Re:Will they get both right second time around?
on
Akira Game for PS2?
·
· Score: 2
The new release has a truly astounding translation. I have never fully understood the plot of Akira, havig seen it many, many times. The new translation reveals Akira to be similar to Ghost in the Shell, both movies having extremely cogent, powerful philosophical/spiritual underpinnings. one key aspect which is brought out by the new translations is that Tetsuo's character is actually partially responsible for what happens to him. It is his resentment that causes the Akira power to go haywire, and the rest of the experimental subjects act to defuse the situation they know will arise from his abuse of this power.
There's a bunch more, but I would highly, highly recomend anyone who enjoyed the original dubed version to check out what the movie can be like when the translation actually has some coherence...it's amazing.
The record industry pre-empts the free and open exchange and creation of music in the same way as traditional software vendors pre-empt the free and open exchange and creation of code. The record company's demands that artists grant the labels exclusive distrobution rights are as sweeping as they are only because, so far, the labels have offered the only reliable infrastucture for the sale and disemination of music (while they didn't control sharing of tapes and whatnot, the combination of control over what music was present on TV, radio and in record stores gave them some hefty leverage).
sooner or later, every musician would like to make money (enough to subsists at least) from their art, but that does not require being signed. the open liscence intrigues me as a musician because it would provide a platform on which an alternate infrastructure for the arts could be established, possibly allowing my work as a musician to garner me work, and audience and inclusion in other projects (whether or not i participate personally). well done, eff.
(1) the long historical relationship of china and republicans since Nixon. China has more often than not favored republicans over democrats (when we get to the next point this will become clear), not vice-versa. What China didn't want was environmental and human rights provisions rolled into a trade treaty, both of which Bush will most assuradely not push for, while Gore might have.
(2) HOSTAGE CRISES ARE GOOD FOR PRESIDENTS. Especially those, like dubya, who have no track record regarding foreign affairs. As soon as Bush got into office, two of the U.S.'s more complicated foriegn interests provided him with brilliant oportunities for him to posture and pose as 'presidential'...
Get over your naive confucian understanding of chinese culture, DrgnDancer...the conflict is GOOD fo the chinese government, they know that. The Posturing is good for them, the anti-american sentiment it riles up (especially in the wake of the embassy bombing) is good for them, the status it affords them (of being important enough to have skirmishes with the US governemt) is good for them.
It's a funny thing when an honest guy tries to distort or evade...he'll try and retain his sober, straightforward demeanor, but will simply not answer the question.
In the case of the question about "exbrace and extend" this was painfully obvious. Sorry, but the charges of standards abuse brought against microsoft do not "confuse standards and IP"...JScript, M$ Java, the DOMM model in IE are all cases in which standards were extended in such a way that scripts written for them (often written in them to take advantage of features that were available to a wide percentage of the target market due to M$s monopoly position) were no longer compatible with standards-compliant softaware packages (whether or not such packages actaully extisted:)...
But what can you expect really, i guess...are they supposed to fess up and say "yeah, we like to screw with standards implimentations because it mucks up our competitors' plans"?...oh well...
In a sense, both hacking and cracking are 'isms' by nature and by the nature of the corporate world's response to them. By positioning themselves as the sole power in dictating the use of their products and services, corporations force both hackers and crackers into a politics of opposition. Both the hacker and cracker are forced to challenge the corporation simply in order to excersize what is (in the eyes of hackers at least...crackers often admit their actions are illegal or even unethical, if still justified) their right. It is the plight of anyone who is forced to witness a constriction of their rights (all those who are able to perceive it at least)...if they wish to continue excersizing the rights which have been denied them through newborn restriction, their actions (however benign) MUST BE POLITICAL....
