There are people who do spend quite a bit of time in their vehicle. (Fortunatly, I'm no longer one of them.)
While I was a pizza delivery boy (I know, a glamorous job) I was in my car for five to ten hours a day. The same CD got old, fast. I did come to appreciate Public Radio a LOT MORE than I ever had before, but until I realized the pizza delivery thing was only temporary, I very much considered getting a satalite radio. Had I not needed new equipment, I might have paid the $10 a month for the four or five months I'd have used it.
Likewise, I know commuters (my father, for example, who lives in the suburbs of Chicago but works in Chicago) has a one-to-two hour round trip commute every weekday. In addition, his job often takes him outside the city, or down state, adding more time to his car trip. His car, coicidentaly, will be one year old this month and has over 40,000 miles on it. And he bought it new. I'd say that even a half-hour there and a half-hour back, every day of the week, might make a $10 a month charge seem worth it. That's less than the cost of one CD a month, for (just during the commute) twenty hours of listening.
So don't knock it just because YOU don't want it. I agree that, for MOST, a CD player that reads MP3s is a better sollution. Or just the regular old commercial radio. Or nothing at all. But for those who are (by choice or otherwise) in their car a lot, it can make a lot of sense and be a very good expenditure of money.
-Trillian
PS I couldn't help but respond to, "I don't see how paying a monthy fee for satellite radio is even justified when we already have the technology to give ourselves hours of music on a single CD." Unless you're arguing all music should be freely available (which is an idea that, even on Slashdot, few people really push) those hours of music have to be paid for somehow. Lets pretend there's an amazing, RIAA-free music distribution service. Even cheaper than iTunes. Lets say a quarter a song, or five for a dollar. So (while buying in bulk) only twenty cents a song. And lets arbitrarily say three minutes a song (twenty songs per hour). So an hour of music costs four dollars. To buy three new hours of music (and when you're in the car for hours every day three hours of music can run out quickly) costs more than the ten dollars a month of satalite radio.
Granted, if you buy that much music every month, you'll quickly have an amazingly large music collection, and there's something to be said for that. Likewise, you can make your own specific collection, that you hand-pick. But to get that large of a collection, you'll need to take the time and energy to find and download (even if from the comfort of your own home) those sixty songs. That will take SOME time. And making a really good mix takes a LOT of time. And making a mix from lots of songs can actually become harder, because a really good mix requires each song to fit together. So even in a world with inexpensive, downloadable, burnable music, pay-radio doesn't become obselete. It's just an (admitadly) niche market.
First, my understanding is developers are now required by LucasArts to stay true to the SW canon. While this obviously does not happen 100% of the time, the more recent games that have come out either fit within the origonal trilogy (i.e. Rogue Squadrono) or are far enough outside that they don't 'matter' (the Jedi Knight games). There are no longer weird and rediculous games like Rebel Assault or Yoda Quests that throws the player a really weird and random storyline. (Although I really enjoyed Yoda Quests....but that's a different issue.) So while I agree that liberties need to be taken with a game based on a movie franchise (wasn't there a/. thread on this recently?) I believe it's possible to create a true-to-the-move game and still have it be fun.
But lets, for the moment, assume that the developers are told, "You can only have a very small percent of the population become Jedi. You're not allowed to make any major deviations from what was shown in the origonal trilogy" Can't whine about it, it is what it is. So what's the best way to do that? I would agree that the requirement of random character developement is probably not the best way. As others have said, being a Jedi should NOT be easy, or the game would become rediuclous. Iif you want to play multiplayer Jedi Knight, go do that. So I don't think it's unreasonable for the game designers to have been expected to come up with a way to make Jedi difficult to obtain. And it's not totaly stupid that they made it slightly unpleasant.
But...
What others have said is correct: the game should be fun, even if not playing as, or playing to get to the point where you _can_ play as, a Jedi. The game designers were expected to make a game where it WOULD be fun to play as one of the "boring, ugly peons you see in the background of the SW universe." As the opening crawl said, it's a period of CIVIL WAR. It would seem to be an exciting time to be alive, and because the vaste majority of the people in the Rebelion, the Empire, or neither do NOT have the Force, they gotta live their lives too. Even some of the more exciting characters in the movies don't use the Force: Han Solo, Boba Fett, the 'droids, Princess Leia (ignoring her relation to Luke and Yoda's comment; for all practical purposes, in the origonal trilogy she's Force-less) and both the Rebel and Imperial armies...
So rather than bitching that the designers should have ignored canon and created a game that broke as many rules as possible until it became a fun game that was only losely based in the SW universe, you should complain because they had a responsibility to create a fun game WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS THEY WERE GIVEN. While that's a difficult job, they're being paid to do it. And it doesn't seem an insurmountable goal. The game should be fun for everyone, Jedi or not. And fun whether or not you WANT to be a Jedi. And, in fact, the game should be fun enough that being a Jedi, while cool, isn't the ONLY fun part of the game.
I haven't played SW: Galaxies, but have been following discussions about it in hopes it will eventually appear 'finished' enough that I'll take the plunge. And from what others have said, it's not there yet. Make non-Jedi questing more fun. Allow more player-created content and events. Give people more enjoyable stuff to do! These are the complaints I hear. I hope the kinks get worked out of SW:G, I really do. I very much want to play and hope the game reaches the point where I can do so and love every minute of it.
But don't bitch about what the how the game should have a major rules overhaul. Bitch about how the developers don't seem to be using the rules they have very well.
I disagree. My understanding is that, whenever possible, Peter Jackson used real sets that were digitally extended. This is unlike Lucas who put actors in front of a bluescreen with minimal set and digitally created as much as possible. I think the reason LOTR looks so amazing is that a lot of what you're looking at IS there. (Been watching TTT extended special features, and was looking at some of the behind the scenes stuff.)
I still think digitally creating a set usually (if not always) ends up looking bad. On the other hand, using as much real set as possible and digitally enhancing and extending it can give you an AMAZING looking scene that couldn't have actually been built or shot on-location, but would never have looked as good if it was entirely created on computers.
I would have to say there are a couple fun ones out there.
While not strictly movie-to-game ports, a number of the recent Star Wars games have made excelent use of the Star Wars universe. "Knights of the Old Republic" and the two recent Jedi Knights games come to mind. And the Rogue Squadron series, which takes place during the origonal trilogy, is pretty damn awesome. That said, all of the strict Star Wars movie-to-games have sucked (except for the SNES versions, which almost entirely ignored the plots of the movie and were tons of fun). And, I guess when you pump out the number of Star Wars games that LucasArts makes, you're bound to hit upon a gem now and again...
The console Lord of the Rings games have also been pretty fun. They've gotten better each game, with the recently released Return of the King being an excelent game in its own right, and made better by the use of the LotR movie tie-in. It skillfully uses clips from the film, has DVD-style interviews, art, and making-of extras, and is an actually FUN game to play. Single player is rental-worthy, but if you have a person you can do co-op with regularly, it might be worth the purchase. Playing co-op through Return of the King was good, old fashion, Gauntlet-style fun.
Before the release of the third Matrix movie, I would have said "Enter the Matrix" was a crime against the Matrix license. But now we know where the real crime lay. "Enter the Matrix" was just prepping audiences for the crap that was yet to come...
