Taiwan...? Taiwan definitely does not have policies "similar" to that of China; in fact, it is trying as hard as possible to remain separate from, and independent of, the aforementioned behemoth of a human-rights violator. Taiwan is democratic, and NOT CHINA, no matter how much China protests to the contrary.
I'd agree with that. The movie was better than I expected, and I was pleasantly surprised, but I wasn't pleasantly astounded. The plot isn't tight at all: there're at least five or ten subplots that get picked up and dropped with no explanation, and the movie does seem to turn away from the harder questions (who is really behind this, why are they doing what they're doing, should we continue to attempt to exploit it at the point that it expresses displeasure with our doing so, etc). Basically, it's really about Clooney dealing with what happens to him when he gets there, which seems a little odd, considering that he was called to Solaris to help the crew figure out what to do. So yeah, it's definitely imperfect. But I'm willing to forgive a major studio picture for taking the risk to ask some of the harder questions in the first place, and not to just throw up a lot of fx and stupid dialogue.
God, why does all of slashdot seem to hate a really good movie? I mean, it's not like I come to/. for movie reviews, and I sure won't now, but really...
Ok, so what's your point? That Solaris isn't "science-fictiony" enough? That the planet doesn't do anything cool? Um...ok. We could, I suppose, get into some kind of argument about this, but if you don't see why that's a really, really stupid point to make to begin with, I'm not gonna bother.
There are, surprisingly, some good points made against the movie (though they're probably accidentally made). Such as: Clooney's a bad actor. You mention the scene wherein Clooney has a really, really corny set of lines, and might I add, it's the only one where he doesn't really seem believable. Most of the time, he does fine. Not great, but fine. Jeremy Davies, on the other hand, is just kind of annoying, laying it on with a forklift where really, a knife would be more appropriate.
You compare the movie to 2001, and then basically argue that they're different, only because of the cinematography. Ok...2001 is about man's hubris finally catching up with him: he (pardon the gendered language) goes too far, and eventually, his creations bring about his demise. Not all of man's demise, but the point is made. Solaris is, on some level, also about the failure of man in the face of his presumed greatness: why is the station out by Solaris? To see if it can be used as an energy source. Just getting there, and building the station, are remarkable acts of engineering skill, but we can't handle what happens to us when we get there. Just like in 2001, we're smart enough to build it, but not smart enough to ask whether or not we should, and not smart enough to know what to do when something happens.
Moving back to your review, you finally get that it's not really a science-fiction movie, but a character study. Good job. You do, however, make fun of the relationship between Clooney and McElhone. Well, ok. But whether or not it "works" is really more up to the viewer. If the viewer can't realize what's going on, though, namely that they are in love, and that the object of Clooney's love just killed herself because of him, well... You also cite the laughter of the audience as, implicitly, a reason not to see the movie. I have noticed that audiences laugh at this movie, and that there are a number of people who walk out of it. Both of these, to me, are indications that people go to Solaris expecting a "George Clooney movie", and thank God, that's not what they get. The American movie-going public being what it is, however, and giving millions upon millions of dollars to Harry Potter and other similarly bad studio productions while sneering derisively at the incomparably better foreign films that are lucky to find an art-house release, I'd say that if the audience thinks a movie's bad, odds are it's good, and if an American public thinks a movie is stupid, well, by God, if Rob Schneider can keep making movies, I want to see what they consider a "stupid" movie.
Someone should set up some sort of micropayment system to get these two somethin nice for the wedding; like a car or whatever they feel like. Imagine, if 10,000/.ers contribute a buck each, that's 10 grand. Or maybe we can be more modest, and only ask for a few cents, and get em...I dunno. But this should be done!
-Abe
I worked in my (state) senator's office over the summer, and I did get the opportunity to bend some people's ears.
More importantly, I learned how to get the attention of people in political offices: call them.
Think about it: these people get lots (LOTS) of mail, every day, and much though we hate to admit it, not all of it gets read, and even the stuff that does typically doesn't have much effect.
Consider a case where 10 people decide to "do something", so they all write letters. 10 letters show up in the office of a Congressperson, and after one or two, the staff decides that they all pretty much say the same thing, and ignore them.
