The original poster, who probably doesn't even play games, clearly has his head lodged. Even aside from the obvious technical difficulties, photorealism is no more a goal in most videogames than it is in Japanese Anime. Art isn't about accurate pictures, but about communicating convincing emotions, and B&W is going to have that aspect down tight. ("Quake clone" my polygonal ass...)
I did play games, but haven't for a while cuz I got tired of the same old things. As for having my head lodged, I clearly don't follow the gaming field or else I would have known the answer to my question. Thanks for making me feel welcome, though!
As for your argument that photorealism is not a goal in videogames, I understand that argument quite well, for I am a fan of animation and I know that comic art goes for abstraction, not realism. However, I doubt that no gaming is aimed at photorealism, for that would be the ultimate rush to immerse yourself in a game that is as realistic as real life. That would have to be a killer app, and therefore must be someone's goal. But hey, what do I know? I have my head lodged... ________________
First off, this isn't a "Quake clone", unless you consider "Quake clone" to be "Any game that uses a polygon rendering engine".
Yes, I meant the latter. Didn't mean to imply I thought Black & White was a Quake clone itself, though when I re-read my post I can see how it sounded that way.
Secondly, the reason you see polygons (which I'll assume to mean "pointy edges") is that, surprise surprise, they have to target the game at the midrange PC, not the high-performance polygon pushers. Not everyone has a GeForce2 Ultra that can render a gazillion polygons, they have to target the average schmo with a P3-500 and a standard 16-meg D3D video card if they wanna make any money.
That said, there's plenty of full-motion video games out there. They were really big on the Sega CD, in its heyday. But then everyone realized they sucked. Sewer Shark, anyone?
I see that some of the other replies in this thread got hung up on my use of the phrase "full motion video." I do not mean it in the sense that it has been used in the industry, to the point that FMV has gotten a bad name. What I do mean is what you intuited -- no "pointy edges." I want a landscape that looks like a landscape, not a computer-generated landscape, no matter how fast you move in the game. Every time I see a game that promises fantastic graphics, I check it out and inevitably say to myself, "Uh, no, it still looks like computer-generated blocks of graphics, not real life."
Another respondant, who works in the industry, says that my goal is years off. Fair enough, though disappointing. Thanks for responding.
________________
Thank you for the serious reply to my serious question. I see my desire for a truly realistic game will have to wait a while, but at least I have an idea now. Appreciate it. ________________
I checked out the article on Black and White and I saw the same old lousy graphics that every Quake clone has had. That is, it isn't even close to photorealistic -- too many polygons visible. Can anyone with knowledge of the industry tell me when we can expect games with good graphics? I want it too look like full-motion video, not a game. ________________
A valid point. However, I wasn't trying to make the point that M$ was acting as a monopoly, but that this is what the judge said. I wanted to contrast this with Katz saying it didn't seem to him to be illegalities. ________________
I wonder if Katz isn't just trolling us. Ah well, let me respond to a few of his comments:
To me, Microsoft's crimes were arrogance, mediocrity and greed, the hallmarks of our corporatized culture -- none of them, alas, illegal in our business world.
Correct. However, the case in question isn't about what Microsoft's crimes were 'to you', but what the court found. And what the court found is that Microsoft violated the monopoly laws.
Much as people fault the quality of Microsoft's software and decry its practices, the truth is that tens of millions of people have used their products successfully to access the Net and the Web and run their PCs.
Much as people fault the tactics of the Mafia, the truth is that tens of millions of small business owners have run their businesses successfully. Of course, had the mob not taken their cut, those same small business owners would have been much more successful and happy. Similarly, had Microsoft not held progress back, imagine how much better those tens of millions of persons might have had it when using software. Can't imagine it? That's the problem: we'll never know what could have been had Microsoft not crushed rivals into the ground.
I'd rather see MS challenged creatively in the marketplace
Me too. Unfortunately, every time this happens, Microsoft manages to crush, buy out, or co-opt that creative competition.
Antitrust law says that for a company to behave illegally, it must establish a monopoly (not in itself illegal), engage in anti-competitive practices, and perhaps most importantly, harm consumers. Were consumers demonstrably harmed by Microsoft? If so, how?
