The apple mouse seems to only have 7 buttons - the left and right side buttons constitute a single "squeeze" button. Not arguing with the point of your post, I just don't want anyone to be misinformed.
The problem with lobbyists is that they are only allowed to have one priority.
Suppose that I am strongly opposed to "Foo" but strongly in favor of a largely unrelated issue "Bar". Further suppose that Sen. Example is the strongest advocate for Bar (which again, I love) in the whole government, but he also occasionally votes in favor of Foo (which I hate, just to reiterate).
If I give my money to the AAF (Americans Against Foo), they are likely to use my money to try and oust Senator Example in the upcoming election. But I don't want Senator Example removed because he's done more good for Bar than he's done bad regarding Foo! So should I donate to BSA (Bar Supporters of America) instead? What if there's another senator who is the mirror image of Example?
Lobbyists do not, cannot, and I dare say should not think for themselves (unless they have no other goal in life besides the mission of their lobby) because it would defeat the whole purpose of being a lobbyist. Unfortunately, that means lobbying groups with unrelated goals end up fighting with each other because they can't look at issues outside the scope of their organization's mission. Senator Example voted "no" on the recent Anti-Foo Bill, so he has to go - end of story. His record as a whole is ignored. I think that is a (forgive me) retarded way of looking at politics, but it's how the most politically active groups (except for the large political parties who embrace an entire platform of issues) do things.
I didn't say that Intelligent Design was science (not saying it isn't either, but that's not the subject of my argument). I said that people who believe in it can still be scientists because most scienctists are not researching evolution or I.D. In most cases, it doesn't matter what the scientist believes; what counts is what they can demonstrate. In the case of, say, a virologist, who cares if they believe in evolution when they are developing cures for diseases?
P.S. Flamebait? Oh right. Slashdot. I forgot. Can't insult anyone who claims to be on the side of science, whether they actually are or not.
I call bollocks on that argument. If there is a science-hostile environment in the U.S., it is towards particular areas of science, not science in general.
The study of evolution, while fascinating and sometimes yielding useful discoveries, is not synonymous with science. Neither is cloning or stem-cell research. The hostility among fundamentalists towards these branches of science will only spill over into other branches if the scientific community treats them dogmatically and makes all science inseparable from its most controversial studies.
There is no fundamentalist hostility towards geologists, meterorologists, chemists, virologists, herpetologists, ornithologists, oceonagraphers, computer scientists, aerospace engineers, physicists, or zoologists, except in the areas where the fields overlap with controversial theories and practices.
So unless you think that someone can't believe in Intelligent Design and also be a physicist or a chemist, you're just just extrapolating your hostility towards fundamentalists into some sort of catch-all scapegoat. If you do believe that I.D. believers cannot be physicists or chemists, you do not understand how science works.
Hmm. Based on that, all of the spammers who have sent me anything in the last few months were brutally murdered in the act. Your example is more intelligible than most of them.
It is fallacious to suggest that the ESRB ignoring "Hot Coffee" in the already-notorious GTA series would lead to the ESRB ignoring "Freakshow Mode" in an E-rated game intended for children.
I wasn't suggesting that the ESRB was ignoring the hidden content. The problem was that they didn't know about it, placing the responsibility in this case squarely upon Rockstar. The ESRB is completely useless if they can be circumvented by a technicality such as "it takes extra work to see it". The ESRB made the correct decision in this case by changing the rating. They've effectively levied a "sanction" against Rockstar which will hurt their sales and serve as a warning to other game makers that they can't just sneak this stuff in without consequences.
I don't think that I disagree with you on principle. I think that an "unrated" disclaimer would be appropriate in these cases (for example, "Game Rated M for Mature / Additional Content Unrated"). Of course, this would require Rockstar or whoever to be forthcoming about the existence of additional content.
The problem with mods isn't only that they are unrated, it's that the kids are obtaining them on their own, circumventing their parents. If the kids are getting around their parents, then the ratings are worthless in most cases anyway. I believe that in most places, there's no law forbidding a 10 year old from buying a rate "M" game.
The ESRB ratings are only useful when they are 1.) consistent, 2.) accurate, and 3.) visible to parents. The Hot Coffee incident demonstrates that the ESRB cannot completely guarantee any of the three. Personally, I think that if #3 is met, it falsely promises that #1 and #2 will be met as well. If they can't be guaranteed, then the whole system should be thrown out.