What if those same 10 people called instead? For one thing, they'd be guaranteed to get more attention. It's a lot harder to ignore someone talking on the line with you, than it is to ignore a piece of mail. And imagine how effective 10 people could be in tying up a Congressional office for a day; you could have them call simultaneously and flood the office, or you could have them call sequentially, preventing the poor staff from getting any work done. A day or two of this treatment is bound to get some results (although make sure to be curteous and understanding; try to set up a meeting, but recognize that it won't be easy at all, and don't be afraid to settle for a meeting with a staffperson, since they're often crucially important in convincing politicians.)
First, I appreciate your taking the time to read my post thoroughly and respond in kind (though i don't particularly appreciate the notion that I don't think before I post, but I'm sure I was just as guilty of insulting comments towards Katz, if not more so).
Second, with regards to your point that video games don't cause violence. My main point (expressed rather poorly, I'll be the first to admit) was not that video games did cause violence, but that the argument that "no study has shown they do" is an argument that really doesn't win many points, considering 1) it's the same argument made by tobacco companies, 2) it seems to fly in the face of reason (more on this in a second), 3) it's a really defensive argument and 4) it doesn't seem as though enough time has passed for the saturation of our culture with extremely violent media to be observed in any substantial way (although i don't stand by this point much, it's kinda weak, but interesting to think about).
As for the causal link between games and actual violence, the desensitization argument is key. I'll agree that video games are different from reality, and reality carries with it a special shock that video games can never have. But if your argument is that sitting in front of a computer for hours a day, several days a week, ritualistically and methodically dismembering, maiming, killing things on a screen, has no effect on people's sensitivity, I'd ask what would. And the very absence of a quit/continue button in real life is part of the problem. The more we practice killing in ever-more-real killing simulators, the more the idea that we can kill, that killing is good, and that we are immortal, gets planted into our brains. Is someone gonna play a game and think he's immortal? No (normally), but subtle trends towards violence, as well as an ever-increasing acceptance of it (things studies tend to ignore), become worrisome, all the more so in a large population.
Penultimately, regarding the constitutionality of the law, I believe (and I'm sure many other non-ACLU organizations would agree) that there's nothing unconstitutional about it. You say the law is unconstitutional because it takes away the person's right to choose what they want to do. There is no such right. It does not exist. We have a general freedom in this country, but in public places especially, it is quite often curbed (to observe the extent of our "freedom", look no further than state sodomy laws). Public indecency laws exist almost everywhere, and to my knowledge have never been found to be unconstitutional. The law merely extends indecency (well, I don't think this is technically what it does, but it has a similar effect) to cover violent acts portrayed on a video screen, and I find it unlikely many courts would overturn that law. I also submit that the burden is on the accuser to find proof of unconstitutionality, such as statutes (esp. from that state), and if they can't be found, the law is constitutional.
Finally, with regards to the efforts of legislators to be informed, I would submit that although there are some lawmakers out there who are uninformed, and who do craft their speeches for the sole benefit of the 6 o'clock news, many many more do take the time to investigate the issues, and are routinely, stereotypically and unfairly slandered by people who don't really know the whole story, and merely watch the 6 o'clock news anyway. Besides, what's wrong with appealing to the public during a speech? That's their job! The content of the laws is not compromised. I have extensive experience (I'm an intern for my state senator, and I've spent countless hours in the GPO library at Northwestern) in governmental awareness, and although it does seem as though legislators don't understand technology, it is equally, if not more, true that technologists don't understand legislation.
Anyway, thanks for reading this far.
Well, sadly, I'm forced to agree with Mr Katz, although I don't want to. Although he comes to the right conclusion (the law is stupid), he gets there in a way that I hope is not demonstrative of the typical logic used by video game advocates (sadly, however, for the most part, these are the same arguments we always hear). Let's address these arguments point-by-point.
Before we do that, however, I'd like to comment on the general tone of the article. It reads quite similarly to many other articles/rants/editorials I've read on the subject, and I think that creates a problem. The article reads like it was written in 5 minutes by a man who heard about something, didn't think about it at all, and wrote a knee-jerk response to it that's frankly irrelevant, since as I said above, we've heard all this before. I don't even want to count how many times he insults the intelligence of the legislators; that's not how you win points in a debate, Mr Katz. And as for saying they're out of touch with their constituencies, I'd like to see the statistics that back you up. Although I myself don't have them, a claim like that is deserving of at least minimal research and the fact that you don't seem to have done it is as hypocritical and lazy as you accuse the legislators of being.
