they qualify as RPGs in my mind (I would say that I lean closer to "yes" than "no"). If a MUD qualifies, why would you discount an MMORPG? As far as Morrowind goes: I have not played it but my (limited) understanding, gleaned from office conversations and having played other games in the Elder Scrolls series, of what it is clearly places it in the video game arena (i.e. not an RPG). See following...
At a basic level, "RPG" should only refer to games where you can create your own character from scratch.
In my mind, having options in character creation does not make a game an RPG or not. Having the ability to imagine whatever piece of equipment, spell, resource, etc. you desire and then actually get that resource into a game (without requiring programming knowledge) is a defining differentiator between video-games and RPGs. Also, being able to interact with other characters in a meaningful way is a differentiator - interacting with peasant X who has a very limited number of scripted responses that are designed to respond to your limited available queries is not role-playing.
The "RPG" video game category solely exists to capture mindshare from pencil and paper roleplayers. If it does not now, it certainly did in the past. My viewpoint is, perhaps, hopelessly tainted by my preference for pencil and paper RPGs . I will also admit, after reading your response, that it is possible the "RPG" moniker was adopted by the video game industry to distinguish action/adventure games featuring customizable avatars from other action/adventure games featuring pre-generated avatars; this is not an angle I previously considered for the reasons already cited.
Regardless of whether the avatar is custom-built or pre-generated, video games do not offer the same kind of experience one gets from a face-to-face, table-top role-playing game where the players and storyteller work together to construct a story from myriad circumstances; where the storyteller has the ability to swap in or out story elements in a real-time, seamless manner without the knowledge of the players; where actions have consequences beyond restoring the last save point. Neverwinter Nights was on the right track with its gamemaster tools, but it is not there yet.
So? If I've never beaten boss XYZ before then it's going to be new to me... I don't care than a million other people have beaten it.
The point is not whether or not you've beaten the boss; the point is not whether or not you've come up with the same or a different way to beat him. The point is: this is not roleplaying.
I realize I harped the "same...same...same" thing but the point was to show that you are very limited in what choices you have which is completely the opposite of roleplaying. To call a video game a "role-playing game" is misleading marketing hype.
What the marketers are trying to say (I think) is "Here is an action/adventure video game we think will appeal to the same market who purchase D20 books from Wizards of the Coast." Fine. When people equate the video game with roleplaying? Annoying and inaccurate.
I continue to be annoyed by the persistent use of the category "RPG" to describe video games. It's marketing hype. What particularly annoys me is when people equate the two:
Player 1: "yeah, I've been playing RPGs for, like, 5 years."
Player 2: "Really? What systems? D20? GURPS? Hero? Vampire? Shadowrun?"
Player 1: "What? No. Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance."
A fantasy or science fiction adventure video game is not an RPG. You are not playing a role - you are moving an avatar around on a screen and mashing buttons.
I play video games - as a member of the Nintendo generation, it would be hard to escape them; presently, my 4-year old son and I are playing "Champions of Norrath". The fact that a 4-year old can play one of these games with a moderate level of competence is a testimony to the level of complexity found in an RPG video game; if this video game were an RPG, and my son was expected to assume a role and make decisions for himself, I doubt he would be able to grasp the concept of "free-play but with rules" let alone have any fun at it. Before you get your undies in a bundle, I know that "Champions" is not a particularly complex game - I bring it up because it is, in style, very similar to Baldur's Gate (mentioned in numerous other comments) which is often bronzed and placed on a pedestal by CRPG enthusiasts (until it is no longer vogue). Also, lest anyone think I'm doing all the work in the game, the game play is truly a "team" effort - I chose to play a Wizard and made my son a Barbarian - we are at a point in the game where it would be VERY difficult for me to go it alone and continue to advance if he were not there to back me up. At higher levels it would be nigh on impossible for a wizard to fight and defeat the boss characters alone (it can be done; but not without a *lot* of frustration).
What differentiates a role-playing game from a video game, in my opinion, is the interface and options available to the player and what is at stake when you mess up. The interface in a video game is severely limiting: there are only so many button and key combinations available and when you make a mistake you simply reload the last save point. The interface in a role-playing game is virtually unlimited: your imagination. When you make a mistake in an RPG, you are often stuck with the consequences: it is a disservice to everyone at the table to rewrite history just to make everything turn out favorably for you. Suck it up - make a *new* character and lets go.
These are huge distinctions; the only thing even remotely analagous between the two types of games would be the "munchkin/monty-haul/min-max" style of role-playing in which the players define character development as improved stats through beating monsters/obstacles and gaining treasures(if they define character development at all). Munchkin'ning is still more "RPG" than "grinding" through levels in a video game; in an RPG there is an opportunity to develop a unique character - you are likely to face different obstacles, have to consider your own verbal responses, etc. In a video game, every player ends up with essentially the same character who confronts the same "boss" who says the same things which lead to a fight where the bad guy uses the same tactics which can be overcome with the same technique in order to win. same...same...same...same. ugh.
Yeah... except for the fact that the first thing you really should do when you buy a new system is wipe the hard drive and reinstall windows to get rid of all the crap that OEMs load your computer up with. No.... I don't want musicmatch jukebox or Real Media Player.
Liar! We all know that, surely, the only reason you are reinstalling is to get back that "musicmatch jukebox" or "Real Media Player", right?
I mean, come on, the OEMs, after exhaustive customer research, are doing everything they can to make sure you have an easy time getting everything back: they make it so easy by making sure they only give you a freakin' "restore" CD that sets your system back to factory specs. Wouldn't want you to miss out on yet another opportunity to sign up for AOL, would we?
Note: I posted virtually the same comment above, differences in italics...
And what are you going to do when your $HARDWARE_OF_TODAY fries itself, hmmm? It will happen eventually and unless something has changed you will be forced to purchase $HARDWARE_OF_TOMORROW that is broadcast-flag aware and you will be screwed.
Don't discount it because its marxist but: unless the proletariat (the common man) rises up against the owners of the means of production (the corporations who control the "content" distribution channels) and wrest those means of production from them (via burners, electronic distribution, etc.) this type of breach of rights will continue to repeat itself. We already own the means of production (burners, GarageBand software, etc.) what we increasingly lack is legal access to a distribution channel.