By making it harder for them to have free choice. Note, I didn't say it was impossible for them to have free choice, for as you point out they could always get ahold of a Netscape disc somehow. But it required extra effort on their part.
A virus hits. Businesses have to take time to fix it. Media claims billions of dollars in damage in the form of lost productivity.
Microsoft forces Netscape off computers in the factory. Businesses have to take time to fix this by installing what they want instead. Yet this same form of lost productivity isn't 'damage'?
Did government antitrust prosecutors actually prove that Microsoft prevented Netscape, or any other rival, from bringing new products to the marketplace?
Microsoft did force Netscape to stop charging for its browser by giving its own browser away. When Japanese chip companies did something similar years ago, Washington was up in arms about 'dumping'. Certainly what Microsoft did caused great monetary damage to Netscape. Microsoft had the financial ability to absorb this loss, knowing that Netscape didn't.
Look, I'm not in favor of the government breaking up Microsoft, for I want the government to stay out of the way. But to pretend that Microsoft didn't violate any laws when they, say, blackmailed Apple into dropping Netscape is ludicrous! ________________
I read both articles. The first article (at yafla.com) argues that the advertising model is failing on the Net. That is correct. It then says that as a result of this we need to move to a micropayment strategy instead. After all, don't we already do that for the monthly utility bill?
The second article (at openp2p) points out correctly that micropayments have, are, and will continue to die painful deaths for one simple reason: users hate them. It also points out the flaws in the first argument, namely that the micropayments we have in our daily lives now almost inevitably come from monopolies. When consumers have a choice, they inevitably go for flat pricing instead.
Just because the advertising model failed, it doesn't then follow that the micropayment model must work. In fact, both could fail, and the Net will keep on going. Oh sure, some of the commercial sites might stamp their feet, hold their breath, take their ball and go home. Go ahead, I say. Take your products and leave. In the meantime, the rest of us can enjoy the community of the Net and keep micropayments where they belong: for the use of monopolies. ________________
Gamers are always the ones who push the envelope. They get the fastest computers and then overclock them. They get the biggest hard disks, and make sure the access time is top-notch. They get the newest, bleeding-edge video cards, and eagerly count fps. So why should we be surprised that there are types of games that push the edge of communication ability?
There are plenty of games for those who can't get broadband yet. In the meantime, those who do have broadband want cutting edge stuff, as well-heeled gamers have always demanded. This is actually a good thing, for gamers test this cutting edge stuff for the rest of us. By the time the rest of the country gets broadband, there will be some amazing kick-ass games waiting for them, thanks to the early adopters.
If companies want to take modems into consideration, fine. But don't hold back on the cutting edge just because not everyone is ready for it. That's the way it has always been in the gaming world, and it will continue to be in the future, technology by technology ________________
Let's slow down a bit. This wasn't a news article, but an opinion piece. Although I agree with the author's conclusions, it's because of what I've read elsewhere, not because of what I read in this column. He didn't go into details, but asserted things with general statements. Even if he is right, that won't convince anyone. You need a more thorough treatment of the subject, using detailed scientific information, before you could even begin to convince someone.
Just to prove my point, what if this had been an opinion piece asserting that the human genome findings supported creationism? Would all those who support evolution suddenly decide that creationism is correct? Of course not, for it would only be an opinion piece and we would say his opinion is wrong, let's see the scientific data instead.
Next week I'm going to post to MSNBC an opinion piece that asserts that the universe is actually a few thousand light years in diameter, but looks much bigger because of the use of strategically-placed mirrors. Trust me, my opinion piece will absolutely, positively prove the point, even without the use of messy scientific facts... ________________
All right, I know this is a serious issue (pro and con), but this segment of the article struck me as funny on several points:
"Marcel Heymans,"
"Hey, mans!" [I didn't say it was sophisticated humor...]
"general director of the Belgium branch of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry,"
'Phonographic'? There are no phonographs involved in this case! Get yerself an up-to-date group name and then we'll talk.
"said he warned police of alleged copyright infractions. Heymans said his organization had tracking equipment that could search for users "by the thousands."