The overriding point you make in this article is that there is "no evidence" to prove video games cause violence, and that common sense disproves this. This is one of the worst arguments you or any other video game advocate could make, and yet I hear it over and over and over...Common sense does not disprove this assertion at all; in fact, it backs it up. Think about it: teenagers (who are notoriously unstable, irrational and immature people (disclosure: I am one)) are playing games where the object is to use weapons as realistic as possible, to kill enemies (or sometimes friends, I suppose) who are as realistic as possible, and the effects (blood, guts, etc) are as realistic as possible. I recognize that a normal person can draw the line between video games and reality, but I submit that even a normal, mentally healthy person is affected by violent video games. At the very least, they desensitize the player, and that alone is grave cause for alarm. But think about what happens to a person subjected (as most players are, or if not most, a great number) repeatedly to the images and actions portrayed in violent video games. What they see is pounded into them, over and over, until they don't even realize the changes that come over them. How many people, after playing several hours of Counter-Strike, thought it'd be cool to buy a gun (which, for the record, is unconstitutional, far more so than this bill, which I'll address in a moment)? If even one person, ONE PERSON, thought so, then violent video games have helped lead that person down a violent path. And I doubt they've had that effect on only one person.
As for the alleged unconstitutionality of the bill, it's "shredding of the first amendment", where's your evidence? That's a pretty heady claim to make, and if you're not going to back it up at all, as you don't, then that's simply irresponsible on your part. However, I don't even think it is unconstitutional (unenforcable, maybe, but that's really the only good point you raise in the article). Consider public indecency laws: do they shred the first amendment? How about curfew? If it's illegal for people under a certain age to be out at a certain time, and it's illegal for people to commit certain acts, or display certain images, in public, how is the bill unconstitutional? The only possible argument I can think of (which I doubt you were going for) is federalism, and even that would probably prove incorrect.
The sad fact is, I agree with Mr Katz. The law is unenforcable, and I don't think banning kids from playing "point-and-shoot" games in arcades is really gonna make that much of a difference anyway, especially if they can see movies with violence far more graphic, or go home and play Quake III for 8 hours straight.
I know that you and id are doing simultaneous development of Q3 for Windows, Mac and Linux. Which of those is your favorite OS to use, and which to program for?
Geez...this isn't exactly the kind of reading I like on a nice Sunday afternoon:) I am a geek (admittedly, tho, not yet 1/100000000000th as good as most of the people here) and am in Junior year of High School. I love coding, do it a lot, and it's just so cool...all these stories about how there're 20,000 unfilled jobs in Illinois (my state) are also cool, because they always made me feel secure that I could get a job doing what I love. I don't care about the money (I code now for free) but having the industry collapse would seriously SUCK! I wanna eventually do my coding in ASM and the like, not have some newbie writing crap scripts that do the same thing. How fun is that? (Although I don't believe a BASIC-like language will come around to even be CLOSE to ASM, the point is the same). There will always be techies, geeks who go deep into the code, I just don't want to have to worry all through college (which I'm gonna complete if for no other reason than to make my family proud) about whether or not I'll get a decent job or just be flipping virtual burgers all day...I guess my point is I like the security of knowing that I don't have to be a Carmack/Torvalds/Wall to get a decent job...
This is cool, but what does it really mean for US missile deterrence? One missile took down another, which is a far better kill ratio than we had originally been thinking about, but does it mean we'd now be able to take out a volley of nukes, or would it still be too difficult to take out large numbers? If much of the calculations are done by the rocket itself, that's good, obviously, but is it still too difficult to intercept massive numbers? And wouldn't we be able to see missiles coming at us (we have a rather good radar system, I believe)? Inazuma
Coates is a guy I've been reading for a while only because he's the only IT-guy in the Tribune, but I wouldn't worry. He caters more to the AOL home-productivity audience than anything else, really. So when reading his columns, you gotta use a newbie point of view, and realize that he's actually right. Would you want newbies and AOL peeps running Linux right now? Imagine the tech support calls alone. So although he's wrong on most points, most of the people that read his column don't need swaying to Linux anyway. Think about it: most of the people that know and run Linux already know about it, and know it's better. We don't need to be told that it is.