Marx warned that the owners of the means of production, when faced with innovation that threatened their monopolies, would turn to the law in order to secure their control and to maintain the status quo. At some point, unless something drastically changes, you will be forced to ask yourself whether the right to unfettered access to content is worth the risk of significant fines and jail time. It will happen; at this point, only a significant revolution against the "owners" can prevent it. Something has to gain the ear of those who are supposed to represent the people and fight for the rights of the people. Unfortunately, I do not believe that most of us, myself included, will be willing to pay the costs now for the potential benefits later. It will be Voltaire made manifest in ugly, vibrant, living color.
I, myself, am caught in the middle. I do not condone the unlicensed use of materials created by others - the people who created those materials deserve to get paid even if it is a mere fraction of what they should receive. I also do not condone the "limitless" copyrights granted by our (US) laws. So...I choose not to play the game - my wife and I spend our money elsewhere and, at least for myself, in the hope that revenues will continue to drop to the point where "piracy" is no longer the sole scapegoat and the various industries are forced to change or die. My wife and I do not purchase much music any more (1 - 3 CDs annually, maybe); we do not subscribe to cable or watch commercial television (no big loss on either front). We do purchase movies - primarily because I can "try before I buy" by renting movies or seeing movies in a "B" theater before I make the decision to purchase; furthermore, the cost of purchasing a DVD is now cheaper than the cost of two movie theater tickets, one drink and one popcorn so we tend to wait for movies to come out to DVD before going to the theater.
I bought the pcHDTV card and am building a Gentoo MythTV box around it, heres a HOW-TO. MythTV can record your programs to DVD if you like as well as many other things.
And what are you going to do when your pcHDTV card fries itself, hmmm? It will happen eventually and unless something has changed you will be forced to purchase a card that is broadcast-flag aware and you will be screwed.
Don't discount it because its marxist but: unless the proletariat (the common man) rises up against the owners of the means of production (the corporations who control the "content" distribution channels) and wrest those means of production from them (via burners, electronic distribution, etc.) this type of breach of rights will continue to repeat itself. Marx even warned that the owners of the means of production, when faced with innovation that threatened their monopolies, would turn to the law in order to secure their control and to maintain the status quo. At some point, unless something drastically changes, you will be forced to ask yourself whether the right to unfettered access to content is worth the risk of significant fines and jail time. It will happen; at this point, only a significant revolution against the "owners" can prevent it. Something has to gain the ear of those who are supposed to represent the people and fight for the rights of the people.
I, myself, am caught in the middle. I do not condone the unlicensed use of materials created by others - the people who created those materials deserve to get paid even if it is a mere fraction of what they should receive. I also do not condone the "limitless" copyrights granted by our (US) laws. So...I choose not to play. My wife and I do not purchase much music; we do not subscribe to cable or watch commercial television. We do purchase movies - primarily because I find it easier to get behind the position of the MPAA and am not opposed to renting movies or seeing movies in a "B" theater before I make the decision to purchase. FWIW, though, the cost of purchasing a DVD is now cheaper than the cost of two movie theater tickets, one drink and one popcorn so we tend to wait for movies to come out to DVD before going to the theater.
Vunerability known only by the company isn't a problem. Every piece of software has undiscovered vunerabilities, we just don't know about them.
This is the essence of the "Full Disclosure" debate. The problem, obviously, is that we don't know how many vulnerabilities have been found - and are currently being developed into exploits - because the company believes they are the only ones who know said vulnerability exists. If they published the fact that the vulnerability existed, admins could react appropriately. If they open-sourced the code, other programmers could get to work solving the problem (if it matters to them).
Would you feel safer if government published their source code for their defense software?
Its funny you should offer *this* as your "ponder this" question. Why? Because I develop software for the US Department of Defense (specifically for the Joint Forces).
To answer your question: yes, I would feel safer if the government published their source code. Not the code that has been obfuscated for years, but new source code presently under development. Why? Because then we would be forced to write better code that was thoroughly peer-reviewed, thoroughly tested and did not rely upon eggshells to protect things that should be behind walls of iron a mile thick.
NASA is known for clean-room engineering and for having insanely low numbers of bugs per KLOC. They do detailed designs with lots of peer reviews, etc. I think it would be great if we could see the same kind of effort put into the software that runs our defense systems. FWIW, some of the defense systems may undergo this type of rigorous process.
Releasing current code that hasn't been scrubbed? No way. Developing new systems with the understanding that they were going to be open-sourced? Hell, yeah!
Obfuscation is not security (if you've been around here for a while you should no that). Just think about it: what you are afraid of is that other people would discover vulnerabilities in our code. You shouldn't be afraid of that. Every bug found is one more we can eradicate before it is exploited; more than just the "bad guys" would be looking at that code. Researchers, Patriots, Grad Students, the curious, the thrill-seekers, the recognition seekers, etc. Heck, I'd be willing to bet that open-sourced DOD software programs would have an easier time attracting eyeballs than most other OS projects out there - by the time the "bad guys" developed an exploit, the code base would likely be changed or the threat identified and the system taken down.
In a utopian world 1000s of eyes viewing source is a wonderful thing if all their intent was for good.
The point you are missing is, as I stated above, this: if you know your code will be released into the wild, you will take greater precautions during the design and development of that code i.e. there will likely be fewer bugs per KLOC merely because you know the code will be opened.
Ask yourself, have you ever seen a root kit for NT?
No, I haven't...but that is because I've never used Windows NT. I have avoided Microsoft software for years - and will continue to do so until they have a proven track record in developing systems that are as secure as you can get them by default [1] - and when other people talk about the woes of their infected systems and come to me with their problems they are amazed that I don't have the same problems. What's the difference? I run Linux and they do not. I am a software developer and a Linux user - I use Win2K at work because that is what is on my company laptop and that laptop does not belong to me.
On my home computer, I have never had to deal with spyware/adware infestations, viruses, trojans, etc., remote exploits *so far*. Could it happen? Sure. Will it happen as easily as it does on Windows systems? Not likely. Why? Because if it was that easy, it would have already happened.:)
What are the exploits. Since we are talking about servers, most of important thing is the amount of remote exploits.
The exploits are not all that matters: What exploits are in the wild? What exploits are unpatched? What exploits are self-reported (found by the developers themselves)? What services are affected by the exploit? What is the exploit's payload and how does it impact the use of the machine?