That said, I think the idea of "Enter the Matrix" is really cool: make a game along side the movie, so the game (while not needed to understand the movie) adds more backstory and allows you to see stuff that didn't make it into the film. While the Matrix incarnation of this idea sucked, it's definatly possible that someone else will do it justice in the future.
Overall, I'd say games that are based in the same universe, but don't attempt to strictly mirror the movie(s) they come from do the best. A prime example of this is Aliens vs Predator 2 (the first one was okay, but the second one was amazing). AvP2 used a solid movie license, had a fun and engaging single player with good play mechanics and a (relatively) interesting storyline which managaed to interweave between the three species, and was one of the most enjoyable multiplayer FPS games I've ever played. The same is true (as I mentioned previously) of most of the good Star Wars games: they skillfully use the universe, but don't attempt to retell a story that was already put on the big screen.
So I think it's possibly to create a good move-to-game conversion. The problem is very few movies have either the type of plot or the type of action that lends itself to a videogame. AvP2 realized that the actual Alien movies were too slow (and Predator too stupid) so they took the very cool ideas from the movies and made an action-packed game. Knights of the Old Republic took the coolest ascepts of Star Wars and made one of the finest RPGs I've ever played. And Return of the King had enough action that, by taking some liberties in the game, a really fun game was created that kept the spirit of the movie while not being anal about sticking to the same exact plot or events.
-Trillian
PS The real question is, is it possible to create a game-to-movie conversion? I'd wager that no, it is not...
I'm skeptical, and simillarly cynical in that I am sort of expecting for this work to be proved effective, and then sat on to the tune of (as someone else on this thread put it), "We have a cure, but it'll cost you $5,000 a day for the rest of your life."
That said, simply because it's patented doesn't mean they WILL be greedy bastards. It just gives them more of an opportunity to do so. So i'm waiting before I pass judgement. The developers may honestly feel that patenting the virus is the best way to ensure that it's available to the most people for the least cost. They may be ready and willing to distribute it at-cost.
But yeah, I'm not holding my breath for such an occurance.
I'm not entirely sure why the above was modded as flamebait. Paragraph by paragraph, I agreed.
Videogames are easier targets than movies or music because, by and large, the developers don't have as much money and they're viewed as 'bad' forms of entertainment. Much like when speaking against pornography, it's an easy publicity move to take the moral high road against videogames. That isn't to dismiss what affect videogames may (and probably do) have on the players. I know I get wired after a long session of Battlefield 1942, and definatly think bad thoughts while driving after playing GTA3. (But their car looks so much faster! And why can't I hit that old bitty who's driving at 23 MPH in a 45 zone?!) But (as has been beaten to death on/.) that doesn't negate personal responsibility. So while I support groups that advocate game ratings and such, this is nucking futz. Put money into community centers or whatnot if you think it's that important to build love between groups.
And I agree that "community leaders" don't always speak for communities. I bet the Haitian "community" didn't give a rats ass about GTA3:VC. But some people can't stand to see others having a non-PC good time.... (PC meaning politically correct, although I suppose using an Xbox might be considered a hate crime....)
And Florida pushing for GTA restrictions goes back to videogames being easy to attack. As has been cried many times by many posters, here on Slashdot and elsewhere, PARENT YOUR FUCING CHILDREN!
And honestly, so am I. I had tons of fun playing and beating GTA3, and have been meaning to pick up GTA:VC for a while. I now have to pick it up, even if it sits on my shelf for a while before i get around to playing it, just so I can piss some people off.
Pet peeve, but I'm impressed your room has relations with rooms of the same gender.
umm....yeah.
Anyway. I really did agree with your post, and think the media companies are doing a wonderful job of having their cake and eating it too. Just had to speak out against using 'gay' as a put-down.
-Trillian
Note: I think that political correctness has gone to far in most walks of life. I love "inapropriate jokes" (racist, sexist, "offensive" jokes) and think there is no subject that is taboo to humor. Having posted against the use of 'gay' as a put-down, you may or may not ever believe I'm anything other than a tight-ass (no pun intended). But I honestly believe using 'gay' to describe things is detrimental to society and harmful in a way that making Polish jokes or laughing about 'dumb blonds' never will be.
From: Linus Torvalds [email blocked] Subject: Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 16:00:21 -0800 (PST)
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Kendall Bennett wrote: > > I have heard many people reference the fact that the although the Linux > Kernel is under the GNU GPL license, that the code is licensed with an > exception clause that says binary loadable modules do not have to be > under the GPL.
Nope. No such exception exists.
There's a clarification that user-space programs that use the standard system call interfaces aren't considered derived works, but even that isn't an "exception" - it's just a statement of a border of what is clearly considered a "derived work". User programs are _clearly_ not derived works of the kernel, and as such whatever the kernel license is just doesn't matter.
And in fact, when it comes to modules, the GPL issue is exactly the same. The kernel _is_ GPL. No ifs, buts and maybe's about it. As a result, anything that is a derived work has to be GPL'd. It's that simple.
Now, the "derived work" issue in copyright law is the only thing that leads to any gray areas. There are areas that are not gray at all: user space is clearly not a derived work, while kernel patches clearly _are_ derived works.
But one gray area in particular is something like a driver that was originally written for another operating system (ie clearly not a derived work of Linux in origin). At exactly what point does it become a derived work of the kernel (and thus fall under the GPL)?
THAT is a gray area, and _that_ is the area where I personally believe that some modules may be considered to not be derived works simply because they weren't designed for Linux and don't depend on any special Linux behaviour.
Basically:
- anything that was written with Linux in mind (whether it then _also_
works on other operating systems or not) is clearly partially a derived
work.
- anything that has knowledge of and plays with fundamental internal
Linux behaviour is clearly a derived work. If you need to muck around
with core code, you're derived, no question about it.
Historically, there's been things like the original Andrew filesystem module: a standard filesystem that really wasn't written for Linux in the first place, and just implements a UNIX filesystem. Is that derived just because it got ported to Linux that had a reasonably similar VFS interface to what other UNIXes did? Personally, I didn't feel that I could make that judgment call. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, but it clearly is a gray area.
Personally, I think that case wasn't a derived work, and I was willing to tell the AFS guys so.
Does that mean that any kernel module is automatically not a derived work? HELL NO! It has nothing to do with modules per se, except that non-modules clearly are derived works (if they are so central to the kenrel that you can't load them as a module, they are clearly derived works just by virtue of being very intimate - and because the GPL expressly mentions linking).
So being a module is not a sign of not being a derived work. It's just one sign that _maybe_ it might have other arguments for why it isn't derived.
Linus
From: Linus Torvalds [email blocked] Subject: Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause? Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 16:23:33 -0800 (PST)
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > So being a module is not a sign of not being a derived work. It's just > one sign that _maybe_ it might have other arguments for why it isn't > derived.
Side note: historically, the Linux kernel module interfaces were really quite weak, and only exported a few tens of entry-points, and really mostly effectively only allowed character and block device drivers with standard interfaces, and loadable filesystems.
So historically, the fact that you could load a module using nothing but the
I agree that something specific needs to be done to protect the right to privacy. When the Constitution was created "privacy" almost always meant physical protection of your privacy by preventing entry to your home or workplace. And there's an Ammendment which covers that issue. The idea of an exposure of information being a violation of privacy probably would have seemed rather odd, so it's not surprising it wasn't covered.