Sounds like you're behind on the news. This wasn't a mod, this was built into the game. Hidden, yes, but built-in. Rockstar has no other plausible explanation for why the content is in the PS2 version of the game.
When you buy GTA:SA, this content is on the disk. As such, it's a part of the product being sold. If the ESRB is going to be at all relevant, it needs to take the complete product into account when it places its ratings, and it sounds like they are doing just that (and they are probably more than a little irritated with Rockstar for putting them in a position to have to change a rating).
They probably think this is actually a scene you'd come across during normal gameplay, and therefore they do feel deceived.
Not necessarily. In the case of GTA:SA, the whole issue may seem to be splitting hairs. The entire game already revolves around violence and sex anyway, right? But the parent groups may be concerned with the precendent of the thing.
Suppose a year from now, parents are mystified that their 13 year old sons want to own some game called "Happy Bunny and the Carnival Mystery" (Rated "E" for Everyone). but how can they object? All of the game's content has been reviewed and approved by the ERSB and multiple gaming publications as being suitable for kids.
Then it turns out that a code, widely available on the web but largely unknown outside of gaming circles, unlocks the "freak show" mode, granting access to rooms full of violent and pornographic images. Some developer put it in as a joke, with the rationale that none of the kids will ever see it because it requires them to 'knowingly go out of their way to enable it.'
Again, GTA is an odd place to set the precedent because most conscientious parents wouldn't allow it in their houses in the first place, but no parent likes the idea that a gaming company might, willfully or accidentally, help their child smuggle obscene material through their door under the guise of a milder game.
Rockstar is being made into an example for all game companies to discourage the insertion of "easter eggs" that might change the rating of the game were they enabled by default.
You make a good point, but don't go forgetting yourself that Apple rebuilt their OS to be very different than it was before, but they didn't build it from the ground up. They started with what was more or less BSD, itself descended from UNIX, one of the old school operating systems. Their attempts to build a more original system based on less derivative technologies like NeXT (e.g. Copland) were unsuccessful. A lot of OS X's success is due to its similarities to other *NIXes, allowing some of the more computer-proficient minds out there to adapt naturally to its architecture.
Interestingly, it's through gradual replacement of traditional elements, not revolutionary change, that Apple is creating a completely new system. For example, lookupd and launchd are new methods for solving old, old UNIX problems, and adding metadata back into their file system could very well change the way files are organized.
Amen! The Slashdot reaction to this information just goes to show how effective Apple's iPod marketing has been. It's taken five short years to create "Apple + multimedia = iPod" in even a techie crowd's minds.
I heard that Apple was going to start making computers, and some of them might even have monitors attached that you could use to watch video. Anyone able to confirm?
I respectfully disagree. Customer education can be a mutually beneficial endeavor.
Besides, your analogy is flawed. I work at a print shop as a graphic designer and prepress layout specialist. In this business, there are some minimum things that the customer expects us to do, and there are some minimum things we expect the customer to do.
The customer rightly expects us to know how to create and digitize a page layout, output that layout to film, make plates from the film, and use those plates to produce a finished product on our printing press.
The customer is wrong if they expect us to guess what color ink to use, what size and type of paper to print on, and what information to include in the layout. Providing us with that information is their job.
Repeat customers are nice because they start to get a feel for what they need to do vs. what the print shop needs to do. Fortunately, most of our jobs are small and fast, so we don't spend months and thousands of dollars before we get a chance to educate our customers.
What kind of a frelled-up client do you have? I've never dealt with anyone (although I allow that there probably are people of the sort) who responded badly to me saying "I'd like to sit down with you and discuss your needs before diving into this project". I get especially good results if I add "in my experience, taking an extra hour or so to nail down the specifications can shave a good amount of time and money off of the project."
It all depends on what you mean by "readable". If all you want to do is read the text in your page, I suppose your HTML is more readable. However, as someone writing code, I would definitely prefer the XHTML because it clearly shows me where the beginning and end of each paragraph are. That's essential when you start applying style sheets, and it encourages cleaner code as well.
The thing is, your example is really moot anyway when it comes to HTML vs. XHTML. Your second example is perfectly valid HTML (except for the closing slash on the image tag), and I was closing my paragraph tags for years before I'd even heard of XHTML because of the reasons I've already mentioned.
If it's no financially practical to continue supporting analog, then let the market decide that. There's no call for regulation on an issue that will take care of itself.
As several others have pointed out, there's already been a sequel. The solution is obvious: it's prequel time!