When trying to determine whether one OS is more secure than another, I think you need to look at a lot more information than just the number of remote exploits available. The big two are: how many of those exploits remain unpatched (i.e. are still a threat) and how many of those exploits were reported by the development team itself so that administrators could take appropriate action (as opposed to hidden or ignored so that administrators could not even take precautions to prevent their systems from being exploited). Let's be real: it is much more likely that we know the truth about the state of the software in an open system (like RH, Suse, Debian, etc.) than we do in a closed system (like MS) i.e. the number of exploits reported for MS are likely the number of exploits currently being exploited - we do not know how many exploits the MS-folks know about but are not reporting. While there may be some exploits unreported in open-source software, the likelihood is considerably less because of the number of people looking at the code. Proaction (Open-Source) versus Reaction (Closed-Source).
Finally, what matters in the end to most of us is: how much time do I need to spend making sure my system is protected from exploitation, cleaning up infestations, etc. ? You can claim your OS is more secure than my OS but if I'm spending less time protecting against or recovering from exploitation than you are, you are going to have a really hard time convincing anyone who follows this type of stuff. If I am not the target audience (because I know better) than what you are engaging in is FUD - aimed at the gullible or uninformed managers and masses who are expected to take your word for it because you are Microsoft and the Press has picked up your sound-bite.
...the new meaning of the word "Protect", is, of course, no secret here, "To hinder from, to restrict".
Nothin' satisfies like a little Orwellian Newspeak followed by the practiced flourish of some Double-Think. The feelings of security and bliss should follow at any moment...:)
Tolkien argued that his works were not allegorical in nature.
I see this statement in nearly every lengthy discussion of LOTR. What I think is often missing from the discussion is the fact that Tolkien disliked strict allegory. I do not have a page reference for you (maybe someone else does) but I believe he makes an argument similar to what follows in one of the History of Middle-Earth books.
I do not believe Tolkien was opposed to the idea of one thing symbolically representing another but rather I believe he was opposed to the idea of telling a tale solely to illustrate a specific point. In a strict allegory, each significant entity is a symbol for some other concept; this is what Tolkien disliked. I guess another way of looking at it would be that Tolkien was not interested in writing parables; instead, he wanted to develop a mythology.
I just wanted to throw that out there for further discussion; let it be known, however, that I agree with the gist of your statements.
I was talking about Earthsea with my friend, and he mentioned a fantasy author by the name of Terry Brooks...
Terry Brooks is best known for his "Shannara" series: The Sword of Shannara, The Elfstones of Shannara, The Wishsong of Shannara, etc.
The Sword of Shannara was his break-out novel but, I must warn you, it is essentially a retelling of the Lord of the Rings with different character names. The remaining novels in the series (at least as far as Wishsong) follow the descendants of the main character in Sword.
Check out Terry Brooks site for a complete bibliography.
Hardly. Flamebait, maybe...but not a Troll. I wasn't tossing out an incendiary comment in the hopes of dragging people into a pointless/worthless debate i.e. I was not tossing out a line (trolling) hoping to catch a fish.
IT IS AN OVERUSED "JOKE" THAT LACKS ANY SEMBLANCE OF ORIGINALITY AT THIS POINT!
Moderators: do you still think the various "all your base" comments are "funny"? I realize that humor is different for every individual but after you've read this "joke" once, I would think you already knew the punchline and it would cease to be "funny". At that point, it serves only to transform the author into a karma whore.
I realize toolbar is not an adjective. The point of my editorial liberties was to illustrate how this "joke" is typically applied. The beginning and ending phrases are always the same with a lame series of words meant to describe the "overlords". The lame series of words are, functionally, adjectives because the phrase describes the final noun.
I for one welcome the coming of our INSERT LAME SERIES OF ADJECTIVES overlords.
No offense, sPaKr, but are you moderators smoking crack?! How many stinkin' times have you seen this "joke"? Its hardly original and ceased to be funny hundreds of iterations ago.
I care nothing about an open standard for document files as I don't believe there's a conspiracy to hide anything in them.
Neither do most people who preach the "open formats" mantra. What they do believe, however, is that open formats ensure them the ability to move to a different application if the current application no longer meets their needs - without losing data.
Open Formats ~= Open Data. What are you going to do if Microsoft decides to no longer support the file format you are currently using (for whatever reason - could be a legitimate end-of-life type thing)? What if your current copy of the application you are using will not install on that whiz-bang new machine you just bought? Sure, you may be able to keep that old machine around for awhile...but, sooner or later, it is going to fail.
Users who want open formats realize that these situations are inevitable and without an open format they stand to potentially lose a tremendous amount of material and effort. At least if the format is open, they stand a reasonable chance of being able to find a tool that can extract their data and/or pay someone to write such a tool... That is why open standards are important for everyone.
Finally, don't be a fool. In probably the vast majority of cases, application providers who refuse to divulge their data format are trying to get you locked into their application suite. Once you start using their tools, there will be a lot of momentum to keep you using their tools. Closed data formats become a barrier to entry for new providers in established markets; in this way, closed formats are a conspiracy to keep new providers out of the market.
You seem to have made the assumption that I'll lie and cheat and steal with impunity to get what I want.
To be quite honest, no, I haven't. I've learned over the years that most of these types of discussions (philosophy, ethics, religion, etc.) require a certain amount of abstraction with regards to the "other side". More than anything, I'm debating against the prevailing attitude I perceive in your statements. It would be ludicrous for me to judge you specifically off of one statement on an online message board. I do disagree with the general bent of your ideology (limited view that I have of it) but, despite the limited appearances provided online, I do not believe you are one way or another, specifically.
Keeping in mind that I neither know you specifically nor am I in any good place to judge you, were I forced to make an observation about your viewpoint based upon your statements in this discussion, to this point, I would have to stand by my assertion that your general state of mind is one of selfishness:
You say you believe in keeping your word and behaving honorably until someone does not do the same but then you assume that every word that flows from a corporation is a breach of trust (a lie) which you then use to rationalize your own self-interest ala "If they do it to me, I can do it to them".
Your general rant seems to be levied against corporations (not individuals) and yet you seem to ignore the fact that corporations are made up of people. The bent of the ideology espoused thus far would almost necessitate the conclusion that the people who make up that corporation are as self-interested as yourself. If they are not, the uncompromising portion of the "self" ideology would be forced to consider others and the whole thing would crash to the ground.
You blatantly admit as much with the statement "I'm just going to do what I have to do to have the life that I want." With so many "Is" in that statement there is little room left for "you" or "they".
I've realized now that I'm not going to change the world by behaving in the ideal way.
Why do you have to change the world? What about first changing yourself and hoping that the change in yourself inspires others in the immediate vicinity to change.