Whoa, thousands, dude! That's, like, a lot, right?...well, it is Belgium... ________________
I've been saying for some time now that ebooks will almost completely take over the regular book market, and this article contains the two sentences that proves it:
"The book of the future, e-paper researchers like to say, will look just like a regular book. It will have a hard cover and a spine and several hundred thin, white, flexible pages. "
So everything you just said in support of the lowly print book will be just as true as the ebook with epaper. Only it will also have all the vast advantages of electronics.
Quit thinking that the future of ebooks = today's laptops and palms. The future is epaper, with resolution and reflectiveness that is as good as or better than today's printed pages. You will be able to fold epaper, scribble on them, underline words, flip back and forth as you wish, and do everything else that paper does now. When you add the electronic advantages, it becomes unbeatable, unstoppable, and ultimately desirable. ________________
Those are interesting, and valid, comments from the technical side. What about the bigger picture? Despite all its whiz-bang features, won't the.NET platform still come down to the pay-per-use paradigm Microsoft is trying to push the industry toward? That's not appealing to the users, even if the programmers will love the tech behind it.
And in a world where connections to the Net still go down far too often, or it's not possible to get reliable high-speed connections without paying exhorbitantly, knowing that you can only get access to your information when you are connected is not yet acceptable. Connection goes down, business grinds to a halt? No thanks. ________________
You make a valid point. I'm not qualified to say one way or the other, as I don't really know that much about the subject. So I plead guilty to repeating something I've heard in the media. If I've painted with too broad a brush, I was unintentional. ________________
A law should only be passed if it has a reason for being. So let's examine what a ban on completely computer-generated porn involving images of children is supposed to accomplish:
Protect Children: Real kiddie porn uses children, and they need to be protected from this. But computer-generated images do not involve the use of any real children. Therefore this law does not directly protect children.
Don't Fuel Pedophile Appetites: That's the reason being given here, that such images will encourage pedophiles to abuse children. But isn't it commonly understood that pedophiles do not stop wanting to abuse children no matter what you try or do? Isn't that the whole point behind Megan Laws, that even a released pedophile is not really reformed, and can never be reformed? So a pedophile, evidently, needs no encouragement to engage in their acts.
I dunno, seems as if this law doesn't accomplish anything other than to 'get rid of the stuff' (out of sight, out of mind). Not that this would work either, since kiddie porn producers are already breaking laws. Pass this law and that will be just one more law for them to break. Won't stop them, that's for sure.
Mind you, I can't think of any valid use for kiddie porn, computer-generated or not. But free speech being only valid when you defend that which you find offensive, I worry that this law (which will accomplish zero) is wordly generally enough that the prosecution won't end with explicit kiddie-porn. Anime will be the obvious next step, and so on.
Note, I'm not defending kiddie porn. I'm pointing out that I think this is a law that will accomplish nothing good, and could be used down the road for something bad. ________________
Wetherell: If you index a distributed set of databases--what the Internet is--and even within intranets, corporations, that's one of the patents.
Finally, we know the true identity of the inventor of the Internet! It turns out to be AltaVista. After all, they patented that which "the Internet is."
Maybe this is another case that will come down to defining what "is" is...
On a more serious note, he also said: "They were the first to spider and index the Web."
Does anyone know if this is true? That seems unlikely that no one tried to index the Web before they did.
________________
I disagree. I want to control who knows what about me. With some companies, I give them the demographic information they desire. My choice. That is the key -- choice.
As for online privacy not being as real a concern as, say, your example of medical information, where do you think companies interested in your medical health are looking? It's not just your doctor's notes they want to see. Insurance companies would also be fascinated to see how often you read the 'Cancer Survivor' type of site. Or to track down every comment you've made at the 'Need For Speed' race car site.
Just because you can't imagine the danger that will come from losing online privacy, it doesn't mean it won't later come back to haunt you once you've lost it. ________________
"Which means that for at least 5 years, AOL/TW will be under a government microscope..."