Coming next summer: Clean, American Walls!
Soon afterwards, we'll see a "re-release" of the original movie. Of course, Ron Howard will drive a flying car in this one because that's really what Lucas wanted all along. And Harrison Ford's bit character will be replaced by a computer-generated, talking duck. And Wolfman will be-- get this-- an actual Wolf-Man! This is going to be great!
Some people don't hold on to the old technology because they prefer it. They hold onto it because they can't afford the new technology, or the new technology is unavailable to them. Where do you live? I'm assuming from your attitude that you live in a city where digital cable (or any cable, for that matter) is available. Meanwhile, there is a substantial population, especially in the midwest, that has no cable coverage whatsoever. Our only alternative is satellite, which is remarkably expensive compared to, say, FREE local broadcasts via antenna.
Just because you 1.) can afford digital television and 2.) are able to receive digital television where you are does not make the rest of us "luddites".
What did I say that would suggest I've never heard of these things? Are you attacking my position, or are you just pointing out that the DMCA is similarly ridiculous to the things I described, yet exists anyway?
Similarly, if I want to go through my magazines and cover all of the ads with white-out, I see nothing (morally) wrong with that. Heck, I could even cut the ads out of one magazine and paste them on top of the ads in another magazine! Why? Because it's my copy of the magazine. Some magazines are delivered for free because they are completely ad-supported. Would it be wrong to cut the ads out of one of those before reading it? I defy you to find me someone who would say "yes" and really mean it.
The problem is that for people near the border of time zones, DST is a lose-lose proposition either way. That's why Indiana has remained DST-free with the exception of a few counties (although our governor now wants to change this).
Where we sit right now (i.e. without DST), sunrise gets closer and closer to the start of the work day as we approach midwinter, and sunset gets closer and closer to the end. Then, as we get closer to summer, the day "stretches" away from the beginning and end of the work day. If we have to pick one time zone or the other, we'll either have dark mornings that last until 8:30 or 9am or sunsets that start at 4:30 or 5pm.
The fact is, the day will get shorter no matter what, and people don't turn off their lights just because it's light outside.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget nearly perfect darkness, too. With only starlight and the light coming from portals (if any), there wouldn't be much to look at.
The apple mouse seems to only have 7 buttons - the left and right side buttons constitute a single "squeeze" button. Not arguing with the point of your post, I just don't want anyone to be misinformed.
The problem with lobbyists is that they are only allowed to have one priority.
Suppose that I am strongly opposed to "Foo" but strongly in favor of a largely unrelated issue "Bar". Further suppose that Sen. Example is the strongest advocate for Bar (which again, I love) in the whole government, but he also occasionally votes in favor of Foo (which I hate, just to reiterate).
If I give my money to the AAF (Americans Against Foo), they are likely to use my money to try and oust Senator Example in the upcoming election. But I don't want Senator Example removed because he's done more good for Bar than he's done bad regarding Foo! So should I donate to BSA (Bar Supporters of America) instead? What if there's another senator who is the mirror image of Example?
Lobbyists do not, cannot, and I dare say should not think for themselves (unless they have no other goal in life besides the mission of their lobby) because it would defeat the whole purpose of being a lobbyist. Unfortunately, that means lobbying groups with unrelated goals end up fighting with each other because they can't look at issues outside the scope of their organization's mission. Senator Example voted "no" on the recent Anti-Foo Bill, so he has to go - end of story. His record as a whole is ignored. I think that is a (forgive me) retarded way of looking at politics, but it's how the most politically active groups (except for the large political parties who embrace an entire platform of issues) do things.
I didn't say that Intelligent Design was science (not saying it isn't either, but that's not the subject of my argument). I said that people who believe in it can still be scientists because most scienctists are not researching evolution or I.D. In most cases, it doesn't matter what the scientist believes; what counts is what they can demonstrate. In the case of, say, a virologist, who cares if they believe in evolution when they are developing cures for diseases?
P.S. Flamebait? Oh right. Slashdot. I forgot. Can't insult anyone who claims to be on the side of science, whether they actually are or not.
I call bollocks on that argument. If there is a science-hostile environment in the U.S., it is towards particular areas of science, not science in general.
The study of evolution, while fascinating and sometimes yielding useful discoveries, is not synonymous with science. Neither is cloning or stem-cell research. The hostility among fundamentalists towards these branches of science will only spill over into other branches if the scientific community treats them dogmatically and makes all science inseparable from its most controversial studies.