Slashdot Mirror
Taiwan...? Taiwan definitely does not have policies "similar" to that of China; in fact, it is trying as hard as possible to remain separate from, and independent of, the aforementioned behemoth of a human-rights violator. Taiwan is democratic, and NOT CHINA, no matter how much China protests to the contrary.
I'd agree with that. The movie was better than I expected, and I was pleasantly surprised, but I wasn't pleasantly astounded. The plot isn't tight at all: there're at least five or ten subplots that get picked up and dropped with no explanation, and the movie does seem to turn away from the harder questions (who is really behind this, why are they doing what they're doing, should we continue to attempt to exploit it at the point that it expresses displeasure with our doing so, etc). Basically, it's really about Clooney dealing with what happens to him when he gets there, which seems a little odd, considering that he was called to Solaris to help the crew figure out what to do. So yeah, it's definitely imperfect. But I'm willing to forgive a major studio picture for taking the risk to ask some of the harder questions in the first place, and not to just throw up a lot of fx and stupid dialogue.
God, why does all of slashdot seem to hate a really good movie? I mean, it's not like I come to /. for movie reviews, and I sure won't now, but really...
Ok, so what's your point? That Solaris isn't "science-fictiony" enough? That the planet doesn't do anything cool? Um...ok. We could, I suppose, get into some kind of argument about this, but if you don't see why that's a really, really stupid point to make to begin with, I'm not gonna bother.
There are, surprisingly, some good points made against the movie (though they're probably accidentally made). Such as: Clooney's a bad actor. You mention the scene wherein Clooney has a really, really corny set of lines, and might I add, it's the only one where he doesn't really seem believable. Most of the time, he does fine. Not great, but fine. Jeremy Davies, on the other hand, is just kind of annoying, laying it on with a forklift where really, a knife would be more appropriate.
You compare the movie to 2001, and then basically argue that they're different, only because of the cinematography. Ok...2001 is about man's hubris finally catching up with him: he (pardon the gendered language) goes too far, and eventually, his creations bring about his demise. Not all of man's demise, but the point is made. Solaris is, on some level, also about the failure of man in the face of his presumed greatness: why is the station out by Solaris? To see if it can be used as an energy source. Just getting there, and building the station, are remarkable acts of engineering skill, but we can't handle what happens to us when we get there. Just like in 2001, we're smart enough to build it, but not smart enough to ask whether or not we should, and not smart enough to know what to do when something happens.
Moving back to your review, you finally get that it's not really a science-fiction movie, but a character study. Good job. You do, however, make fun of the relationship between Clooney and McElhone. Well, ok. But whether or not it "works" is really more up to the viewer. If the viewer can't realize what's going on, though, namely that they are in love, and that the object of Clooney's love just killed herself because of him, well... You also cite the laughter of the audience as, implicitly, a reason not to see the movie. I have noticed that audiences laugh at this movie, and that there are a number of people who walk out of it. Both of these, to me, are indications that people go to Solaris expecting a "George Clooney movie", and thank God, that's not what they get. The American movie-going public being what it is, however, and giving millions upon millions of dollars to Harry Potter and other similarly bad studio productions while sneering derisively at the incomparably better foreign films that are lucky to find an art-house release, I'd say that if the audience thinks a movie's bad, odds are it's good, and if an American public thinks a movie is stupid, well, by God, if Rob Schneider can keep making movies, I want to see what they consider a "stupid" movie.
Someone should set up some sort of micropayment system to get these two somethin nice for the wedding; like a car or whatever they feel like. Imagine, if 10,000 /.ers contribute a buck each, that's 10 grand. Or maybe we can be more modest, and only ask for a few cents, and get em...I dunno. But this should be done!
-Abe
I worked in my (state) senator's office over the summer, and I did get the opportunity to bend some people's ears.
More importantly, I learned how to get the attention of people in political offices: call them.
Think about it: these people get lots (LOTS) of mail, every day, and much though we hate to admit it, not all of it gets read, and even the stuff that does typically doesn't have much effect.