But I think the Supreme Court could rule on privacy because the Constitution (I _believe_ in the 9th Ammendment) says that the Constitution/Bill of Rights doesn't specify ALL of the rights people have, and that just because something isn't in the Constitution doesn't mean it's not a right.
That said, I think that's a pretty weak defense for a right to privacy, and I believe the possibility of privacy being infringed upon is more and more important as information systems become more and more connected. I don't want my privacy protected by the defense, "Well, the Constitution doesn't say I DON'T have a right to privacy...." So I wholeheartedly agree that there should be something more specific guaranteeing my right to privacy.
Maybe even (although I doubt it would ever get passed) an additional Ammendment. I can't think of a simple way to word what "Right to Privacy" is, but I think something could be found to cover this concern.
As a college student, I can back this claim. In fact, Gnucleus (www.gnucleus.com) has a specific version built for running over a LAN. Download it, start the software, join the college LAN, and you're hooked up to whoever else is on Gnucleus at the time. And, because my college (which shall remain nameless in case one of our tech guys is reading this) bottlenecks Kazaa but does NOT bottleneck inter-network traffic, I'm pulling almost 1 MB a second download speeds.
To make it even better, because everyone is aware that none of the information is leaving the campus network, everyone is sharing their files. So at any one time there are between 15 and 30 other people online, sharing. I know that's small-time compared to the hundreds of thousands or millions on Kazaa and whatnot, but these are college students with gigs of music and movies. I can't find as much as I could on Kazaa, that's true. But I can download it faster and safer than I ever could on Kazaa, and not feel like a leacher while I do it.
Unfortunatly, Galactic Battlegrounds was a bad RTS game, Star Wars or not. By "same basic game" I meant as Battlefield 1942 (which this game is being compared to, and rightly so). And because it's difficult, if not impossible, to give an online FPS a good storyline, have a pre-established storyline can only help the game. By contrast, it IS possible (and needed) to have a good storyline for a RTS, but they got lazy and pumped out Galactic Battlegrounds.
I wholeheartedly agree. At the same time, this is something that hasn't been done before (at least not in the Star Wars universe). I realize it will probably just be Battlefield 1942, but hell. Battlefield 1942 kicks ass, and I'm ready and willing to shell out some cash to play a well-done version of the same basic game, set in the origonal and new trilogies. I think for this type of game, where there can't really be a plot, setting it in the same time-line as the films makes it BETTER.
Online FPS don't have the ability to truly tell a story, so I don't think it's unreasonable to use a story everyone already knows.
I, for one, am eagerly looking forward to this game.
-Trillian
I still agree that Lucasarts should expand outside the movies. Well I bought and enjoyed Rebel Strike, by the end it was pathetic. WE'VE DONE THIS ALREADY! DOZENS OF TIMES!
And back and forth we go...although I must say this is much more interesting than the work I _should_ be doing.
Your example of affirmative action bugs me. It really does. Because I do support affirmative action, but at the same time disagree with the idea that the end justifies the means. Yet, the more and more I think about it, that's basically what it's saying. My support of affirmative action, saying that whites are inherently at an unfair advantage and affirmative action is 'leveling the playing field' is simply a justification and (while I believe it) doesn't actually address the idea of 'the end justifying the mean.' So shit. Saying, "Well, the ends justify the means. Sometimes. When I feel like it," is obviously wishy-washy and crap. I haven't come to any conclusions, and I'm not willing to drop my support of affirmative action yet, but you've given me something to think about.
"Scientific determination + personal responsibility. However, the two can't logically coexist."
I don't think my semi-conflicting ideas on free will (a combination of true free will and societal influences) are mutually exclusive. I don't think you're _solely_ influenced by outside forces. I simply believe they play a _part_ in the creation of your character, and influence your actions.I disagree with the term "scientific determination," because I don't think that when you're born a cosmic die is rolled that controls your actions. At the same time, you will be a different person if you're beat as a child than if you're raised in a loving household. The former doesn't condemn you to a life of crime, while the latter doesn't guarantee you a life of happiness. I agree that free will exists. But I can't see how the events of your life can't _not_ influence you.
"What is better is the right to the pursuit of happiness, as enshrined in the US Constitution."
Okay. I'll buy that. But I believe the government should be constructed to give everyone the best possible chance to do that. (And I _think_ you agree, although we seem to disagree on many of the specifics.)
"There's an explanation for the left's opposition to the death penalty in relativistic materialism too. As we've established, humans are organic machines, and people are simply programmed by their environment."
No. We haven't established that. You've said that 'the left' believes it (or at least derives their beliefs from that concept), and I've disagreed.
"Given that it is possible to reprogram the human mind, the left believes that even the most egregious offenders can be reprogrammed through controlled therapy, and should therefore not be put to death. And this is exactly the argument you hear among liberal politicians when it comes to the death penalty: therapy instead of incarceration or execution."
That's _AN_ argument against the death penalty. It's not _THE_ argument. In no particular order, there are other very valid reasons to be against the death penalty. The main other argument against the death penalty is that the system is faulty. As a resident of Illinois, I'm more familiar with 'my' judicial system than those elsewhere, but more than a dozen men sentenced to DIE for crimes they did not commit is a farce, and a system that shouldn't exist. So part of my problem with the death penalty is you can't "undo" a death sentence. The American legal system has a lot of things going for it, but is still wrong on occasion. Far too often. And because I don't believe a 100% perfect justice system is possible, I'll remain against the death penalty. Another argument (albeit not a primary one) is the cost. Sentencing a prisoner to die costs more than life in prison. So direct your tax dollars where they could be better spent, and don't sentence people to die.
Even if those issues were satisfied, I still have moral issues with the death penalty. As I said, I believe it's a hypocritical system that kills those it condemns for killing.
And, hopefully, rehabilitation might be possible. If not, a horrible per
So I'll try to engage in more of a dialogue...(in response to jsebrech's reply to your post and your subsequent reply).
I do think your post is somewhat skewed. Saying "the left thinks" or "the right thinks" is always dangerous anyway, but I acknowledge that sometimes generalizations are needed. Regardless, it is unfair and innacurate to imply "the left" thinks, "...overal social happiness is the end that justifies the means, that no one is responsible for his or her actions b/c we're all just automatons, and that there is no absolute right or wrong."
I would (as a member of "the left") agree _partially_ with all of those concepts. I think overal social happiness is a primary goal of society. However, the end does not justify the means. While I see how your logic progression brought you to this conclusion, I don't believe it's accurate and would like you to suply examples (beyond the at-hand issue of abortion, which I'll get to in a minute) of American leftists saying the end justifies the means.
I do agree with some of what you touched upon regarding free will. I DO believe that no one is inherently evil, and that societal and personal experiences shape and influence people. But that doesn't nullify personal responsibility. Relating it to a common Slashdot topic, playing a violent videogame doesn't release anyone from the responsibility of their actions.
Finally, I think the only absolute "right" IS personal happiness. I believe the goal society is to juggle between the happiness of its members. But I won't pretend to know the best way to do this. As I said, I don't think the end justifies the means (Nazi extermination of the Jews arguably might have left the remaining Germans a lot happier, likewise with Soviet executions of dissidents), and this is an issue I think people will be struggling with for all time.