There is no fundamentalist hostility towards geologists, meterorologists, chemists, virologists, herpetologists, ornithologists, oceonagraphers, computer scientists, aerospace engineers, physicists, or zoologists, except in the areas where the fields overlap with controversial theories and practices.
So unless you think that someone can't believe in Intelligent Design and also be a physicist or a chemist, you're just just extrapolating your hostility towards fundamentalists into some sort of catch-all scapegoat. If you do believe that I.D. believers cannot be physicists or chemists, you do not understand how science works.
Hmm. Based on that, all of the spammers who have sent me anything in the last few months were brutally murdered in the act. Your example is more intelligible than most of them.
I wasn't suggesting that the ESRB was ignoring the hidden content. The problem was that they didn't know about it, placing the responsibility in this case squarely upon Rockstar. The ESRB is completely useless if they can be circumvented by a technicality such as "it takes extra work to see it". The ESRB made the correct decision in this case by changing the rating. They've effectively levied a "sanction" against Rockstar which will hurt their sales and serve as a warning to other game makers that they can't just sneak this stuff in without consequences.
I don't think that I disagree with you on principle. I think that an "unrated" disclaimer would be appropriate in these cases (for example, "Game Rated M for Mature / Additional Content Unrated"). Of course, this would require Rockstar or whoever to be forthcoming about the existence of additional content.
The problem with mods isn't only that they are unrated, it's that the kids are obtaining them on their own, circumventing their parents. If the kids are getting around their parents, then the ratings are worthless in most cases anyway. I believe that in most places, there's no law forbidding a 10 year old from buying a rate "M" game.
The ESRB ratings are only useful when they are 1.) consistent, 2.) accurate, and 3.) visible to parents. The Hot Coffee incident demonstrates that the ESRB cannot completely guarantee any of the three. Personally, I think that if #3 is met, it falsely promises that #1 and #2 will be met as well. If they can't be guaranteed, then the whole system should be thrown out.
Sounds like you're behind on the news. This wasn't a mod, this was built into the game. Hidden, yes, but built-in. Rockstar has no other plausible explanation for why the content is in the PS2 version of the game.
When you buy GTA:SA, this content is on the disk. As such, it's a part of the product being sold. If the ESRB is going to be at all relevant, it needs to take the complete product into account when it places its ratings, and it sounds like they are doing just that (and they are probably more than a little irritated with Rockstar for putting them in a position to have to change a rating).
Not necessarily. In the case of GTA:SA, the whole issue may seem to be splitting hairs. The entire game already revolves around violence and sex anyway, right? But the parent groups may be concerned with the precendent of the thing.
Suppose a year from now, parents are mystified that their 13 year old sons want to own some game called "Happy Bunny and the Carnival Mystery" (Rated "E" for Everyone). but how can they object? All of the game's content has been reviewed and approved by the ERSB and multiple gaming publications as being suitable for kids.
Then it turns out that a code, widely available on the web but largely unknown outside of gaming circles, unlocks the "freak show" mode, granting access to rooms full of violent and pornographic images. Some developer put it in as a joke, with the rationale that none of the kids will ever see it because it requires them to 'knowingly go out of their way to enable it.'
Again, GTA is an odd place to set the precedent because most conscientious parents wouldn't allow it in their houses in the first place, but no parent likes the idea that a gaming company might, willfully or accidentally, help their child smuggle obscene material through their door under the guise of a milder game.
Rockstar is being made into an example for all game companies to discourage the insertion of "easter eggs" that might change the rating of the game were they enabled by default.
You clearly betray your ignorance of 1337! The proper term is "n00b", or less common but equally correct, "n008".
PWND! kekekekeke!
You make a good point, but don't go forgetting yourself that Apple rebuilt their OS to be very different than it was before, but they didn't build it from the ground up. They started with what was more or less BSD, itself descended from UNIX, one of the old school operating systems. Their attempts to build a more original system based on less derivative technologies like NeXT (e.g. Copland) were unsuccessful. A lot of OS X's success is due to its similarities to other *NIXes, allowing some of the more computer-proficient minds out there to adapt naturally to its architecture.
Interestingly, it's through gradual replacement of traditional elements, not revolutionary change, that Apple is creating a completely new system. For example, lookupd and launchd are new methods for solving old, old UNIX problems, and adding metadata back into their file system could very well change the way files are organized.