I am not, never was, and never will be a marine, but one thing seems sure: the marines are not primarily interested in using potentially lethal technologies in non-lethal weapons. Microwaves would make great lethal weapons. The public loves the idea of an inteligent, nuanced and sci-fi-esque military. Result: Marines pitch researching a non-lethal microwave weapon so as to encourage funding under the quise of sensitive authoratarianism (if ever there's a mob i find worth joining, i'm not going to run away because of a little burn. their going to have to kill me), and use the technologies in much more powerful, incredibly lethal weapons (check out your GURPS Cyberpunk weapons book).
Good? Bad? Inevitable. I wonder whether we'll be able to mod out home microwaves?
...but in a way that might not be so visible to many of slashdot's readers. as a newbie to the linux movement, open source community (i am only at the karma whore status now), i have found this system to be extremely motivating. new members of the community are encouraged to learn more about the world veteran slashdotters inhabbit and hone skills which will allow them to contribute their best. i am a programmer, i want to be involved, and slashdot has been my entry-point into the open source world. hurrah!
Perhaps one of the scariest parts of the brief comes right at the very begining of the text:
With its valuable potential for global product distribution at far lower transaction costs, electronic commerce has also created new business challenges, particularly for vendors of intellectual property[...]Embracing the digital medium as their own, infringers threaten to usurp much if not all of the Internet market for copyrighted works.
In other words, the internet is only a vehicle for trade in the eyes of the government, and all those who wish to contribute to it in some way other than in order to further corporations interest are acting counter to it's very purpose. If this attitude had been taken towards the mail system (which this conception reduces the internet to, a system for exchanging catalogs, payments and products) many undesirable legislative principles could have been justified (though i can't think of any right now)...
the fact that non-corporate interests created and developed the internet and the web to allow it to be what it is today is of course completely ignored. the web has no importance outside of it's implications for business, and the government has no interest in understanding or furthering it's potential deep implications. corporate paradigm shifts are great, because they prevent (or at least postpone) massive, possibly destabilizing, global paradigm shifts.
This is interesting...how hard would it be to broadcast fake GPS signals. This would be extremely dangerous (to a comnplete novice it seems that way at least). Is this a possible threat (airplanes going down and what not?)
this is a great, clear response, and it makes me wonder: if we keep hammering our point into the presses head with letters such as these, could we effect a seed change in public perception? it's worth a shot...
well that's a load of bull...it reduces to 'may the best lawyer win', and that is most certainly not the premise on which the USAs judiciary was founded (though it may be the sad reality).
The funny thing about this type of vision is that completely assumes that the production model for music is going to remain relatively unchanged despite the radical and unaprecciatedl rapid introduction (thanks to technologies such as napster and the hype surrounding them) of the computer into the distrobution model. WHO SAYS MUSICIANS WILL KEEP MARKETING THEIR MUSIC THROUGH MUSIC LABELS? If the ease of use and quality of music produced by independent labels who refuse to adhere to absurd market standards (and make no mistake about it, there are very few of these fantasies that the RIAA wouldn't like to see adopted) is picked up on by consumers, their alternate models could well triumph over the existing ones.
It is interesting because this is one case in which we can foresee the open-source movement playing a vital role in the arts. While big name software and media companies will join to try and control and restrict the use of cultural product, open source will become crucial to the exploration and success of alternate artistic and distributive strategies. Before people can be convinced to boycott or challenge, they must be shown a reasonable, practical alternative...let's build one!
let's face it: major record labels aren't trying only to stop 'mainstream piracy', they're trying to keep the entire notion of piracy of media, which is quickly becoming thouroughly absurd, on artifical life support. The semantic battles slashdottahs and others fight regularly to distinguish hacking from it's various mainstream pseudonyms and alter-egos is just one example of old media attempting to alter the semantics of the internet and digital-media worlds in order to ensure a place within them. screw that.
record companies currently profit off a set of distrobution models: distrobution of recorded music, distrobution of music videos and distrobution of voluntarily consumed self-programing materials (read music mags) serve as perhaps the major sources of recording industry income. they are want to ensure that any distrobution model used in the web maintanis the same format as that of physical distrobution (pay per record) or takes on an even more profitable guise (pay-per-use). screw that.