So lets get to abortion. You said, "Unborn babies make no contribution to social happiness (or economic production, which is one factor of social happiness), and since no individual human has value anyway, aborting an unborn baby is no more or less a transgression than clipping your toenails." Saying The Left believes an individual human has no value is (I realize I'm repeating myself with these two words) unfair and inaccurate. If you want to talk about the value of human life, why would 'we' be the strongest pushers for abolishing the death penalty if we didn't believe life held value? (Sidenote: I am ready and willing to argue on the death penalty, but as an attempt to stem off a possible rebuttle, I am not defending someone taking the life of another. People correctly convicted and sentenced to die - and note the word "correctly", which is a large part of my problem - are the scum of the earth. I am simply saying it is hypocritical and (I believe) 'wrong' to, in turn, take that persons life.) Aborting a baby is OBVIOUSLY (if for no other reason, the emotional impact on the woman who has the procedure) more that clipping a toenail. However, pro-life and pro-choice advocates have a single insurmountable point they disagree on: when a fetus can be classified as a "human." That is, when "humanity" begins. I don't believe abortion is wrong because I don't agree that the fetus being aborted IS a "human." That's a point that isn't arguable, by either side. I'm not going to convince you, and you're not going to convince me. Which is unfortunate, because the choices made on abortion inherently affect people OTHER than ourselves.
So, I think your post is well thought-out but, at the same time, written in a way underhanded and lopsided.
This is not a thought I'm origonating, but other people on other e-voting threads on Slashdot have said that requiring (or even allowing) the VOTER to have paper evidence of their vote would allow votes to be bought. Your local crime syndicate could pay people to vote for whatever official is in their pocket, and have proof that you voted how they wanted. Anywhere from "$10 for a vote slip that says so-and-so" to "We'll break your legs if you don't bring us the vote slip."
That said, I _DO_ agree there needs to be more accountability than has been shown in any of the possible e-voting systems. As other people have questioned, what hell is wrong with the system we have now? Or why not even go _back_ a step? SIMPLER mechanisms and voting ballots. Sure, it'll take extra time and money to count the votes, but the people manning the polls are largly volunteers. We're not talking billions of dollars and months of time, we're talking a couple million and less than a week.
And when we're tossing around numbers like $87 BILLION, isn't spending just one percent of that justified to have a simpler, more secure system? Cuz from what I've read, these e-voting systems are MORE complicated and LESS secure.
Explain to me how that makes sense. Sure, e-voting is sexier and more exciting than a paper ballot, but at what cost?
I wasn't trying to say he was missusing his office. I certainly hope Ashcroft makes an effort to stop "cyber-criminals" or whatever the buzzword is for people doing illegal things (scamming people, hijacking computers, etc) through the 'net. They're costing people money and invading people's privacy, and should be stopped.
But, I don't think Ashcroft, Bush, et al, have a very good track record (in _MY_ opinion, and seemingly the opinion of many other people on slashdot) of keeping people's rights in mind while they persue criminals and 'terrorists.' So I'd like more information from Ashcroft before I cry "hurray" about this crackdown.
And I looked at the link you provided, which doesn't really address my concerns. I'm completely ready to believe that the crimes were _reported_ through the proper chanels. I just want a guarantee that these people, who ARE criminals, aren't being labled "terrorists" or having their email read or some other exciting ability granted by Ashcroft and/or the PATRIOT act.
All I'm saying is this is an arena where Ashcroft has the ability to abuse his powers, and I want a guarantee it isn't happening. Until I get that guarantee (and I'm not holding my breath...) I'm going to stay skeptical.
How were they tracked down? Was it with previously available tools, or were formerly impossible acts made possible under the PATRIOT act? Good old detective sluething, or warrant-less email tracking? How will they be charged? With charges that fit the crime, ot as cyber-terrorists? Because while hacking computers is a real concern, sending out annoying messages about baseball shouldn't be at the top of Ashcroft's list.
I'm not accusing Ashcroft of anything. Yet. But I am VERY VERY suspicious of anything that he touches, or anything fro his department. This is hopefully a step in the right direction. People who con others out of their credit cards or hijacks other computers should be prosecuted. But I think the public needs to closely examine what exactly is going on behind the scenes.
I still don't understand why they're not selling the bonus disc. I don't want another GameCube, don't want any two of the games that are required to get the bonus offer, and don't want Nintendo Power.
Why not LET me pay $25, which is more than Nintendo Power without the cost of actually sending me the magazine I don't want. Nintendo Power used to be the only good source for Nintendo info, but with dozens of websites out there it's useless. I don't want it.
It depends on the deposit. If it's too large, it will negate the point of getting a 'disposable' (I know it's not actually disposable) camera. If it's too cheap, people will just take it anyway.
For example, no one will put down $60 as a deposit on the camera, being told they'll get $50 back when they return the camera. And if the deposit is only $20 (for a total of $30 for the camera) people will still just walk away with 'em.
I think it'd be really hard to come up with a deposit cost that would both be keeping with the idea of an inexpensive disposable camera AND prevent people from stealing it.
I really have never sympathized with that line of reasoning. It's not as bad as the "but these new horseless buggys will put God-fearing men out of work" anti-technology advocates, but it's in the same ballpark.
As others have noticed, Ritz put together a business that relies on security through obscurity rather than through, y'know, actual security features. Some of the ideas posted elsewhere on this topic included a cheap, pattented Ritz-controlled cable, limiting the hacking to extreme hardware hackers, or using an open or closed-source encryption method rather than a standard picture file type. Whether or not the hacking is "morally" clean (although it's almost certainly violating the DMCA, which on/. these days means to seem it automatically becomes morally clean...), everyone saw this hack coming.
Ritz didn't think far enough ahead to prevent something that that was (apparently) relatively simple.
And to stem off responses, this is not an argument about how hacking is good because it shows your "vulnurabilities." The majority of Slashdot has _seemed_ to agree that this argument is bullshit, as it would be if you said you broke down someone's door to prove its weakness. But Ritz didn't even put up a door in the first place. They seemingly made no effort to prevent such hacking and, as I've repeatedly said, seeing how it was so predictable that, as I said at the start of my post, I don't have a huge amount of sympathy for them.
Rereading the article, that does make sense. I just wish the author had specifically noted that, because the sentence implied to me that GameCube and GBA sales could be lumped with "value added" items like peripherals and help guides. Which I don't think is true.
I hadn't meant that Beauty and the Beast was the first Disney animated film to use computers, but that it was the first to use a scene that was entirely created through computer modeling. In which case it may or may not have beaten some of the specific other examples given, as they seem to only USE computers at some point, rather than fully rendering sections of the movie with them.
But it looks like I was STILL wrong, as (while unclear which specific movie actually wins) examples were given of movies well before 1990 that seem to have used CG constructs.
Slashdot Mirror
There are people who do spend quite a bit of time in their vehicle. (Fortunatly, I'm no longer one of them.)
While I was a pizza delivery boy (I know, a glamorous job) I was in my car for five to ten hours a day. The same CD got old, fast. I did come to appreciate Public Radio a LOT MORE than I ever had before, but until I realized the pizza delivery thing was only temporary, I very much considered getting a satalite radio. Had I not needed new equipment, I might have paid the $10 a month for the four or five months I'd have used it.