Corporations have a lifespan and set goals far longer than 5 years in the future. This government scrutiny, if it happens at all, won't happen for very long. AOL/Time Warner can wait. They are in it for the long haul. Guaranteed that within the next 10 years at the latest, they will have violated every single agreement they made with the government. They only played nice to get over the pesky matter of public opinion. Now that they got what they wanted, it's a long, slow, inexorable slide down the slippery slope of lack-of-choice. ________________
Interesting. Truly, there's nothing new, eh? Indeed, who watches the watchmen?
In reality, it would probably turn into a system similar to movie reviews. Over time, you learn which reviewers share your tastes, as so you give more weight to their words. With a system of 'watchers', verifying veracity of web sites, over time we would begin to see which ones knew what they were talking about and which ones were just exercising their prejudices. ________________
Oh please! I maxed out on karma long ago, so what possible motive would I have to karma whore now? Didn't you see in my comment that this paralleled an idea I had before? Didn't you notice that I presented a dilemma I don't know the answer to?
My post was an honest attempt to raise an issue I would like to see discussed. I'm interested in the subject, and this article reminded me of it. If you are not interested, move on. But lashing out at me for 'karma whoring' when I was doing nothing of the sort is laughable. ________________
Carr makes some interesting points (essentially boiled down to: either government will regulate the Net or corporations will, and at least goverment is supposed to be on the side of the people whereas corporations exist to make profits). This point could be argued back and forth, but he at least makes a good argument for his case.
It was this statement, however, that most struck me. In talking about how government, for instance, regulates the food industry so we know what ingredients we are dealing with, he says something similar is needed for the Net. He says: "There must be strenuous efforts first and foremost to guarantee that what is represented as fact is fact, and that what is not fact is clearly labeled as such."
This parallels an idea I had a couple years ago as a possible Web business -- providing a rating system to information sites as to how factual the information really is. A 'Consumer Reports', if you will, of information.
But the problem I came across, and one that I see in Carr's proposal, is this: Who decides what is factual?
Let's use an obvious example, creation versus evolution. See the problem? If a creationist were to evaluate a scientific article talking about evolution, might he or she be tempted to mark it down as 'Not factual'? Certainly a biologist would mark creationist writings as 'Not factual.'
So whoever provides the ratings as to whether or not information on the web is factual will either bring their own prejudices to the task, or will turn off a sizable segment of the population ('Oh, he marks that site as factual, but he believes in evolution so what does he know?')
I don't know the solution to this problem. How do you get a system that marks information sites as factual or not factual when the population-at-large can't even decide on what they think is factual? ________________
Wow, what an unnecessarily snide comment. My post was appropriate for the context, and hardly indicative of how I spend my time or what my life is like. Which you knew, but said what you said anyway... ________________
Re:Sounds better than I thought
on
"Traffic"
·
· Score: 2
Yes, Traffic is way more sophisticated than those types of movies. In fact, Katz makes it sound as if Soderbergh put an explicit message into the movie. Not really. There is an implied message that Jon got, but it is rarely spelled out. It's almost a documentary in its approach -- you get to see how things are, and then you can make up your own mind.
When I left the theater, I overheard several groups of viewers talking about what they had just seen. There were disagreements about the 'message' of the film, which is a great sign that the movie doesn't preach but trusts its viewers to think for themselves.
It's great to go to a movie and want to talk about what it meant afterward with a group of persons. Too few movies allow this level of thought. ________________
...because some of us have grown tired of Microsoft's tactics in the marketplace, have decided not to support such tactics with our dollars, and have systematically eliminated all Microsoft software from our lives.
It's a refreshing feeling knowing that I can do a search of my hard disk and know that the string "Microsoft" will not appear in any of my files. It's also a refreshing feeling knowing that Microsoft can huff and puff all they want about.NET or Win2K but it has no relevance to my life or chance of ever showing up on a machine I own.
'Subscribe to Office.NET? No thanks, no need for the stuff.'
Slashdot Mirror
I did play games, but haven't for a while cuz I got tired of the same old things. As for having my head lodged, I clearly don't follow the gaming field or else I would have known the answer to my question. Thanks for making me feel welcome, though!