the artists want the profits, alternate distrobution methods made possible by electronic distrobution have the capacity to deliver them. (that is, unless the recording industries successfully dominate and centralize the market for distrobution technologies (read: ps3 delivereverythingbox) in which case we're all screwed.
i'm sorry, i don't get it. all the websites discussed both in the article and in the resonse posts seem to be comunally adaptive, decentralized yes, but not self-centralized.
i was hoping for an article on a website that used server-side techniques to restructure itself depending on load, user interest or whatever other fcators might be deemed useful, that'd be cool.
not that community sites aren't cool, but they certainly ain't nothing new.
While I was in college I studied with Daniel Dennet, an amazing philosopher who has done a bunch of work at MIT helping them with such projects as the ambitious Cog project. One of the more amazing tidbits he passed on to us (the most amazing was the genetically evolving virtual gladiator robots who after a few thousand itterations really learned how to pummel eachother's brain's out) was a prototype of an eye tracking system being developed for security personel: the idea is that you can display only what is one the screen and nothing else so onlookers can't see the information. The principle this relies on is where the daner lies: people looking at the screen and having their eyes tracked thing the scrren is completely full, they don't know that only a small fraction of the information they think they see as a contiguous whole is being displayed at any one time.
Furthermore, if they are looking at a picture, the picture can change and they will not realize it has changed...their minds will actually "rewrite history" and they will be convince that that picture of the mona-lisa they are looking at was always frowning.
using this technology we will get some of the scariest adverisements we have every seen (where that babe changes imperceptible to fit where you're looking, so, somehow, she's always perfect and exactly what you want), and I don't want to think about what the more brilliant and savvy admen/psychologists/brainwashers of the future are going to think up.
But hey, as long as I'm not going to be able to tell, I guess I'll just sit back and enjoy.
sounds like my kinda guy, find the backdoor to the bench and wreak some havoc...we need some more guy like this, if nothing else than just in order to give companies like rambutt and their 'very best legal counsel' a hard time as they attempt to screw the rest of us...
i attended a lecture last night given by bill joy on the threats and benefits of the information age. mr. joy started out discussing why moores law is gonna keep going for the next 30 or 40 years (not peter out as we reach the limits of current chip-making technology) and how the potential 10^12 increase in computing poser (10^6 from hardware and 10^6 from improved algorithms) will put unfathomable power into the hands of everyday computer users.
of course, mr. joy reasoned, teh ability to synthesize smallpox or create devestating nano technologies in one's garage is simply to great a risk to take, so we are left with only one possible decision as a society: gotta say farewell to freedom. my jaw dropped when i heard someone i respect as much as bill joy talk about how and why freedom must be limited in the future. i hope he's wrong, and that we can find another way around his supposed perils, but i really can't think of any...any suggestions?
i got a feeling that a tech court would almost undoubtedly be seen as a court meant to make law to govern 'the business of technology'. such a court could easily be used by the corporate lobbies as a tool allowing them to divorce freedom of speech, the right to privacy, etc. from technical cases. notions of representation and the coming importance of digital identity would have no relevance in such a case, i'll wager that the decisions made by such a court would almost unilaterally ignore the general social impact of their rulings, focusing instead of financial law.
the biggest fear that corporations have right now regarding rulings on technology and the internet is most likely that the standard court might, through some glorious epiphony, become aware that there is indeed a direct link between many of the technical subtleties of these cases and the future of our basic liberties in the coming years. what needs to happen is that politicos and judges throughout the ocuntry need to become aware that they are doing much more now that merely specifying the guideline for the growing internet economy...
Slashdot Mirror
The new release has a truly astounding translation. I have never fully understood the plot of Akira, havig seen it many, many times. The new translation reveals Akira to be similar to Ghost in the Shell, both movies having extremely cogent, powerful philosophical/spiritual underpinnings. one key aspect which is brought out by the new translations is that Tetsuo's character is actually partially responsible for what happens to him. It is his resentment that causes the Akira power to go haywire, and the rest of the experimental subjects act to defuse the situation they know will arise from his abuse of this power.