Consider a case where 10 people decide to "do something", so they all write letters. 10 letters show up in the office of a Congressperson, and after one or two, the staff decides that they all pretty much say the same thing, and ignore them.
What if those same 10 people called instead? For one thing, they'd be guaranteed to get more attention. It's a lot harder to ignore someone talking on the line with you, than it is to ignore a piece of mail. And imagine how effective 10 people could be in tying up a Congressional office for a day; you could have them call simultaneously and flood the office, or you could have them call sequentially, preventing the poor staff from getting any work done. A day or two of this treatment is bound to get some results (although make sure to be curteous and understanding; try to set up a meeting, but recognize that it won't be easy at all, and don't be afraid to settle for a meeting with a staffperson, since they're often crucially important in convincing politicians.)
Second, with regards to your point that video games don't cause violence. My main point (expressed rather poorly, I'll be the first to admit) was not that video games did cause violence, but that the argument that "no study has shown they do" is an argument that really doesn't win many points, considering 1) it's the same argument made by tobacco companies, 2) it seems to fly in the face of reason (more on this in a second), 3) it's a really defensive argument and 4) it doesn't seem as though enough time has passed for the saturation of our culture with extremely violent media to be observed in any substantial way (although i don't stand by this point much, it's kinda weak, but interesting to think about).
As for the causal link between games and actual violence, the desensitization argument is key. I'll agree that video games are different from reality, and reality carries with it a special shock that video games can never have. But if your argument is that sitting in front of a computer for hours a day, several days a week, ritualistically and methodically dismembering, maiming, killing things on a screen, has no effect on people's sensitivity, I'd ask what would. And the very absence of a quit/continue button in real life is part of the problem. The more we practice killing in ever-more-real killing simulators, the more the idea that we can kill, that killing is good, and that we are immortal, gets planted into our brains. Is someone gonna play a game and think he's immortal? No (normally), but subtle trends towards violence, as well as an ever-increasing acceptance of it (things studies tend to ignore), become worrisome, all the more so in a large population.
Penultimately, regarding the constitutionality of the law, I believe (and I'm sure many other non-ACLU organizations would agree) that there's nothing unconstitutional about it. You say the law is unconstitutional because it takes away the person's right to choose what they want to do. There is no such right. It does not exist. We have a general freedom in this country, but in public places especially, it is quite often curbed (to observe the extent of our "freedom", look no further than state sodomy laws). Public indecency laws exist almost everywhere, and to my knowledge have never been found to be unconstitutional. The law merely extends indecency (well, I don't think this is technically what it does, but it has a similar effect) to cover violent acts portrayed on a video screen, and I find it unlikely many courts would overturn that law. I also submit that the burden is on the accuser to find proof of unconstitutionality, such as statutes (esp. from that state), and if they can't be found, the law is constitutional.
Finally, with regards to the efforts of legislators to be informed, I would submit that although there are some lawmakers out there who are uninformed, and who do craft their speeches for the sole benefit of the 6 o'clock news, many many more do take the time to investigate the issues, and are routinely, stereotypically and unfairly slandered by people who don't really know the whole story, and merely watch the 6 o'clock news anyway. Besides, what's wrong with appealing to the public during a speech? That's their job! The content of the laws is not compromised. I have extensive experience (I'm an intern for my state senator, and I've spent countless hours in the GPO library at Northwestern) in governmental awareness, and although it does seem as though legislators don't understand technology, it is equally, if not more, true that technologists don't understand legislation. Anyway, thanks for reading this far.
Before we do that, however, I'd like to comment on the general tone of the article. It reads quite similarly to many other articles/rants/editorials I've read on the subject, and I think that creates a problem. The article reads like it was written in 5 minutes by a man who heard about something, didn't think about it at all, and wrote a knee-jerk response to it that's frankly irrelevant, since as I said above, we've heard all this before. I don't even want to count how many times he insults the intelligence of the legislators; that's not how you win points in a debate, Mr Katz. And as for saying they're out of touch with their constituencies, I'd like to see the statistics that back you up. Although I myself don't have them, a claim like that is deserving of at least minimal research and the fact that you don't seem to have done it is as hypocritical and lazy as you accuse the legislators of being.