As for your argument that photorealism is not a goal in videogames, I understand that argument quite well, for I am a fan of animation and I know that comic art goes for abstraction, not realism. However, I doubt that no gaming is aimed at photorealism, for that would be the ultimate rush to immerse yourself in a game that is as realistic as real life. That would have to be a killer app, and therefore must be someone's goal. But hey, what do I know? I have my head lodged...
________________
Yes, I meant the latter. Didn't mean to imply I thought Black & White was a Quake clone itself, though when I re-read my post I can see how it sounded that way.
Secondly, the reason you see polygons (which I'll assume to mean "pointy edges") is that, surprise surprise, they have to target the game at the midrange PC, not the high-performance polygon pushers. Not everyone has a GeForce2 Ultra that can render a gazillion polygons, they have to target the average schmo with a P3-500 and a standard 16-meg D3D video card if they wanna make any money. That said, there's plenty of full-motion video games out there. They were really big on the Sega CD, in its heyday. But then everyone realized they sucked. Sewer Shark, anyone?
I see that some of the other replies in this thread got hung up on my use of the phrase "full motion video." I do not mean it in the sense that it has been used in the industry, to the point that FMV has gotten a bad name. What I do mean is what you intuited -- no "pointy edges." I want a landscape that looks like a landscape, not a computer-generated landscape, no matter how fast you move in the game. Every time I see a game that promises fantastic graphics, I check it out and inevitably say to myself, "Uh, no, it still looks like computer-generated blocks of graphics, not real life."
Another respondant, who works in the industry, says that my goal is years off. Fair enough, though disappointing. Thanks for responding.
________________
Thank you for the serious reply to my serious question. I see my desire for a truly realistic game will have to wait a while, but at least I have an idea now. Appreciate it.
________________
I checked out the article on Black and White and I saw the same old lousy graphics that every Quake clone has had. That is, it isn't even close to photorealistic -- too many polygons visible. Can anyone with knowledge of the industry tell me when we can expect games with good graphics? I want it too look like full-motion video, not a game.
________________
A valid point. However, I wasn't trying to make the point that M$ was acting as a monopoly, but that this is what the judge said. I wanted to contrast this with Katz saying it didn't seem to him to be illegalities.
________________
To me, Microsoft's crimes were arrogance, mediocrity and greed, the hallmarks of our corporatized culture -- none of them, alas, illegal in our business world.
Correct. However, the case in question isn't about what Microsoft's crimes were 'to you', but what the court found. And what the court found is that Microsoft violated the monopoly laws.
Much as people fault the quality of Microsoft's software and decry its practices, the truth is that tens of millions of people have used their products successfully to access the Net and the Web and run their PCs.
Much as people fault the tactics of the Mafia, the truth is that tens of millions of small business owners have run their businesses successfully. Of course, had the mob not taken their cut, those same small business owners would have been much more successful and happy. Similarly, had Microsoft not held progress back, imagine how much better those tens of millions of persons might have had it when using software. Can't imagine it? That's the problem: we'll never know what could have been had Microsoft not crushed rivals into the ground.
I'd rather see MS challenged creatively in the marketplace
Me too. Unfortunately, every time this happens, Microsoft manages to crush, buy out, or co-opt that creative competition.
Antitrust law says that for a company to behave illegally, it must establish a monopoly (not in itself illegal), engage in anti-competitive practices, and perhaps most importantly, harm consumers. Were consumers demonstrably harmed by Microsoft? If so, how?
By making it harder for them to have free choice. Note, I didn't say it was impossible for them to have free choice, for as you point out they could always get ahold of a Netscape disc somehow. But it required extra effort on their part.
A virus hits. Businesses have to take time to fix it. Media claims billions of dollars in damage in the form of lost productivity.
Microsoft forces Netscape off computers in the factory. Businesses have to take time to fix this by installing what they want instead. Yet this same form of lost productivity isn't 'damage'?
Did government antitrust prosecutors actually prove that Microsoft prevented Netscape, or any other rival, from bringing new products to the marketplace?