There's a bunch more, but I would highly, highly recomend anyone who enjoyed the original dubed version to check out what the movie can be like when the translation actually has some coherence...it's amazing.
The record industry pre-empts the free and open exchange and creation of music in the same way as traditional software vendors pre-empt the free and open exchange and creation of code. The record company's demands that artists grant the labels exclusive distrobution rights are as sweeping as they are only because, so far, the labels have offered the only reliable infrastucture for the sale and disemination of music (while they didn't control sharing of tapes and whatnot, the combination of control over what music was present on TV, radio and in record stores gave them some hefty leverage).
sooner or later, every musician would like to make money (enough to subsists at least) from their art, but that does not require being signed. the open liscence intrigues me as a musician because it would provide a platform on which an alternate infrastructure for the arts could be established, possibly allowing my work as a musician to garner me work, and audience and inclusion in other projects (whether or not i participate personally). well done, eff.
I've got a few jobs on my desk which are overbudget and behind schedule...anyone in the military care to take care of 'em?
There are two glaring problems with your rebutal:
(1) the long historical relationship of china and republicans since Nixon. China has more often than not favored republicans over democrats (when we get to the next point this will become clear), not vice-versa. What China didn't want was environmental and human rights provisions rolled into a trade treaty, both of which Bush will most assuradely not push for, while Gore might have.
(2) HOSTAGE CRISES ARE GOOD FOR PRESIDENTS. Especially those, like dubya, who have no track record regarding foreign affairs. As soon as Bush got into office, two of the U.S.'s more complicated foriegn interests provided him with brilliant oportunities for him to posture and pose as 'presidential'...
oops...did i betray my bias somewhere in there?
ummm...from the article
A $2.5-billion Reagan-era hypersonic program...
Get over your naive confucian understanding of chinese culture, DrgnDancer...the conflict is GOOD fo the chinese government, they know that. The Posturing is good for them, the anti-american sentiment it riles up (especially in the wake of the embassy bombing) is good for them, the status it affords them (of being important enough to have skirmishes with the US governemt) is good for them.
and yet .Net is a vision of a heavenly net and SOAP is a viable standard?!? GIVE ME A BREAK NYT times...
.Net represented only microsofts view of the future of the net...this piece is a tad sickening...
as if
It's a funny thing when an honest guy tries to distort or evade...he'll try and retain his sober, straightforward demeanor, but will simply not answer the question. :)...
In the case of the question about "exbrace and extend" this was painfully obvious. Sorry, but the charges of standards abuse brought against microsoft do not "confuse standards and IP"...JScript, M$ Java, the DOMM model in IE are all cases in which standards were extended in such a way that scripts written for them (often written in them to take advantage of features that were available to a wide percentage of the target market due to M$s monopoly position) were no longer compatible with standards-compliant softaware packages (whether or not such packages actaully extisted
But what can you expect really, i guess...are they supposed to fess up and say "yeah, we like to screw with standards implimentations because it mucks up our competitors' plans"?...oh well...
In a sense, both hacking and cracking are 'isms' by nature and by the nature of the corporate world's response to them. By positioning themselves as the sole power in dictating the use of their products and services, corporations force both hackers and crackers into a politics of opposition. Both the hacker and cracker are forced to challenge the corporation simply in order to excersize what is (in the eyes of hackers at least...crackers often admit their actions are illegal or even unethical, if still justified) their right. It is the plight of anyone who is forced to witness a constriction of their rights (all those who are able to perceive it at least)...if they wish to continue excersizing the rights which have been denied them through newborn restriction, their actions (however benign) MUST BE POLITICAL....
yes, i can be rather red sometimes...