Likewise, I know commuters (my father, for example, who lives in the suburbs of Chicago but works in Chicago) has a one-to-two hour round trip commute every weekday. In addition, his job often takes him outside the city, or down state, adding more time to his car trip. His car, coicidentaly, will be one year old this month and has over 40,000 miles on it. And he bought it new. I'd say that even a half-hour there and a half-hour back, every day of the week, might make a $10 a month charge seem worth it. That's less than the cost of one CD a month, for (just during the commute) twenty hours of listening.
So don't knock it just because YOU don't want it. I agree that, for MOST, a CD player that reads MP3s is a better sollution. Or just the regular old commercial radio. Or nothing at all. But for those who are (by choice or otherwise) in their car a lot, it can make a lot of sense and be a very good expenditure of money.
-Trillian
PS I couldn't help but respond to, "I don't see how paying a monthy fee for satellite radio is even justified when we already have the technology to give ourselves hours of music on a single CD." Unless you're arguing all music should be freely available (which is an idea that, even on Slashdot, few people really push) those hours of music have to be paid for somehow. Lets pretend there's an amazing, RIAA-free music distribution service. Even cheaper than iTunes. Lets say a quarter a song, or five for a dollar. So (while buying in bulk) only twenty cents a song. And lets arbitrarily say three minutes a song (twenty songs per hour). So an hour of music costs four dollars. To buy three new hours of music (and when you're in the car for hours every day three hours of music can run out quickly) costs more than the ten dollars a month of satalite radio.
Granted, if you buy that much music every month, you'll quickly have an amazingly large music collection, and there's something to be said for that. Likewise, you can make your own specific collection, that you hand-pick. But to get that large of a collection, you'll need to take the time and energy to find and download (even if from the comfort of your own home) those sixty songs. That will take SOME time. And making a really good mix takes a LOT of time. And making a mix from lots of songs can actually become harder, because a really good mix requires each song to fit together. So even in a world with inexpensive, downloadable, burnable music, pay-radio doesn't become obselete. It's just an (admitadly) niche market.
First, my understanding is developers are now required by LucasArts to stay true to the SW canon. While this obviously does not happen 100% of the time, the more recent games that have come out either fit within the origonal trilogy (i.e. Rogue Squadrono) or are far enough outside that they don't 'matter' (the Jedi Knight games). There are no longer weird and rediculous games like Rebel Assault or Yoda Quests that throws the player a really weird and random storyline. (Although I really enjoyed Yoda Quests....but that's a different issue.) So while I agree that liberties need to be taken with a game based on a movie franchise (wasn't there a /. thread on this recently?) I believe it's possible to create a true-to-the-move game and still have it be fun.
But lets, for the moment, assume that the developers are told, "You can only have a very small percent of the population become Jedi. You're not allowed to make any major deviations from what was shown in the origonal trilogy" Can't whine about it, it is what it is. So what's the best way to do that? I would agree that the requirement of random character developement is probably not the best way. As others have said, being a Jedi should NOT be easy, or the game would become rediuclous. Iif you want to play multiplayer Jedi Knight, go do that. So I don't think it's unreasonable for the game designers to have been expected to come up with a way to make Jedi difficult to obtain. And it's not totaly stupid that they made it slightly unpleasant.
But...
What others have said is correct: the game should be fun, even if not playing as, or playing to get to the point where you _can_ play as, a Jedi. The game designers were expected to make a game where it WOULD be fun to play as one of the "boring, ugly peons you see in the background of the SW universe." As the opening crawl said, it's a period of CIVIL WAR. It would seem to be an exciting time to be alive, and because the vaste majority of the people in the Rebelion, the Empire, or neither do NOT have the Force, they gotta live their lives too. Even some of the more exciting characters in the movies don't use the Force: Han Solo, Boba Fett, the 'droids, Princess Leia (ignoring her relation to Luke and Yoda's comment; for all practical purposes, in the origonal trilogy she's Force-less) and both the Rebel and Imperial armies...
So rather than bitching that the designers should have ignored canon and created a game that broke as many rules as possible until it became a fun game that was only losely based in the SW universe, you should complain because they had a responsibility to create a fun game WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS THEY WERE GIVEN. While that's a difficult job, they're being paid to do it. And it doesn't seem an insurmountable goal. The game should be fun for everyone, Jedi or not. And fun whether or not you WANT to be a Jedi. And, in fact, the game should be fun enough that being a Jedi, while cool, isn't the ONLY fun part of the game.
I haven't played SW: Galaxies, but have been following discussions about it in hopes it will eventually appear 'finished' enough that I'll take the plunge. And from what others have said, it's not there yet. Make non-Jedi questing more fun. Allow more player-created content and events. Give people more enjoyable stuff to do! These are the complaints I hear. I hope the kinks get worked out of SW:G, I really do. I very much want to play and hope the game reaches the point where I can do so and love every minute of it.
But don't bitch about what the how the game should have a major rules overhaul. Bitch about how the developers don't seem to be using the rules they have very well.
-Trillian
I disagree. My understanding is that, whenever possible, Peter Jackson used real sets that were digitally extended. This is unlike Lucas who put actors in front of a bluescreen with minimal set and digitally created as much as possible. I think the reason LOTR looks so amazing is that a lot of what you're looking at IS there. (Been watching TTT extended special features, and was looking at some of the behind the scenes stuff.)
I still think digitally creating a set usually (if not always) ends up looking bad. On the other hand, using as much real set as possible and digitally enhancing and extending it can give you an AMAZING looking scene that couldn't have actually been built or shot on-location, but would never have looked as good if it was entirely created on computers.
-Trillian
I would have to say there are a couple fun ones out there.
While not strictly movie-to-game ports, a number of the recent Star Wars games have made excelent use of the Star Wars universe. "Knights of the Old Republic" and the two recent Jedi Knights games come to mind. And the Rogue Squadron series, which takes place during the origonal trilogy, is pretty damn awesome. That said, all of the strict Star Wars movie-to-games have sucked (except for the SNES versions, which almost entirely ignored the plots of the movie and were tons of fun). And, I guess when you pump out the number of Star Wars games that LucasArts makes, you're bound to hit upon a gem now and again...
The console Lord of the Rings games have also been pretty fun. They've gotten better each game, with the recently released Return of the King being an excelent game in its own right, and made better by the use of the LotR movie tie-in. It skillfully uses clips from the film, has DVD-style interviews, art, and making-of extras, and is an actually FUN game to play. Single player is rental-worthy, but if you have a person you can do co-op with regularly, it might be worth the purchase. Playing co-op through Return of the King was good, old fashion, Gauntlet-style fun.
Before the release of the third Matrix movie, I would have said "Enter the Matrix" was a crime against the Matrix license. But now we know where the real crime lay. "Enter the Matrix" was just prepping audiences for the crap that was yet to come...
That said, I think the idea of "Enter the Matrix" is really cool: make a game along side the movie, so the game (while not needed to understand the movie) adds more backstory and allows you to see stuff that didn't make it into the film. While the Matrix incarnation of this idea sucked, it's definatly possible that someone else will do it justice in the future.