Amen! The Slashdot reaction to this information just goes to show how effective Apple's iPod marketing has been. It's taken five short years to create "Apple + multimedia = iPod" in even a techie crowd's minds.
I heard that Apple was going to start making computers, and some of them might even have monitors attached that you could use to watch video. Anyone able to confirm?
I respectfully disagree. Customer education can be a mutually beneficial endeavor.
Besides, your analogy is flawed. I work at a print shop as a graphic designer and prepress layout specialist. In this business, there are some minimum things that the customer expects us to do, and there are some minimum things we expect the customer to do.
The customer rightly expects us to know how to create and digitize a page layout, output that layout to film, make plates from the film, and use those plates to produce a finished product on our printing press.
The customer is wrong if they expect us to guess what color ink to use, what size and type of paper to print on, and what information to include in the layout. Providing us with that information is their job.
Repeat customers are nice because they start to get a feel for what they need to do vs. what the print shop needs to do. Fortunately, most of our jobs are small and fast, so we don't spend months and thousands of dollars before we get a chance to educate our customers.
What kind of a frelled-up client do you have? I've never dealt with anyone (although I allow that there probably are people of the sort) who responded badly to me saying "I'd like to sit down with you and discuss your needs before diving into this project". I get especially good results if I add "in my experience, taking an extra hour or so to nail down the specifications can shave a good amount of time and money off of the project."
There's more than enough tyranny for both Russia and America to sink into dictatorships! Why be greedy?
Come on now! You may not care for his business practices, but calling Phil Schiller a "hose" is just low!
It all depends on what you mean by "readable". If all you want to do is read the text in your page, I suppose your HTML is more readable. However, as someone writing code, I would definitely prefer the XHTML because it clearly shows me where the beginning and end of each paragraph are. That's essential when you start applying style sheets, and it encourages cleaner code as well.
The thing is, your example is really moot anyway when it comes to HTML vs. XHTML. Your second example is perfectly valid HTML (except for the closing slash on the image tag), and I was closing my paragraph tags for years before I'd even heard of XHTML because of the reasons I've already mentioned.
If it's no financially practical to continue supporting analog, then let the market decide that. There's no call for regulation on an issue that will take care of itself.
As several others have pointed out, there's already been a sequel. The solution is obvious: it's prequel time!
Coming next summer: Clean, American Walls!
Soon afterwards, we'll see a "re-release" of the original movie. Of course, Ron Howard will drive a flying car in this one because that's really what Lucas wanted all along. And Harrison Ford's bit character will be replaced by a computer-generated, talking duck. And Wolfman will be-- get this-- an actual Wolf-Man! This is going to be great!
Some people don't hold on to the old technology because they prefer it. They hold onto it because they can't afford the new technology, or the new technology is unavailable to them. Where do you live? I'm assuming from your attitude that you live in a city where digital cable (or any cable, for that matter) is available. Meanwhile, there is a substantial population, especially in the midwest, that has no cable coverage whatsoever. Our only alternative is satellite, which is remarkably expensive compared to, say, FREE local broadcasts via antenna.
Just because you 1.) can afford digital television and 2.) are able to receive digital television where you are does not make the rest of us "luddites".
What did I say that would suggest I've never heard of these things? Are you attacking my position, or are you just pointing out that the DMCA is similarly ridiculous to the things I described, yet exists anyway?
Similarly, if I want to go through my magazines and cover all of the ads with white-out, I see nothing (morally) wrong with that. Heck, I could even cut the ads out of one magazine and paste them on top of the ads in another magazine! Why? Because it's my copy of the magazine. Some magazines are delivered for free because they are completely ad-supported. Would it be wrong to cut the ads out of one of those before reading it? I defy you to find me someone who would say "yes" and really mean it.
So when do we get to see OS 10.4 SE: "Liger"?
The problem is that for people near the border of time zones, DST is a lose-lose proposition either way. That's why Indiana has remained DST-free with the exception of a few counties (although our governor now wants to change this).
Where we sit right now (i.e. without DST), sunrise gets closer and closer to the start of the work day as we approach midwinter, and sunset gets closer and closer to the end. Then, as we get closer to summer, the day "stretches" away from the beginning and end of the work day. If we have to pick one time zone or the other, we'll either have dark mornings that last until 8:30 or 9am or sunsets that start at 4:30 or 5pm.
The fact is, the day will get shorter no matter what, and people don't turn off their lights just because it's light outside.