The overriding point you make in this article is that there is "no evidence" to prove video games cause violence, and that common sense disproves this. This is one of the worst arguments you or any other video game advocate could make, and yet I hear it over and over and over...Common sense does not disprove this assertion at all; in fact, it backs it up. Think about it: teenagers (who are notoriously unstable, irrational and immature people (disclosure: I am one)) are playing games where the object is to use weapons as realistic as possible, to kill enemies (or sometimes friends, I suppose) who are as realistic as possible, and the effects (blood, guts, etc) are as realistic as possible. I recognize that a normal person can draw the line between video games and reality, but I submit that even a normal, mentally healthy person is affected by violent video games. At the very least, they desensitize the player, and that alone is grave cause for alarm. But think about what happens to a person subjected (as most players are, or if not most, a great number) repeatedly to the images and actions portrayed in violent video games. What they see is pounded into them, over and over, until they don't even realize the changes that come over them. How many people, after playing several hours of Counter-Strike, thought it'd be cool to buy a gun (which, for the record, is unconstitutional, far more so than this bill, which I'll address in a moment)? If even one person, ONE PERSON, thought so, then violent video games have helped lead that person down a violent path. And I doubt they've had that effect on only one person.
As for the alleged unconstitutionality of the bill, it's "shredding of the first amendment", where's your evidence? That's a pretty heady claim to make, and if you're not going to back it up at all, as you don't, then that's simply irresponsible on your part. However, I don't even think it is unconstitutional (unenforcable, maybe, but that's really the only good point you raise in the article). Consider public indecency laws: do they shred the first amendment? How about curfew? If it's illegal for people under a certain age to be out at a certain time, and it's illegal for people to commit certain acts, or display certain images, in public, how is the bill unconstitutional? The only possible argument I can think of (which I doubt you were going for) is federalism, and even that would probably prove incorrect.
The sad fact is, I agree with Mr Katz. The law is unenforcable, and I don't think banning kids from playing "point-and-shoot" games in arcades is really gonna make that much of a difference anyway, especially if they can see movies with violence far more graphic, or go home and play Quake III for 8 hours straight.
I know that you and id are doing simultaneous development of Q3 for Windows, Mac and Linux. Which of those is your favorite OS to use, and which to program for?
Geez...this isn't exactly the kind of reading I like on a nice Sunday afternoon :) I am a geek (admittedly, tho, not yet 1/100000000000th as good as most of the people here) and am in Junior year of High School. I love coding, do it a lot, and it's just so cool...all these stories about how there're 20,000 unfilled jobs in Illinois (my state) are also cool, because they always made me feel secure that I could get a job doing what I love. I don't care about the money (I code now for free) but having the industry collapse would seriously SUCK! I wanna eventually do my coding in ASM and the like, not have some newbie writing crap scripts that do the same thing. How fun is that? (Although I don't believe a BASIC-like language will come around to even be CLOSE to ASM, the point is the same). There will always be techies, geeks who go deep into the code, I just don't want to have to worry all through college (which I'm gonna complete if for no other reason than to make my family proud) about whether or not I'll get a decent job or just be flipping virtual burgers all day...I guess my point is I like the security of knowing that I don't have to be a Carmack/Torvalds/Wall to get a decent job...
This is cool, but what does it really mean for US missile deterrence? One missile took down another, which is a far better kill ratio than we had originally been thinking about, but does it mean we'd now be able to take out a volley of nukes, or would it still be too difficult to take out large numbers? If much of the calculations are done by the rocket itself, that's good, obviously, but is it still too difficult to intercept massive numbers? And wouldn't we be able to see missiles coming at us (we have a rather good radar system, I believe)?
Inazuma
Coates is a guy I've been reading for a while only because he's the only IT-guy in the Tribune, but I wouldn't worry. He caters more to the AOL home-productivity audience than anything else, really. So when reading his columns, you gotta use a newbie point of view, and realize that he's actually right. Would you want newbies and AOL peeps running Linux right now? Imagine the tech support calls alone. So although he's wrong on most points, most of the people that read his column don't need swaying to Linux anyway. Think about it: most of the people that know and run Linux already know about it, and know it's better. We don't need to be told that it is.