Microsoft did force Netscape to stop charging for its browser by giving its own browser away. When Japanese chip companies did something similar years ago, Washington was up in arms about 'dumping'. Certainly what Microsoft did caused great monetary damage to Netscape. Microsoft had the financial ability to absorb this loss, knowing that Netscape didn't.
Look, I'm not in favor of the government breaking up Microsoft, for I want the government to stay out of the way. But to pretend that Microsoft didn't violate any laws when they, say, blackmailed Apple into dropping Netscape is ludicrous!
________________
The second article (at openp2p) points out correctly that micropayments have, are, and will continue to die painful deaths for one simple reason: users hate them. It also points out the flaws in the first argument, namely that the micropayments we have in our daily lives now almost inevitably come from monopolies. When consumers have a choice, they inevitably go for flat pricing instead.
Just because the advertising model failed, it doesn't then follow that the micropayment model must work. In fact, both could fail, and the Net will keep on going. Oh sure, some of the commercial sites might stamp their feet, hold their breath, take their ball and go home. Go ahead, I say. Take your products and leave. In the meantime, the rest of us can enjoy the community of the Net and keep micropayments where they belong: for the use of monopolies.
________________
How do you know it isn't the undercover cops who are the ones destroying the property in order to discredit the protestors?
________________
There are plenty of games for those who can't get broadband yet. In the meantime, those who do have broadband want cutting edge stuff, as well-heeled gamers have always demanded. This is actually a good thing, for gamers test this cutting edge stuff for the rest of us. By the time the rest of the country gets broadband, there will be some amazing kick-ass games waiting for them, thanks to the early adopters.
If companies want to take modems into consideration, fine. But don't hold back on the cutting edge just because not everyone is ready for it. That's the way it has always been in the gaming world, and it will continue to be in the future, technology by technology
________________
Just to prove my point, what if this had been an opinion piece asserting that the human genome findings supported creationism? Would all those who support evolution suddenly decide that creationism is correct? Of course not, for it would only be an opinion piece and we would say his opinion is wrong, let's see the scientific data instead.
Next week I'm going to post to MSNBC an opinion piece that asserts that the universe is actually a few thousand light years in diameter, but looks much bigger because of the use of strategically-placed mirrors. Trust me, my opinion piece will absolutely, positively prove the point, even without the use of messy scientific facts...
________________
"Marcel Heymans,"
"Hey, mans!" [I didn't say it was sophisticated humor...]
"general director of the Belgium branch of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry,"
'Phonographic'? There are no phonographs involved in this case! Get yerself an up-to-date group name and then we'll talk.
"said he warned police of alleged copyright infractions. Heymans said his organization had tracking equipment that could search for users "by the thousands."
Whoa, thousands, dude! That's, like, a lot, right? ...well, it is Belgium...
________________
"The book of the future, e-paper researchers like to say, will look just like a regular book. It will have a hard cover and a spine and several hundred thin, white, flexible pages. "
So everything you just said in support of the lowly print book will be just as true as the ebook with epaper. Only it will also have all the vast advantages of electronics.
Quit thinking that the future of ebooks = today's laptops and palms. The future is epaper, with resolution and reflectiveness that is as good as or better than today's printed pages. You will be able to fold epaper, scribble on them, underline words, flip back and forth as you wish, and do everything else that paper does now. When you add the electronic advantages, it becomes unbeatable, unstoppable, and ultimately desirable.
________________
And in a world where connections to the Net still go down far too often, or it's not possible to get reliable high-speed connections without paying exhorbitantly, knowing that you can only get access to your information when you are connected is not yet acceptable. Connection goes down, business grinds to a halt? No thanks.
________________
You make a valid point. I'm not qualified to say one way or the other, as I don't really know that much about the subject. So I plead guilty to repeating something I've heard in the media. If I've painted with too broad a brush, I was unintentional.
________________
I worry that this law (which will accomplish zero) is worded generally enough...
________________
I dunno, seems as if this law doesn't accomplish anything other than to 'get rid of the stuff' (out of sight, out of mind). Not that this would work either, since kiddie porn producers are already breaking laws. Pass this law and that will be just one more law for them to break. Won't stop them, that's for sure.