I guess this is how I see it: like you, I only allow someone to fool me once. Unlike you, I try not to generalize my experience with one $entity to the point where I assume the next $entity is automatically going to attempt to take advantage of me. I am not always successful (I have a *real* problem with Salespeople and Marketers - primarily because I've found many of them to be deceitful - I would guess that this is where you likely have the same problem because these two groups are typically the public face of most corporations). I approach nearly all Salespeople (especially ones that work on commission) with a healthy dose of skepticism. I've been taken to task on a few occasions by marketers when I've challenged them on the morality of their jobs - basically, that they exist to create a desire in people that would otherwise not exist in order to convince people to buy things they probably do not need - and what I have found is that, at least a few, actually believe they are truly helping people. They actually believe the product they are selling is good and actually believe that their goal is not to create a desire but to provide a better solution to someone who is already in search of what they have to sell.
I don't know. I do know that you and I are unlikely to come to an agreement and that this whole discussion is really more of a mental exercise for both of us than anything else. Regardless, it still kind of disappoints me that the ideology you appear to espouse has a firmer grasp on America than the one I believe is superior. What is truly devastating is the way that the whole thing, on both sides, devolves into a self-fulfilling prophecy as idealists lose hope and become cynics and
but you can be damn sure I'm going to take every tax deduction I legally can when that time comes around, too.
Who wouldn't. Key word in that statement is legally. What we are talking about is willful deception in order to benefit yourself.
You can't be serious if you're trying to tell me that honor has a place in a world where he gets away with what he and the rest of the Enron management did.
I'm dead serious. The attitude you seem to be expressing is what has gotten us into these predicaments; its an "escalation of arms" in a way - they did this to me so I'm gonna do that to them.
Just because one person, one group, one corporation, one $entity acts immorally or unethically doesn't obviate the need for the rest of us to act ethically. Basic game theory: Sometimes the only way to win is not to play. If a company mistreats you, you take your $currency elsewhere, do without, or start a competing business.
I've seen far too many people lose out or lose everything because they put an emotional investment in what they do for money. It's a sucker bet.
Dealing with other people honorably is not an emotional investment; it should be a simple courteousy. When you advocate or accept deception as a legitimate response to a situation, you cannot complain when you are deceived:
"Ha. Ha. You really got me when you stiffed me for that $3000.00 of contract work. What? You knew that your business on the verge of bankruptcy when you hired me? Well...that's okay because, you know, I believe that ethics and business do not go together and you really got me on that one. What? Am I okay? Well...I'm a bit miffed but, you know, I don't invest myself emotionally in how I make money. Geez, my family is going to be really cold and hungry this winter but, hey, its just business and all."
Ludicrous example? Certainly. Where does it end though when you accept unethical behavior as a way of dealing with corporations...or with people? How can you expect someone to deal with you ethically if you won't do the same.
ethics and business cannot mix if you want to be more than just someone's corporate bitch
That's an asinine statement.
If you honestly believe that ethics and business do not belong with each other than it must be safe to assume that:
You do believe FUD is a legitimate marketing strategy
You do not oppose the tactics of the RIAA
You do not oppose the tactics of the MPAA
You do not oppose the incorporation of GPL'd, or otherwise "Open-Sourced" code, into software written by commercial, closed-source vendors
You do not oppose Microsoft's business practices
INSERT IMMORAL AND/OR UNETHICAL BUSINESS/PRACTICE HERE
Come on...you don't really believe that, do you?
What you are really trying to express, it seems, is a selfish perspective built on whatever you can get away with. If that is the case, if your word, your contracts, your responsibilities and your commitments that you have willingly entered into mean nothing to you, then you are as bad as the machine you are raging against. Its dishonorable and sad.
I was not intending to disparage your credit. It was more of a 2nd person "you".
I in no way advocate lying to help clear your credit report.
How is it that you can say that when your original post clearly suggested that individuals desiring to clear legitimate, negative items from their credit reports should claim that said situation never occurred? That's a lie. If you do not want to advocate lying, you could just have easily suggested that items believed to be in error (vice known to be legitimate, negative items) should be challenged and if the challenged company cannot or does not respond to the challenge the item will be cleared.
I was able to clear it off my record.
Honestly, glad to hear that you were able to get this straightened out. False accusations can really damage a person's reputation and it is encouraging to see that your experience clearing up the matter was straightforward.
...One other thing to keep in mind when working with your credit: feel free to challenge something even if you know it's a legitimate negative item. If you tell the credit companies "No, I didn't bounce that check three years ago.",...
Wow. You have absolutely no moral qualms whatsoever about lying, huh? Perhaps that bad credit rating is deserved...I mean if you advocate lying, how is a business/partner/whomever supposed to know you will keep your end of a contract (i.e. what the credit report is supposed to reflect).
If you did the deed, own up to it and pay the price or don't do the deed in the first place. One or two minor problems (like bouncing a check 3 freaking years ago) are unlikely to seriously impede your ability to either buy a car or a house - especially if you made good on the check.
And I thought the "demonstration" proved exactly why filtering won't work.
Actually, what I thought the demo proved was that you could provide a list of Band Names as a filter making it much more difficult for people to find those bands. If Sharman included filters that could not be turned off, that filtered out a list of *AA bands, those bands would be more difficult to locate on KaZaa. If the tool becomes more difficult to use for a given purpose, the use of the tool for that purpose will probably decrease.
Do not mistake me; I am aware of the limitations and am no fan of filtering. It is spotty at best and has the nasty side-effect of catching legitimate content that should be allowed to pass.
Filters are not perfect...but if Sharman makes KaZaa more difficult to use for finding specific bands or specific songs, then, by logical extension, the downloading of those bands or songs should decrease. Will those files/bands still be available? Probably, but unless you know the "magic" search parameters to input to find them, you are going to have a more difficult time finding them.
Personally, I'm against the downloading of music that has not been explicitly given gratis to the public. If KaZaa, and the community that supports KaZaa, truly see KaZaa as a fantastic tool for all sorts of non-infringing uses (and I absolutely and unequivocally believe that P2P software should not be illegal just because percentage of users use that tool for illegal activities - even if that percentage approaches 100%) then we should get behind efforts to block copyrighted works that the copyright owner does not want distributed. Hopefully, the copyright owner will be burned by their own attempts to so tightly control their property that they will loosen up. If they do not loosen up, they will lose customers. One way to ensure they lose customers is to strongly curtail (or eliminate) your purchase of *AA-backed bands. The combination of filters with a reduction in purchases will hopefully be the stick that smacks them upside their head and makes them realize that they cannot continue to treat their customers this way.