Overall, I'd say games that are based in the same universe, but don't attempt to strictly mirror the movie(s) they come from do the best. A prime example of this is Aliens vs Predator 2 (the first one was okay, but the second one was amazing). AvP2 used a solid movie license, had a fun and engaging single player with good play mechanics and a (relatively) interesting storyline which managaed to interweave between the three species, and was one of the most enjoyable multiplayer FPS games I've ever played. The same is true (as I mentioned previously) of most of the good Star Wars games: they skillfully use the universe, but don't attempt to retell a story that was already put on the big screen.
So I think it's possibly to create a good move-to-game conversion. The problem is very few movies have either the type of plot or the type of action that lends itself to a videogame. AvP2 realized that the actual Alien movies were too slow (and Predator too stupid) so they took the very cool ideas from the movies and made an action-packed game. Knights of the Old Republic took the coolest ascepts of Star Wars and made one of the finest RPGs I've ever played. And Return of the King had enough action that, by taking some liberties in the game, a really fun game was created that kept the spirit of the movie while not being anal about sticking to the same exact plot or events.
-Trillian
PS The real question is, is it possible to create a game-to-movie conversion? I'd wager that no, it is not...
I'm skeptical, and simillarly cynical in that I am sort of expecting for this work to be proved effective, and then sat on to the tune of (as someone else on this thread put it), "We have a cure, but it'll cost you $5,000 a day for the rest of your life."
That said, simply because it's patented doesn't mean they WILL be greedy bastards. It just gives them more of an opportunity to do so. So i'm waiting before I pass judgement. The developers may honestly feel that patenting the virus is the best way to ensure that it's available to the most people for the least cost. They may be ready and willing to distribute it at-cost.
But yeah, I'm not holding my breath for such an occurance.
-Trillian
I'm not entirely sure why the above was modded as flamebait. Paragraph by paragraph, I agreed.
/.) that doesn't negate personal responsibility. So while I support groups that advocate game ratings and such, this is nucking futz. Put money into community centers or whatnot if you think it's that important to build love between groups.
Videogames are easier targets than movies or music because, by and large, the developers don't have as much money and they're viewed as 'bad' forms of entertainment. Much like when speaking against pornography, it's an easy publicity move to take the moral high road against videogames. That isn't to dismiss what affect videogames may (and probably do) have on the players. I know I get wired after a long session of Battlefield 1942, and definatly think bad thoughts while driving after playing GTA3. (But their car looks so much faster! And why can't I hit that old bitty who's driving at 23 MPH in a 45 zone?!) But (as has been beaten to death on
And I agree that "community leaders" don't always speak for communities. I bet the Haitian "community" didn't give a rats ass about GTA3:VC. But some people can't stand to see others having a non-PC good time.... (PC meaning politically correct, although I suppose using an Xbox might be considered a hate crime....)
And Florida pushing for GTA restrictions goes back to videogames being easy to attack. As has been cried many times by many posters, here on Slashdot and elsewhere, PARENT YOUR FUCING CHILDREN!
And honestly, so am I. I had tons of fun playing and beating GTA3, and have been meaning to pick up GTA:VC for a while. I now have to pick it up, even if it sits on my shelf for a while before i get around to playing it, just so I can piss some people off.
-Trillian
Pet peeve, but I'm impressed your room has relations with rooms of the same gender.
umm....yeah.
Anyway. I really did agree with your post, and think the media companies are doing a wonderful job of having their cake and eating it too. Just had to speak out against using 'gay' as a put-down.
-Trillian
Note: I think that political correctness has gone to far in most walks of life. I love "inapropriate jokes" (racist, sexist, "offensive" jokes) and think there is no subject that is taboo to humor. Having posted against the use of 'gay' as a put-down, you may or may not ever believe I'm anything other than a tight-ass (no pun intended). But I honestly believe using 'gay' to describe things is detrimental to society and harmful in a way that making Polish jokes or laughing about 'dumb blonds' never will be.
And I'll get off my soapbox now...
From: Linus Torvalds [email blocked]
Subject: Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 16:00:21 -0800 (PST)
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Kendall Bennett wrote:
>
> I have heard many people reference the fact that the although the Linux
> Kernel is under the GNU GPL license, that the code is licensed with an
> exception clause that says binary loadable modules do not have to be
> under the GPL.
Nope. No such exception exists.
There's a clarification that user-space programs that use the standard system call interfaces aren't considered derived works, but even that isn't an "exception" - it's just a statement of a border of what is clearly considered a "derived work". User programs are _clearly_ not derived works of the kernel, and as such whatever the kernel license is just doesn't matter.
And in fact, when it comes to modules, the GPL issue is exactly the same. The kernel _is_ GPL. No ifs, buts and maybe's about it. As a result, anything that is a derived work has to be GPL'd. It's that simple.
Now, the "derived work" issue in copyright law is the only thing that leads to any gray areas. There are areas that are not gray at all: user space is clearly not a derived work, while kernel patches clearly _are_ derived works.
But one gray area in particular is something like a driver that was originally written for another operating system (ie clearly not a derived work of Linux in origin). At exactly what point does it become a derived work of the kernel (and thus fall under the GPL)?
THAT is a gray area, and _that_ is the area where I personally believe that some modules may be considered to not be derived works simply because they weren't designed for Linux and don't depend on any special Linux behaviour.
Basically:
- anything that was written with Linux in mind (whether it then _also_
works on other operating systems or not) is clearly partially a derived
work.
- anything that has knowledge of and plays with fundamental internal
Linux behaviour is clearly a derived work. If you need to muck around
with core code, you're derived, no question about it.
Historically, there's been things like the original Andrew filesystem module: a standard filesystem that really wasn't written for Linux in the first place, and just implements a UNIX filesystem. Is that derived just because it got ported to Linux that had a reasonably similar VFS interface to what other UNIXes did? Personally, I didn't feel that I could make that judgment call. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, but it clearly is a gray area.
Personally, I think that case wasn't a derived work, and I was willing to tell the AFS guys so.
Does that mean that any kernel module is automatically not a derived work? HELL NO! It has nothing to do with modules per se, except that non-modules clearly are derived works (if they are so central to the kenrel that you can't load them as a module, they are clearly derived works just by virtue of being very intimate - and because the GPL expressly mentions linking).
So being a module is not a sign of not being a derived work. It's just one sign that _maybe_ it might have other arguments for why it isn't derived.
Linus
From: Linus Torvalds [email blocked]
Subject: Re: Linux GPL and binary module exception clause?
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 2003 16:23:33 -0800 (PST)
On Wed, 3 Dec 2003, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> So being a module is not a sign of not being a derived work. It's just
> one sign that _maybe_ it might have other arguments for why it isn't
> derived.
Side note: historically, the Linux kernel module interfaces were really quite weak, and only exported a few tens of entry-points, and really mostly effectively only allowed character and block device drivers with standard interfaces, and loadable filesystems.
So historically, the fact that you could load a module using nothing but the
Because, of course, the space station is inhabited mainly by pirates who traipse around and say 'Arr' a lot. As well as 'Shiver me timbers.
-Trillian
I agree that something specific needs to be done to protect the right to privacy. When the Constitution was created "privacy" almost always meant physical protection of your privacy by preventing entry to your home or workplace. And there's an Ammendment which covers that issue. The idea of an exposure of information being a violation of privacy probably would have seemed rather odd, so it's not surprising it wasn't covered.