Mind you, I can't think of any valid use for kiddie porn, computer-generated or not. But free speech being only valid when you defend that which you find offensive, I worry that this law (which will accomplish zero) is wordly generally enough that the prosecution won't end with explicit kiddie-porn. Anime will be the obvious next step, and so on.
Note, I'm not defending kiddie porn. I'm pointing out that I think this is a law that will accomplish nothing good, and could be used down the road for something bad.
________________
Finally, we know the true identity of the inventor of the Internet! It turns out to be AltaVista. After all, they patented that which "the Internet is."
Maybe this is another case that will come down to defining what "is" is...
On a more serious note, he also said: "They were the first to spider and index the Web."
Does anyone know if this is true? That seems unlikely that no one tried to index the Web before they did.
________________
As for online privacy not being as real a concern as, say, your example of medical information, where do you think companies interested in your medical health are looking? It's not just your doctor's notes they want to see. Insurance companies would also be fascinated to see how often you read the 'Cancer Survivor' type of site. Or to track down every comment you've made at the 'Need For Speed' race car site.
Just because you can't imagine the danger that will come from losing online privacy, it doesn't mean it won't later come back to haunt you once you've lost it.
________________
Corporations have a lifespan and set goals far longer than 5 years in the future. This government scrutiny, if it happens at all, won't happen for very long. AOL/Time Warner can wait. They are in it for the long haul. Guaranteed that within the next 10 years at the latest, they will have violated every single agreement they made with the government. They only played nice to get over the pesky matter of public opinion. Now that they got what they wanted, it's a long, slow, inexorable slide down the slippery slope of lack-of-choice.
________________
In reality, it would probably turn into a system similar to movie reviews. Over time, you learn which reviewers share your tastes, as so you give more weight to their words. With a system of 'watchers', verifying veracity of web sites, over time we would begin to see which ones knew what they were talking about and which ones were just exercising their prejudices.
________________
My post was an honest attempt to raise an issue I would like to see discussed. I'm interested in the subject, and this article reminded me of it. If you are not interested, move on. But lashing out at me for 'karma whoring' when I was doing nothing of the sort is laughable.
________________
It was this statement, however, that most struck me. In talking about how government, for instance, regulates the food industry so we know what ingredients we are dealing with, he says something similar is needed for the Net. He says: "There must be strenuous efforts first and foremost to guarantee that what is represented as fact is fact, and that what is not fact is clearly labeled as such."
This parallels an idea I had a couple years ago as a possible Web business -- providing a rating system to information sites as to how factual the information really is. A 'Consumer Reports', if you will, of information.
But the problem I came across, and one that I see in Carr's proposal, is this: Who decides what is factual?
Let's use an obvious example, creation versus evolution. See the problem? If a creationist were to evaluate a scientific article talking about evolution, might he or she be tempted to mark it down as 'Not factual'? Certainly a biologist would mark creationist writings as 'Not factual.'
So whoever provides the ratings as to whether or not information on the web is factual will either bring their own prejudices to the task, or will turn off a sizable segment of the population ('Oh, he marks that site as factual, but he believes in evolution so what does he know?')
I don't know the solution to this problem. How do you get a system that marks information sites as factual or not factual when the population-at-large can't even decide on what they think is factual?
________________
Wow, what an unnecessarily snide comment. My post was appropriate for the context, and hardly indicative of how I spend my time or what my life is like. Which you knew, but said what you said anyway...
________________
When I left the theater, I overheard several groups of viewers talking about what they had just seen. There were disagreements about the 'message' of the film, which is a great sign that the movie doesn't preach but trusts its viewers to think for themselves.
It's great to go to a movie and want to talk about what it meant afterward with a group of persons. Too few movies allow this level of thought.
________________
It's a refreshing feeling knowing that I can do a search of my hard disk and know that the string "Microsoft" will not appear in any of my files. It's also a refreshing feeling knowing that Microsoft can huff and puff all they want about .NET or Win2K but it has no relevance to my life or chance of ever showing up on a machine I own.
'Subscribe to Office.NET? No thanks, no need for the stuff.'
Microsoft -- Just Say No.
________________