I am not, never was, and never will be a marine, but one thing seems sure: the marines are not primarily interested in using potentially lethal technologies in non-lethal weapons. Microwaves would make great lethal weapons. The public loves the idea of an inteligent, nuanced and sci-fi-esque military. Result: Marines pitch researching a non-lethal microwave weapon so as to encourage funding under the quise of sensitive authoratarianism (if ever there's a mob i find worth joining, i'm not going to run away because of a little burn. their going to have to kill me), and use the technologies in much more powerful, incredibly lethal weapons (check out your GURPS Cyberpunk weapons book).
Good? Bad? Inevitable. I wonder whether we'll be able to mod out home microwaves?
if there's a reason for a price increase, i'm sure that isp's will find a way to make the hike 'justified'.
...but in a way that might not be so visible to many of slashdot's readers. as a newbie to the linux movement, open source community (i am only at the karma whore status now), i have found this system to be extremely motivating. new members of the community are encouraged to learn more about the world veteran slashdotters inhabbit and hone skills which will allow them to contribute their best. i am a programmer, i want to be involved, and slashdot has been my entry-point into the open source world. hurrah!
Perhaps one of the scariest parts of the brief comes right at the very begining of the text:
With its valuable potential for global product distribution at far lower transaction costs, electronic commerce has also created new business challenges, particularly for vendors of intellectual property[...]Embracing the digital medium as their own, infringers threaten to usurp much if not all of the Internet market for copyrighted works.
In other words, the internet is only a vehicle for trade in the eyes of the government, and all those who wish to contribute to it in some way other than in order to further corporations interest are acting counter to it's very purpose. If this attitude had been taken towards the mail system (which this conception reduces the internet to, a system for exchanging catalogs, payments and products) many undesirable legislative principles could have been justified (though i can't think of any right now)...
the fact that non-corporate interests created and developed the internet and the web to allow it to be what it is today is of course completely ignored. the web has no importance outside of it's implications for business, and the government has no interest in understanding or furthering it's potential deep implications. corporate paradigm shifts are great, because they prevent (or at least postpone) massive, possibly destabilizing, global paradigm shifts.
This is interesting...how hard would it be to broadcast fake GPS signals. This would be extremely dangerous (to a comnplete novice it seems that way at least). Is this a possible threat (airplanes going down and what not?)
funny to see history get re-written:
...since 1985 -- the height of the Cold War...
this is a great, clear response, and it makes me wonder: if we keep hammering our point into the presses head with letters such as these, could we effect a seed change in public perception? it's worth a shot...
well that's a load of bull...it reduces to 'may the best lawyer win', and that is most certainly not the premise on which the USAs judiciary was founded (though it may be the sad reality).
The funny thing about this type of vision is that completely assumes that the production model for music is going to remain relatively unchanged despite the radical and unaprecciatedl rapid introduction (thanks to technologies such as napster and the hype surrounding them) of the computer into the distrobution model. WHO SAYS MUSICIANS WILL KEEP MARKETING THEIR MUSIC THROUGH MUSIC LABELS? If the ease of use and quality of music produced by independent labels who refuse to adhere to absurd market standards (and make no mistake about it, there are very few of these fantasies that the RIAA wouldn't like to see adopted) is picked up on by consumers, their alternate models could well triumph over the existing ones.
It is interesting because this is one case in which we can foresee the open-source movement playing a vital role in the arts. While big name software and media companies will join to try and control and restrict the use of cultural product, open source will become crucial to the exploration and success of alternate artistic and distributive strategies. Before people can be convinced to boycott or challenge, they must be shown a reasonable, practical alternative...let's build one!
let's face it: major record labels aren't trying only to stop 'mainstream piracy', they're trying to keep the entire notion of piracy of media, which is quickly becoming thouroughly absurd, on artifical life support. The semantic battles slashdottahs and others fight regularly to distinguish hacking from it's various mainstream pseudonyms and alter-egos is just one example of old media attempting to alter the semantics of the internet and digital-media worlds in order to ensure a place within them. screw that.