But I think the Supreme Court could rule on privacy because the Constitution (I _believe_ in the 9th Ammendment) says that the Constitution/Bill of Rights doesn't specify ALL of the rights people have, and that just because something isn't in the Constitution doesn't mean it's not a right.
That said, I think that's a pretty weak defense for a right to privacy, and I believe the possibility of privacy being infringed upon is more and more important as information systems become more and more connected. I don't want my privacy protected by the defense, "Well, the Constitution doesn't say I DON'T have a right to privacy...." So I wholeheartedly agree that there should be something more specific guaranteeing my right to privacy.
Maybe even (although I doubt it would ever get passed) an additional Ammendment. I can't think of a simple way to word what "Right to Privacy" is, but I think something could be found to cover this concern.
-Trillian
As a college student, I can back this claim. In fact, Gnucleus (www.gnucleus.com) has a specific version built for running over a LAN. Download it, start the software, join the college LAN, and you're hooked up to whoever else is on Gnucleus at the time. And, because my college (which shall remain nameless in case one of our tech guys is reading this) bottlenecks Kazaa but does NOT bottleneck inter-network traffic, I'm pulling almost 1 MB a second download speeds.
To make it even better, because everyone is aware that none of the information is leaving the campus network, everyone is sharing their files. So at any one time there are between 15 and 30 other people online, sharing. I know that's small-time compared to the hundreds of thousands or millions on Kazaa and whatnot, but these are college students with gigs of music and movies. I can't find as much as I could on Kazaa, that's true. But I can download it faster and safer than I ever could on Kazaa, and not feel like a leacher while I do it.
-Trillian
Unfortunatly, Galactic Battlegrounds was a bad RTS game, Star Wars or not. By "same basic game" I meant as Battlefield 1942 (which this game is being compared to, and rightly so). And because it's difficult, if not impossible, to give an online FPS a good storyline, have a pre-established storyline can only help the game. By contrast, it IS possible (and needed) to have a good storyline for a RTS, but they got lazy and pumped out Galactic Battlegrounds.
-Trillian
I wholeheartedly agree. At the same time, this is something that hasn't been done before (at least not in the Star Wars universe). I realize it will probably just be Battlefield 1942, but hell. Battlefield 1942 kicks ass, and I'm ready and willing to shell out some cash to play a well-done version of the same basic game, set in the origonal and new trilogies. I think for this type of game, where there can't really be a plot, setting it in the same time-line as the films makes it BETTER.
Online FPS don't have the ability to truly tell a story, so I don't think it's unreasonable to use a story everyone already knows.
I, for one, am eagerly looking forward to this game.
-Trillian
I still agree that Lucasarts should expand outside the movies. Well I bought and enjoyed Rebel Strike, by the end it was pathetic. WE'VE DONE THIS ALREADY! DOZENS OF TIMES!
And back and forth we go...although I must say this is much more interesting than the work I _should_ be doing.
Your example of affirmative action bugs me. It really does. Because I do support affirmative action, but at the same time disagree with the idea that the end justifies the means. Yet, the more and more I think about it, that's basically what it's saying. My support of affirmative action, saying that whites are inherently at an unfair advantage and affirmative action is 'leveling the playing field' is simply a justification and (while I believe it) doesn't actually address the idea of 'the end justifying the mean.' So shit. Saying, "Well, the ends justify the means. Sometimes. When I feel like it," is obviously wishy-washy and crap. I haven't come to any conclusions, and I'm not willing to drop my support of affirmative action yet, but you've given me something to think about.
"Scientific determination + personal responsibility. However, the two can't logically coexist."
I don't think my semi-conflicting ideas on free will (a combination of true free will and societal influences) are mutually exclusive. I don't think you're _solely_ influenced by outside forces. I simply believe they play a _part_ in the creation of your character, and influence your actions.I disagree with the term "scientific determination," because I don't think that when you're born a cosmic die is rolled that controls your actions. At the same time, you will be a different person if you're beat as a child than if you're raised in a loving household. The former doesn't condemn you to a life of crime, while the latter doesn't guarantee you a life of happiness. I agree that free will exists. But I can't see how the events of your life can't _not_ influence you.
"What is better is the right to the pursuit of happiness, as enshrined in the US Constitution."
Okay. I'll buy that. But I believe the government should be constructed to give everyone the best possible chance to do that. (And I _think_ you agree, although we seem to disagree on many of the specifics.)
"There's an explanation for the left's opposition to the death penalty in relativistic materialism too. As we've established, humans are organic machines, and people are simply programmed by their environment."
No. We haven't established that. You've said that 'the left' believes it (or at least derives their beliefs from that concept), and I've disagreed.
"Given that it is possible to reprogram the human mind, the left believes that even the most egregious offenders can be reprogrammed through controlled therapy, and should therefore not be put to death. And this is exactly the argument you hear among liberal politicians when it comes to the death penalty: therapy instead of incarceration or execution."
That's _AN_ argument against the death penalty. It's not _THE_ argument. In no particular order, there are other very valid reasons to be against the death penalty. The main other argument against the death penalty is that the system is faulty. As a resident of Illinois, I'm more familiar with 'my' judicial system than those elsewhere, but more than a dozen men sentenced to DIE for crimes they did not commit is a farce, and a system that shouldn't exist. So part of my problem with the death penalty is you can't "undo" a death sentence. The American legal system has a lot of things going for it, but is still wrong on occasion. Far too often. And because I don't believe a 100% perfect justice system is possible, I'll remain against the death penalty. Another argument (albeit not a primary one) is the cost. Sentencing a prisoner to die costs more than life in prison. So direct your tax dollars where they could be better spent, and don't sentence people to die.
Even if those issues were satisfied, I still have moral issues with the death penalty. As I said, I believe it's a hypocritical system that kills those it condemns for killing.
And, hopefully, rehabilitation might be possible. If not, a horrible per
So I'll try to engage in more of a dialogue...(in response to jsebrech's reply to your post and your subsequent reply).
I do think your post is somewhat skewed. Saying "the left thinks" or "the right thinks" is always dangerous anyway, but I acknowledge that sometimes generalizations are needed. Regardless, it is unfair and innacurate to imply "the left" thinks, "...overal social happiness is the end that justifies the means, that no one is responsible for his or her actions b/c we're all just automatons, and that there is no absolute right or wrong."
I would (as a member of "the left") agree _partially_ with all of those concepts. I think overal social happiness is a primary goal of society. However, the end does not justify the means. While I see how your logic progression brought you to this conclusion, I don't believe it's accurate and would like you to suply examples (beyond the at-hand issue of abortion, which I'll get to in a minute) of American leftists saying the end justifies the means.
I do agree with some of what you touched upon regarding free will. I DO believe that no one is inherently evil, and that societal and personal experiences shape and influence people. But that doesn't nullify personal responsibility. Relating it to a common Slashdot topic, playing a violent videogame doesn't release anyone from the responsibility of their actions.
Finally, I think the only absolute "right" IS personal happiness. I believe the goal society is to juggle between the happiness of its members. But I won't pretend to know the best way to do this. As I said, I don't think the end justifies the means (Nazi extermination of the Jews arguably might have left the remaining Germans a lot happier, likewise with Soviet executions of dissidents), and this is an issue I think people will be struggling with for all time.