As a software developer, a Linux user, and someone who would someday love to publish pencil & paper RPG gaming materials to the web, I take licensing and copyright issues very seriously. I want to believe that should I release my property to the web that the license I choose to release it under will be honored and that I will be compensated for my efforts (great examples that inspire hope include the Baen Free Libary).
If you want people to honor your license (GPL, BSD, whatever) and respect your copyright then you need to honor the license and copyright of even those you oppose.
Slashdot Mirror
I did read the article. Typo.
So...now you shouldn't be held responsible for your actions against a 12 year old? What is up with that? Or, to make it less senstational, remove the age (the law deals with attacks on pre-teen children).
I understand you are making the "slippery slope" argument. Anyone out there reading can keep the obligatory Voltaire quote to themselves. What I want to know is when we start holding people responsible for their actions?
People, actions have consequences. You commit a felony, you pay a price. Go through rehab, work out your problems, bully on you. That's great. There is still, depending upon what you may have done, a price to be paid: in this case, you wear the monitor for life or until you can prove you were innocent (in other cases, you have a "record", etc.).
"Judge, I didn't know what I was doing when I traumatized that girl/boy/woman/man because I was drunk/intoxicated/out of my mind/whatever. Honestly, Judge, I was in the wrong place at the wrong time and she just looked soooo good." That's bullshit. "Well...she said 'No', but I knew she meant 'Yes'". That's even greater bullshit.
Maybe the reality is: you could not handle the freedom. If you cannot handle the freedom, maybe it should be limited.
There are two kinds of freedom in this world: Freedom to and Freedom from. These two kinds of freedom are in balance. If your society leans towards Free "from" (the United States, for example), you are secure at the expense of civil liberties; if your society leans towards Free "to", you have lots of civil liberty but opportunities are greater for social breakdown (not that it will happen - just that it is harder to control the population if you emphasize civil liberty at the expense of security).
What is the correct balance? Not where the United States is at or presently heading (depending upon your opinion). My opinion, however, is that the United States courts do not adequately hold people responsible for their actions; there is too much leniency and sixth chances and "oh-he's-such-a-good-boy-give-him-another-chance-y our -honor" crap that an attitude of disdain and disrespect for what it means to be a productive member of society is being sown. We need to hold people responsible for their actions; sometimes a bad decision should impact you for life - especially when your bad decision impacts someone else for life.
Article 1,Clause 3 of the US constitution: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
What the heck are you talking about? The clause you quote from the US Constitution states that you cannot create a law in order to prosecute me for something that was legal at the time I did it (ex post facto ~= after the fact). It has nothing to do with deciding to write a new law to use a technology that was not previously available. If you RTFA you'll note that
In other words, a current offender would have to offend again (or break the rules again) before they could be sentenced under this new law.
I've actually considered MUDs for some time and am not sure whether or not they qualify as RPGs in my mind (I would say that I lean closer to "yes" than "no"). If a MUD qualifies, why would you discount an MMORPG? As far as Morrowind goes: I have not played it but my (limited) understanding, gleaned from office conversations and having played other games in the Elder Scrolls series, of what it is clearly places it in the video game arena (i.e. not an RPG). See following...
At a basic level, "RPG" should only refer to games where you can create your own character from scratch.
In my mind, having options in character creation does not make a game an RPG or not. Having the ability to imagine whatever piece of equipment, spell, resource, etc. you desire and then actually get that resource into a game (without requiring programming knowledge) is a defining differentiator between video-games and RPGs. Also, being able to interact with other characters in a meaningful way is a differentiator - interacting with peasant X who has a very limited number of scripted responses that are designed to respond to your limited available queries is not role-playing.
The "RPG" video game category solely exists to capture mindshare from pencil and paper roleplayers. If it does not now, it certainly did in the past. My viewpoint is, perhaps, hopelessly tainted by my preference for pencil and paper RPGs . I will also admit, after reading your response, that it is possible the "RPG" moniker was adopted by the video game industry to distinguish action/adventure games featuring customizable avatars from other action/adventure games featuring pre-generated avatars; this is not an angle I previously considered for the reasons already cited.
Regardless of whether the avatar is custom-built or pre-generated, video games do not offer the same kind of experience one gets from a face-to-face, table-top role-playing game where the players and storyteller work together to construct a story from myriad circumstances; where the storyteller has the ability to swap in or out story elements in a real-time, seamless manner without the knowledge of the players; where actions have consequences beyond restoring the last save point. Neverwinter Nights was on the right track with its gamemaster tools, but it is not there yet.
The point is not whether or not you've beaten the boss; the point is not whether or not you've come up with the same or a different way to beat him. The point is: this is not roleplaying. I realize I harped the "same...same...same" thing but the point was to show that you are very limited in what choices you have which is completely the opposite of roleplaying. To call a video game a "role-playing game" is misleading marketing hype.
What the marketers are trying to say (I think) is "Here is an action/adventure video game we think will appeal to the same market who purchase D20 books from Wizards of the Coast." Fine. When people equate the video game with roleplaying? Annoying and inaccurate.
I continue to be annoyed by the persistent use of the category "RPG" to describe video games. It's marketing hype. What particularly annoys me is when people equate the two:
A fantasy or science fiction adventure video game is not an RPG. You are not playing a role - you are moving an avatar around on a screen and mashing buttons.I play video games - as a member of the Nintendo generation, it would be hard to escape them; presently, my 4-year old son and I are playing "Champions of Norrath". The fact that a 4-year old can play one of these games with a moderate level of competence is a testimony to the level of complexity found in an RPG video game; if this video game were an RPG, and my son was expected to assume a role and make decisions for himself, I doubt he would be able to grasp the concept of "free-play but with rules" let alone have any fun at it. Before you get your undies in a bundle, I know that "Champions" is not a particularly complex game - I bring it up because it is, in style, very similar to Baldur's Gate (mentioned in numerous other comments) which is often bronzed and placed on a pedestal by CRPG enthusiasts (until it is no longer vogue). Also, lest anyone think I'm doing all the work in the game, the game play is truly a "team" effort - I chose to play a Wizard and made my son a Barbarian - we are at a point in the game where it would be VERY difficult for me to go it alone and continue to advance if he were not there to back me up. At higher levels it would be nigh on impossible for a wizard to fight and defeat the boss characters alone (it can be done; but not without a *lot* of frustration).