record companies currently profit off a set of distrobution models: distrobution of recorded music, distrobution of music videos and distrobution of voluntarily consumed self-programing materials (read music mags) serve as perhaps the major sources of recording industry income. they are want to ensure that any distrobution model used in the web maintanis the same format as that of physical distrobution (pay per record) or takes on an even more profitable guise (pay-per-use). screw that.
the artists want the profits, alternate distrobution methods made possible by electronic distrobution have the capacity to deliver them. (that is, unless the recording industries successfully dominate and centralize the market for distrobution technologies (read: ps3 delivereverythingbox) in which case we're all screwed.
i'm sorry, i don't get it. all the websites discussed both in the article and in the resonse posts seem to be comunally adaptive, decentralized yes, but not self-centralized.
i was hoping for an article on a website that used server-side techniques to restructure itself depending on load, user interest or whatever other fcators might be deemed useful, that'd be cool.
not that community sites aren't cool, but they certainly ain't nothing new.
10-4
This is where ease of use gets danerous.
While I was in college I studied with Daniel Dennet, an amazing philosopher who has done a bunch of work at MIT helping them with such projects as the ambitious Cog project. One of the more amazing tidbits he passed on to us (the most amazing was the genetically evolving virtual gladiator robots who after a few thousand itterations really learned how to pummel eachother's brain's out) was a prototype of an eye tracking system being developed for security personel: the idea is that you can display only what is one the screen and nothing else so onlookers can't see the information. The principle this relies on is where the daner lies: people looking at the screen and having their eyes tracked thing the scrren is completely full, they don't know that only a small fraction of the information they think they see as a contiguous whole is being displayed at any one time.
Furthermore, if they are looking at a picture, the picture can change and they will not realize it has changed...their minds will actually "rewrite history" and they will be convince that that picture of the mona-lisa they are looking at was always frowning.
using this technology we will get some of the scariest adverisements we have every seen (where that babe changes imperceptible to fit where you're looking, so, somehow, she's always perfect and exactly what you want), and I don't want to think about what the more brilliant and savvy admen/psychologists/brainwashers of the future are going to think up.
But hey, as long as I'm not going to be able to tell, I guess I'll just sit back and enjoy.
sounds like my kinda guy, find the backdoor to the bench and wreak some havoc...we need some more guy like this, if nothing else than just in order to give companies like rambutt and their 'very best legal counsel' a hard time as they attempt to screw the rest of us...
evidently, 3dfx is a holds patents on 'mipmap dithering' technologies...
could it be Making Incredible Profits from MisAplied Patents, perhaps?
i attended a lecture last night given by bill joy on the threats and benefits of the information age. mr. joy started out discussing why moores law is gonna keep going for the next 30 or 40 years (not peter out as we reach the limits of current chip-making technology) and how the potential 10^12 increase in computing poser (10^6 from hardware and 10^6 from improved algorithms) will put unfathomable power into the hands of everyday computer users.
of course, mr. joy reasoned, teh ability to synthesize smallpox or create devestating nano technologies in one's garage is simply to great a risk to take, so we are left with only one possible decision as a society: gotta say farewell to freedom. my jaw dropped when i heard someone i respect as much as bill joy talk about how and why freedom must be limited in the future. i hope he's wrong, and that we can find another way around his supposed perils, but i really can't think of any...any suggestions?
i got a feeling that a tech court would almost undoubtedly be seen as a court meant to make law to govern 'the business of technology'. such a court could easily be used by the corporate lobbies as a tool allowing them to divorce freedom of speech, the right to privacy, etc. from technical cases. notions of representation and the coming importance of digital identity would have no relevance in such a case, i'll wager that the decisions made by such a court would almost unilaterally ignore the general social impact of their rulings, focusing instead of financial law. the biggest fear that corporations have right now regarding rulings on technology and the internet is most likely that the standard court might, through some glorious epiphony, become aware that there is indeed a direct link between many of the technical subtleties of these cases and the future of our basic liberties in the coming years. what needs to happen is that politicos and judges throughout the ocuntry need to become aware that they are doing much more now that merely specifying the guideline for the growing internet economy...