So lets get to abortion. You said, "Unborn babies make no contribution to social happiness (or economic production, which is one factor of social happiness), and since no individual human has value anyway, aborting an unborn baby is no more or less a transgression than clipping your toenails." Saying The Left believes an individual human has no value is (I realize I'm repeating myself with these two words) unfair and inaccurate. If you want to talk about the value of human life, why would 'we' be the strongest pushers for abolishing the death penalty if we didn't believe life held value? (Sidenote: I am ready and willing to argue on the death penalty, but as an attempt to stem off a possible rebuttle, I am not defending someone taking the life of another. People correctly convicted and sentenced to die - and note the word "correctly", which is a large part of my problem - are the scum of the earth. I am simply saying it is hypocritical and (I believe) 'wrong' to, in turn, take that persons life.) Aborting a baby is OBVIOUSLY (if for no other reason, the emotional impact on the woman who has the procedure) more that clipping a toenail. However, pro-life and pro-choice advocates have a single insurmountable point they disagree on: when a fetus can be classified as a "human." That is, when "humanity" begins. I don't believe abortion is wrong because I don't agree that the fetus being aborted IS a "human." That's a point that isn't arguable, by either side. I'm not going to convince you, and you're not going to convince me. Which is unfortunate, because the choices made on abortion inherently affect people OTHER than ourselves.
So, I think your post is well thought-out but, at the same time, written in a way underhanded and lopsided.
-Trillian
This is not a thought I'm origonating, but other people on other e-voting threads on Slashdot have said that requiring (or even allowing) the VOTER to have paper evidence of their vote would allow votes to be bought. Your local crime syndicate could pay people to vote for whatever official is in their pocket, and have proof that you voted how they wanted. Anywhere from "$10 for a vote slip that says so-and-so" to "We'll break your legs if you don't bring us the vote slip."
That said, I _DO_ agree there needs to be more accountability than has been shown in any of the possible e-voting systems. As other people have questioned, what hell is wrong with the system we have now? Or why not even go _back_ a step? SIMPLER mechanisms and voting ballots. Sure, it'll take extra time and money to count the votes, but the people manning the polls are largly volunteers. We're not talking billions of dollars and months of time, we're talking a couple million and less than a week.
And when we're tossing around numbers like $87 BILLION, isn't spending just one percent of that justified to have a simpler, more secure system? Cuz from what I've read, these e-voting systems are MORE complicated and LESS secure.
Explain to me how that makes sense. Sure, e-voting is sexier and more exciting than a paper ballot, but at what cost?
-Trillian
I wasn't trying to say he was missusing his office. I certainly hope Ashcroft makes an effort to stop "cyber-criminals" or whatever the buzzword is for people doing illegal things (scamming people, hijacking computers, etc) through the 'net. They're costing people money and invading people's privacy, and should be stopped.
But, I don't think Ashcroft, Bush, et al, have a very good track record (in _MY_ opinion, and seemingly the opinion of many other people on slashdot) of keeping people's rights in mind while they persue criminals and 'terrorists.' So I'd like more information from Ashcroft before I cry "hurray" about this crackdown.
And I looked at the link you provided, which doesn't really address my concerns. I'm completely ready to believe that the crimes were _reported_ through the proper chanels. I just want a guarantee that these people, who ARE criminals, aren't being labled "terrorists" or having their email read or some other exciting ability granted by Ashcroft and/or the PATRIOT act.
All I'm saying is this is an arena where Ashcroft has the ability to abuse his powers, and I want a guarantee it isn't happening. Until I get that guarantee (and I'm not holding my breath...) I'm going to stay skeptical.
-Trillian
How were they tracked down? Was it with previously available tools, or were formerly impossible acts made possible under the PATRIOT act? Good old detective sluething, or warrant-less email tracking? How will they be charged? With charges that fit the crime, ot as cyber-terrorists? Because while hacking computers is a real concern, sending out annoying messages about baseball shouldn't be at the top of Ashcroft's list.
I'm not accusing Ashcroft of anything. Yet. But I am VERY VERY suspicious of anything that he touches, or anything fro his department. This is hopefully a step in the right direction. People who con others out of their credit cards or hijacks other computers should be prosecuted. But I think the public needs to closely examine what exactly is going on behind the scenes.
-Trillian
Blast! Damn you, woman!
I still don't understand why they're not selling the bonus disc. I don't want another GameCube, don't want any two of the games that are required to get the bonus offer, and don't want Nintendo Power.
Why not LET me pay $25, which is more than Nintendo Power without the cost of actually sending me the magazine I don't want. Nintendo Power used to be the only good source for Nintendo info, but with dozens of websites out there it's useless. I don't want it.
Couldn't Nintendo make MORE money this way?
-Trillian
It depends on the deposit. If it's too large, it will negate the point of getting a 'disposable' (I know it's not actually disposable) camera. If it's too cheap, people will just take it anyway.
For example, no one will put down $60 as a deposit on the camera, being told they'll get $50 back when they return the camera. And if the deposit is only $20 (for a total of $30 for the camera) people will still just walk away with 'em.
I think it'd be really hard to come up with a deposit cost that would both be keeping with the idea of an inexpensive disposable camera AND prevent people from stealing it.
-Trillian
I really have never sympathized with that line of reasoning. It's not as bad as the "but these new horseless buggys will put God-fearing men out of work" anti-technology advocates, but it's in the same ballpark.
/. these days means to seem it automatically becomes morally clean...), everyone saw this hack coming.
As others have noticed, Ritz put together a business that relies on security through obscurity rather than through, y'know, actual security features. Some of the ideas posted elsewhere on this topic included a cheap, pattented Ritz-controlled cable, limiting the hacking to extreme hardware hackers, or using an open or closed-source encryption method rather than a standard picture file type. Whether or not the hacking is "morally" clean (although it's almost certainly violating the DMCA, which on
Ritz didn't think far enough ahead to prevent something that that was (apparently) relatively simple.
And to stem off responses, this is not an argument about how hacking is good because it shows your "vulnurabilities." The majority of Slashdot has _seemed_ to agree that this argument is bullshit, as it would be if you said you broke down someone's door to prove its weakness. But Ritz didn't even put up a door in the first place. They seemingly made no effort to prevent such hacking and, as I've repeatedly said, seeing how it was so predictable that, as I said at the start of my post, I don't have a huge amount of sympathy for them.
-Trillian
. . .
. . .
Anyone?
. . .
. . .
Wait, do I see one in the back? Yes? Care to explain yourself?
. . .
. . .
Ahh. Well, we have one guy in the back who was in a coma. Anyone else not see this coming?
. . .
. . .
As I thought.
-Trillian
Rereading the article, that does make sense. I just wish the author had specifically noted that, because the sentence implied to me that GameCube and GBA sales could be lumped with "value added" items like peripherals and help guides. Which I don't think is true.
-Trillian
I hadn't meant that Beauty and the Beast was the first Disney animated film to use computers, but that it was the first to use a scene that was entirely created through computer modeling. In which case it may or may not have beaten some of the specific other examples given, as they seem to only USE computers at some point, rather than fully rendering sections of the movie with them.
But it looks like I was STILL wrong, as (while unclear which specific movie actually wins) examples were given of movies well before 1990 that seem to have used CG constructs.
Oh well.
-Trillian