What differentiates a role-playing game from a video game, in my opinion, is the interface and options available to the player and what is at stake when you mess up. The interface in a video game is severely limiting: there are only so many button and key combinations available and when you make a mistake you simply reload the last save point. The interface in a role-playing game is virtually unlimited: your imagination. When you make a mistake in an RPG, you are often stuck with the consequences: it is a disservice to everyone at the table to rewrite history just to make everything turn out favorably for you. Suck it up - make a *new* character and lets go.
These are huge distinctions; the only thing even remotely analagous between the two types of games would be the "munchkin/monty-haul/min-max" style of role-playing in which the players define character development as improved stats through beating monsters/obstacles and gaining treasures(if they define character development at all). Munchkin'ning is still more "RPG" than "grinding" through levels in a video game; in an RPG there is an opportunity to develop a unique character - you are likely to face different obstacles, have to consider your own verbal responses, etc. In a video game, every player ends up with essentially the same character who confronts the same "boss" who says the same things which lead to a fight where the bad guy uses the same tactics which can be overcome with the same technique in order to win. same...same...same...same. ugh.
Liar! We all know that, surely, the only reason you are reinstalling is to get back that "musicmatch jukebox" or "Real Media Player", right?
I mean, come on, the OEMs, after exhaustive customer research, are doing everything they can to make sure you have an easy time getting everything back: they make it so easy by making sure they only give you a freakin' "restore" CD that sets your system back to factory specs. Wouldn't want you to miss out on yet another opportunity to sign up for AOL, would we?
And what are you going to do when your $HARDWARE_OF_TODAY fries itself, hmmm? It will happen eventually and unless something has changed you will be forced to purchase $HARDWARE_OF_TOMORROW that is broadcast-flag aware and you will be screwed.
Don't discount it because its marxist but: unless the proletariat (the common man) rises up against the owners of the means of production (the corporations who control the "content" distribution channels) and wrest those means of production from them (via burners, electronic distribution, etc.) this type of breach of rights will continue to repeat itself. We already own the means of production (burners, GarageBand software, etc.) what we increasingly lack is legal access to a distribution channel.
Marx warned that the owners of the means of production, when faced with innovation that threatened their monopolies, would turn to the law in order to secure their control and to maintain the status quo. At some point, unless something drastically changes, you will be forced to ask yourself whether the right to unfettered access to content is worth the risk of significant fines and jail time. It will happen; at this point, only a significant revolution against the "owners" can prevent it. Something has to gain the ear of those who are supposed to represent the people and fight for the rights of the people. Unfortunately, I do not believe that most of us, myself included, will be willing to pay the costs now for the potential benefits later. It will be Voltaire made manifest in ugly, vibrant, living color.
I, myself, am caught in the middle. I do not condone the unlicensed use of materials created by others - the people who created those materials deserve to get paid even if it is a mere fraction of what they should receive. I also do not condone the "limitless" copyrights granted by our (US) laws. So...I choose not to play the game - my wife and I spend our money elsewhere and, at least for myself, in the hope that revenues will continue to drop to the point where "piracy" is no longer the sole scapegoat and the various industries are forced to change or die. My wife and I do not purchase much music any more (1 - 3 CDs annually, maybe); we do not subscribe to cable or watch commercial television (no big loss on either front). We do purchase movies - primarily because I can "try before I buy" by renting movies or seeing movies in a "B" theater before I make the decision to purchase; furthermore, the cost of purchasing a DVD is now cheaper than the cost of two movie theater tickets, one drink and one popcorn so we tend to wait for movies to come out to DVD before going to the theater.
And what are you going to do when your pcHDTV card fries itself, hmmm? It will happen eventually and unless something has changed you will be forced to purchase a card that is broadcast-flag aware and you will be screwed.
Don't discount it because its marxist but: unless the proletariat (the common man) rises up against the owners of the means of production (the corporations who control the "content" distribution channels) and wrest those means of production from them (via burners, electronic distribution, etc.) this type of breach of rights will continue to repeat itself. Marx even warned that the owners of the means of production, when faced with innovation that threatened their monopolies, would turn to the law in order to secure their control and to maintain the status quo. At some point, unless something drastically changes, you will be forced to ask yourself whether the right to unfettered access to content is worth the risk of significant fines and jail time. It will happen; at this point, only a significant revolution against the "owners" can prevent it. Something has to gain the ear of those who are supposed to represent the people and fight for the rights of the people.
I, myself, am caught in the middle. I do not condone the unlicensed use of materials created by others - the people who created those materials deserve to get paid even if it is a mere fraction of what they should receive. I also do not condone the "limitless" copyrights granted by our (US) laws. So...I choose not to play. My wife and I do not purchase much music; we do not subscribe to cable or watch commercial television. We do purchase movies - primarily because I find it easier to get behind the position of the MPAA and am not opposed to renting movies or seeing movies in a "B" theater before I make the decision to purchase. FWIW, though, the cost of purchasing a DVD is now cheaper than the cost of two movie theater tickets, one drink and one popcorn so we tend to wait for movies to come out to DVD before going to the theater.
This is the essence of the "Full Disclosure" debate. The problem, obviously, is that we don't know how many vulnerabilities have been found - and are currently being developed into exploits - because the company believes they are the only ones who know said vulnerability exists. If they published the fact that the vulnerability existed, admins could react appropriately. If they open-sourced the code, other programmers could get to work solving the problem (if it matters to them).
Would you feel safer if government published their source code for their defense software?
Its funny you should offer *this* as your "ponder this" question. Why? Because I develop software for the US Department of Defense (specifically for the Joint Forces).
To answer your question: yes, I would feel safer if the government published their source code. Not the code that has been obfuscated for years, but new source code presently under development. Why? Because then we would be forced to write better code that was thoroughly peer-reviewed, thoroughly tested and did not rely upon eggshells to protect things that should be behind walls of iron a mile thick.
NASA is known for clean-room engineering and for having insanely low numbers of bugs per KLOC. They do detailed designs with lots of peer reviews, etc. I think it would be great if we could see the same kind of effort put into the software that runs our defense systems. FWIW, some of the defense systems may undergo this type of rigorous process.
Releasing current code that hasn't been scrubbed? No way. Developing new systems with the understanding that they were going to be open-sourced? Hell, yeah!
Obfuscation is not security (if you've been around here for a while you should no that). Just think about it: what you are afraid of is that other people would discover vulnerabilities in our code. You shouldn't be afraid of that. Every bug found is one more we can eradicate before it is exploited; more than just the "bad guys" would be looking at that code. Researchers, Patriots, Grad Students, the curious, the thrill-seekers, the recognition seekers, etc. Heck, I'd be willing to bet that open-sourced DOD software programs would have an easier time attracting eyeballs than most other OS projects out there - by the time the "bad guys" developed an exploit, the code base would likely be changed or the threat identified and the system taken down.
In a utopian world 1000s of eyes viewing source is a wonderful thing if all their intent was for good.
The point you are missing is, as I stated above, this: if you know your code will be released into the wild, you will take greater precautions during the design and development of that code i.e. there will likely be fewer bugs per KLOC merely because you know the code will be opened.
Ask yourself, have you ever seen a root kit for NT?
No, I haven't...but that is because I've never used Windows NT. I have avoided Microsoft software for years - and will continue to do so until they have a proven track record in developing systems that are as secure as you can get them by default [1] - and when other people talk about the woes of their infected systems and come to me with their problems they are amazed that I don't have the same problems. What's the difference? I run Linux and they do not. I am a software developer and a Linux user - I use Win2K at work because that is what is on my company laptop and that laptop does not belong to me.
On my home computer, I have never had to deal with spyware/adware infestations, viruses, trojans, etc., remote exploits *so far*. Could it happen? Sure. Will it happen as easily as it does on Windows systems? Not likely. Why? Because if it was that easy, it would have already happened. :)
[1] Lots of definitions as to wh
The exploits are not all that matters: What exploits are in the wild? What exploits are unpatched? What exploits are self-reported (found by the developers themselves)? What services are affected by the exploit? What is the exploit's payload and how does it impact the use of the machine?
When trying to determine whether one OS is more secure than another, I think you need to look at a lot more information than just the number of remote exploits available. The big two are: how many of those exploits remain unpatched (i.e. are still a threat) and how many of those exploits were reported by the development team itself so that administrators could take appropriate action (as opposed to hidden or ignored so that administrators could not even take precautions to prevent their systems from being exploited). Let's be real: it is much more likely that we know the truth about the state of the software in an open system (like RH, Suse, Debian, etc.) than we do in a closed system (like MS) i.e. the number of exploits reported for MS are likely the number of exploits currently being exploited - we do not know how many exploits the MS-folks know about but are not reporting. While there may be some exploits unreported in open-source software, the likelihood is considerably less because of the number of people looking at the code. Proaction (Open-Source) versus Reaction (Closed-Source).
Finally, what matters in the end to most of us is: how much time do I need to spend making sure my system is protected from exploitation, cleaning up infestations, etc. ? You can claim your OS is more secure than my OS but if I'm spending less time protecting against or recovering from exploitation than you are, you are going to have a really hard time convincing anyone who follows this type of stuff. If I am not the target audience (because I know better) than what you are engaging in is FUD - aimed at the gullible or uninformed managers and masses who are expected to take your word for it because you are Microsoft and the Press has picked up your sound-bite.
Nothin' satisfies like a little Orwellian Newspeak followed by the practiced flourish of some Double-Think. The feelings of security and bliss should follow at any moment... :)
I see this statement in nearly every lengthy discussion of LOTR. What I think is often missing from the discussion is the fact that Tolkien disliked strict allegory. I do not have a page reference for you (maybe someone else does) but I believe he makes an argument similar to what follows in one of the History of Middle-Earth books. I do not believe Tolkien was opposed to the idea of one thing symbolically representing another but rather I believe he was opposed to the idea of telling a tale solely to illustrate a specific point. In a strict allegory, each significant entity is a symbol for some other concept; this is what Tolkien disliked. I guess another way of looking at it would be that Tolkien was not interested in writing parables; instead, he wanted to develop a mythology.
I just wanted to throw that out there for further discussion; let it be known, however, that I agree with the gist of your statements.
Terry Brooks is best known for his "Shannara" series: The Sword of Shannara, The Elfstones of Shannara, The Wishsong of Shannara, etc.
The Sword of Shannara was his break-out novel but, I must warn you, it is essentially a retelling of the Lord of the Rings with different character names. The remaining novels in the series (at least as far as Wishsong) follow the descendants of the main character in Sword.
Check out Terry Brooks site for a complete bibliography.
Check out the Movie-Goer's Guides at The Encyclopedia of Arda for an excellent treatment of the differences between the books and the movies.
Hardly. Flamebait, maybe...but not a Troll. I wasn't tossing out an incendiary comment in the hopes of dragging people into a pointless/worthless debate i.e. I was not tossing out a line (trolling) hoping to catch a fish.
IT IS AN OVERUSED "JOKE" THAT LACKS ANY SEMBLANCE OF ORIGINALITY AT THIS POINT!
Moderators: do you still think the various "all your base" comments are "funny"? I realize that humor is different for every individual but after you've read this "joke" once, I would think you already knew the punchline and it would cease to be "funny". At that point, it serves only to transform the author into a karma whore.
I realize toolbar is not an adjective. The point of my editorial liberties was to illustrate how this "joke" is typically applied. The beginning and ending phrases are always the same with a lame series of words meant to describe the "overlords". The lame series of words are, functionally, adjectives because the phrase describes the final noun.
No offense, sPaKr, but are you moderators smoking crack?! How many stinkin' times have you seen this "joke"? Its hardly original and ceased to be funny hundreds of iterations ago.
Neither do most people who preach the "open formats" mantra. What they do believe, however, is that open formats ensure them the ability to move to a different application if the current application no longer meets their needs - without losing data.
Open Formats ~= Open Data. What are you going to do if Microsoft decides to no longer support the file format you are currently using (for whatever reason - could be a legitimate end-of-life type thing)? What if your current copy of the application you are using will not install on that whiz-bang new machine you just bought? Sure, you may be able to keep that old machine around for awhile...but, sooner or later, it is going to fail.
Users who want open formats realize that these situations are inevitable and without an open format they stand to potentially lose a tremendous amount of material and effort. At least if the format is open, they stand a reasonable chance of being able to find a tool that can extract their data and/or pay someone to write such a tool... That is why open standards are important for everyone.
Finally, don't be a fool. In probably the vast majority of cases, application providers who refuse to divulge their data format are trying to get you locked into their application suite. Once you start using their tools, there will be a lot of momentum to keep you using their tools. Closed data formats become a barrier to entry for new providers in established markets; in this way, closed formats are a conspiracy to keep new providers out of the market.
To be quite honest, no, I haven't. I've learned over the years that most of these types of discussions (philosophy, ethics, religion, etc.) require a certain amount of abstraction with regards to the "other side". More than anything, I'm debating against the prevailing attitude I perceive in your statements. It would be ludicrous for me to judge you specifically off of one statement on an online message board. I do disagree with the general bent of your ideology (limited view that I have of it) but, despite the limited appearances provided online, I do not believe you are one way or another, specifically.
Keeping in mind that I neither know you specifically nor am I in any good place to judge you, were I forced to make an observation about your viewpoint based upon your statements in this discussion, to this point, I would have to stand by my assertion that your general state of mind is one of selfishness:
I've realized now that I'm not going to change the world by behaving in the ideal way.
Why do you have to change the world? What about first changing yourself and hoping that the change in yourself inspires others in the immediate vicinity to change.
I guess this is how I see it: like you, I only allow someone to fool me once. Unlike you, I try not to generalize my experience with one $entity to the point where I assume the next $entity is automatically going to attempt to take advantage of me. I am not always successful (I have a *real* problem with Salespeople and Marketers - primarily because I've found many of them to be deceitful - I would guess that this is where you likely have the same problem because these two groups are typically the public face of most corporations). I approach nearly all Salespeople (especially ones that work on commission) with a healthy dose of skepticism. I've been taken to task on a few occasions by marketers when I've challenged them on the morality of their jobs - basically, that they exist to create a desire in people that would otherwise not exist in order to convince people to buy things they probably do not need - and what I have found is that, at least a few, actually believe they are truly helping people. They actually believe the product they are selling is good and actually believe that their goal is not to create a desire but to provide a better solution to someone who is already in search of what they have to sell.
I don't know. I do know that you and I are unlikely to come to an agreement and that this whole discussion is really more of a mental exercise for both of us than anything else. Regardless, it still kind of disappoints me that the ideology you appear to espouse has a firmer grasp on America than the one I believe is superior. What is truly devastating is the way that the whole thing, on both sides, devolves into a self-fulfilling prophecy as idealists lose hope and become cynics and
Who wouldn't. Key word in that statement is legally. What we are talking about is willful deception in order to benefit yourself.
You can't be serious if you're trying to tell me that honor has a place in a world where he gets away with what he and the rest of the Enron management did.
I'm dead serious. The attitude you seem to be expressing is what has gotten us into these predicaments; its an "escalation of arms" in a way - they did this to me so I'm gonna do that to them.
Just because one person, one group, one corporation, one $entity acts immorally or unethically doesn't obviate the need for the rest of us to act ethically. Basic game theory: Sometimes the only way to win is not to play. If a company mistreats you, you take your $currency elsewhere, do without, or start a competing business.
I've seen far too many people lose out or lose everything because they put an emotional investment in what they do for money. It's a sucker bet.
Dealing with other people honorably is not an emotional investment; it should be a simple courteousy. When you advocate or accept deception as a legitimate response to a situation, you cannot complain when you are deceived:
Ludicrous example? Certainly. Where does it end though when you accept unethical behavior as a way of dealing with corporations...or with people? How can you expect someone to deal with you ethically if you won't do the same.That's an asinine statement.
If you honestly believe that ethics and business do not belong with each other than it must be safe to assume that:
Come on...you don't really believe that, do you?
What you are really trying to express, it seems, is a selfish perspective built on whatever you can get away with. If that is the case, if your word, your contracts, your responsibilities and your commitments that you have willingly entered into mean nothing to you, then you are as bad as the machine you are raging against. Its dishonorable and sad.
Take responsibility for your mistakes.
I was not intending to disparage your credit. It was more of a 2nd person "you".
I in no way advocate lying to help clear your credit report.
How is it that you can say that when your original post clearly suggested that individuals desiring to clear legitimate, negative items from their credit reports should claim that said situation never occurred? That's a lie. If you do not want to advocate lying, you could just have easily suggested that items believed to be in error (vice known to be legitimate, negative items) should be challenged and if the challenged company cannot or does not respond to the challenge the item will be cleared.
I was able to clear it off my record.
Honestly, glad to hear that you were able to get this straightened out. False accusations can really damage a person's reputation and it is encouraging to see that your experience clearing up the matter was straightforward.
Wow. You have absolutely no moral qualms whatsoever about lying, huh? Perhaps that bad credit rating is deserved...I mean if you advocate lying, how is a business/partner/whomever supposed to know you will keep your end of a contract (i.e. what the credit report is supposed to reflect).
If you did the deed, own up to it and pay the price or don't do the deed in the first place. One or two minor problems (like bouncing a check 3 freaking years ago) are unlikely to seriously impede your ability to either buy a car or a house - especially if you made good on the check.
Actually, what I thought the demo proved was that you could provide a list of Band Names as a filter making it much more difficult for people to find those bands. If Sharman included filters that could not be turned off, that filtered out a list of *AA bands, those bands would be more difficult to locate on KaZaa. If the tool becomes more difficult to use for a given purpose, the use of the tool for that purpose will probably decrease.
Do not mistake me; I am aware of the limitations and am no fan of filtering. It is spotty at best and has the nasty side-effect of catching legitimate content that should be allowed to pass.
Filters are not perfect...but if Sharman makes KaZaa more difficult to use for finding specific bands or specific songs, then, by logical extension, the downloading of those bands or songs should decrease. Will those files/bands still be available? Probably, but unless you know the "magic" search parameters to input to find them, you are going to have a more difficult time finding them.
Personally, I'm against the downloading of music that has not been explicitly given gratis to the public. If KaZaa, and the community that supports KaZaa, truly see KaZaa as a fantastic tool for all sorts of non-infringing uses (and I absolutely and unequivocally believe that P2P software should not be illegal just because percentage of users use that tool for illegal activities - even if that percentage approaches 100%) then we should get behind efforts to block copyrighted works that the copyright owner does not want distributed. Hopefully, the copyright owner will be burned by their own attempts to so tightly control their property that they will loosen up. If they do not loosen up, they will lose customers. One way to ensure they lose customers is to strongly curtail (or eliminate) your purchase of *AA-backed bands. The combination of filters with a reduction in purchases will hopefully be the stick that smacks them upside their head and makes them realize that they cannot continue to treat their customers this way.
As a software developer, a Linux user, and someone who would someday love to publish pencil & paper RPG gaming materials to the web, I take licensing and copyright issues very seriously. I want to believe that should I release my property to the web that the license I choose to release it under will be honored and that I will be compensated for my efforts (great examples that inspire hope include the Baen Free Libary).
If you want people to honor your license (GPL, BSD, whatever) and respect your copyright then you need to honor the license and copyright of even those you oppose.