ID does, the other company is the one disputing this time around.
But, I understand what you are saying. But I still think a company is shooting themselves in the foot if someone is making something free that uses one of their characters and they think they should "sue them for damages". They aren't being damaged by something that is basically free advertising. It just doesn't make sense.
If "mod" is made for money, then they have a legitimate complaint (especially if they aren't getting their cut), but free stuff, that points to an owned work without blatantly stealing said work, should be looked at as a fan admiration act and let go at that. But, I suppose that's a tough determination to make.
Maybe, but we can't know that. And besides, free advertising shouldn't be snickered at.
Too many businesses forget how much money can be made by fresh interest generated by some of this sort of "free advertising". If the company/person in question isn't profitting by making something based on a character, then why shut them down? It just seems stupid to me.
Of course, it also seems stupid to me when a band says that some fanzine needs to "cease-and-desist". Pissing off fans/supporters is never a good way to win more support. But what do I know, I'm just an idiot in the crowd.
The real question is, when does storage/memory speed get to catch up to processor speeds?
Frankly, I've got a dual PII 333 and more often than not the bottleneck is waiting for my (already RAID striped SCSI based) thrashing hard disk to catch up. When is that going to change?
The mention of Pentium-class in a post talking about 750Ghz is almost enough to make me want to throw up.
There has got to be something better than x86. And if consumers are still stuck with x86 when processor speeds hit 750Ghz for the common computer, well, I have lost my interests in computers for life.
I can see it now:
750Ghz PentiumXXXIV processor
1Ghz FSB
2Ghz memory
500Mhz access to storage
and a graphics processor that is only capable of pumping out three frames per second in Quake 25.
We have got to leave behind the baggage before we hit multi-Ghz speeds. Please god, don't keep the architecture.
Unless the toy was given away for free, then we aren't exactly talking about the same thing. I can't think of too many toys that are completely free. And basically, it just seems wierd to me to sue someone that is giving you free advertising.
However, someone turning a profit on a character that you own, well, you should have every right to sue, ask for part of the take, or get something out of it. But that's only if they are selling something. Things given away for free aren't the same as things being sold. Or at least, that's how I see it.
Um, this article wasn't exactly about that sort of thing. But I'll run with it.
If the company said, "You can make any sort of mod you want, in fact, here's how you do it....Now, you can do so any way you want, just don't charge for it. If you do, you will need a license agreement." then they have no right to jump on someone making mods.
Fortunately, this is not what this particular case was described as.
There was a time when companies and other copyright holder understood that when someone (like say, a game mod maker) makes something that uses some parodies or some other representation of a copyrighted, trademarked, or otherwise "owned" character, it would generate more interest in the "real" character.
For some reason, common sense has totally left this field. It seems that the only way to be truly "safe" is to avoid using any material that is owned by anyone.
The other thing that bothers me is that protecting copyrights and trademarks used to be about protecting companies/owners from losing money. If someone makes something, and totally gives it away, absolutely does not require any payment at all for it (like some game mods), how are they causing the original "owner" to lose money? They are creating something that gets the name owned by the owner more exposure, thus generating more interest in the owners "product" and if anything creating more revenue for the owner. Much like fanzines and such, why would you want to destroy someone that is giving you free advertising?
This entire bunch of copyright/trademark disputes just makes me sick. What happened to common sense in this day and age? Do we all have to have a law degree before we are considered to have any knowledge that is "worthwhile"? I just don't get it.
They don't own this text. They may "own" the medium it's delivered on, but considering you can download the complete text from the web, as it's public domain, I don't think they have the right to say you cannot read it aloud.
Or does just making a license and attaching it to something that someone else created make me the legal "owner" of that thing? If so, I've got some writing to do!
Parental control is completely different from parental guidance. There are those people that feel a child should be told exactly what to do and forced to do it at all costs. It seems you are talking about parental guidance and using a poor choice of words. If you are not one of those "You will never, ever listen to that kind of muse/watch that TV show/listen to that radio station/see that movie/do anything enjoyable" type of parents, then you aren't talking about controlling them. You are talking about giving guidance, which is exactly what should be done. The brainwashing of christianity, well, I'll leave that garbage for someone else to cover. Other than this, Christianity teaches you that no matter what you do, no matter how hard you try, you are a worthless fuck, and you deserve nothing but death and damnation. It is not a healthy mental image to stir in youth, but if that is your choice, so be it.
Oh yeah, and the conversation started with talk of TV. That's why I threw that in there.
You call for more parental control? Your kids will be a mess!
Invariably the children that are messed up at an early age are the kids raised by "controlling" parents. The first chance they get, they go out, get drunk, do drugs, fuck everybody they can, and get knocked up. You have to teach your children to deal with situations that may present themselves to them. You can't just keep them locked in a "safety" room their entire childhood and expect them to emerge as an adult "ready to take on the world". It is a cruel and heartless action that will lead to devestated adulthood and and feeling of contempt for the parent.
I'm not suggesting that more TV time is needed. I'm suggesting that involvement with a child is very, very different from controlling them. You don't need "parental control" to properly raise children. You need "parental guidance". Do you know what that actually means? It means teaching your childrens, reading with them, helping them out with problems when they need the help, and occassionally allowing them to go out and figure out things on their own. Even, god fobid, allowing them to make the occassional mistake. Just always be waiting at home for them with open arms, open minds, and open hearts. Talk with them as a friend, guide them as a teacher, and love them as a parent.
Any parent that thinks control is more important than the three things I listed (friendship, guidance, and love) is going to raise a twisted, sick and mentally unhealthy child. Take a look around. How many of the kids that shot up schools were raised by "controlling" parents that "never let me have anything cool"? It's way more than you think.
Don't spoil your kids, but don't make them feel that anything they enjoy must be worthless either. Always ask yourself how you are making them feel. Think of them, and how it will affect them later in life. Yeah, it's a tough job if it's done correctly. But who said being a parent was supposed to be easy?
That's one of Katz's greatest shortcomings: he assumes everyone is exactly like himself.
Of course, on slashdot I suppose there are a few people, maybe more than a few, that are similar enough to him that his writings strike a chord that makes a lot of heads nod up and down. Unfortunately, I think that he is way too obsessed with telling "computer people" that "computer people" are the most important people ever, are the smartest people ver, are the most insightful people ever, are the most imaginative people ever, are the most misunderstood people ever, are the most underrated people ever, are the most wonderful people ever...
Katz is obsessed with stroking his own ego, and hopefully in the process making us poor, poor misunderstood "computer people" feel that we are just as important as the Roman Empire, the greatest thinkers of all time, the great politically shaping wars of history, and the development of the human race all put together. It just isn't so people. We are just another section of humanity, and while we all "see" how important the Internet, and computing in general, has become to us, we sometimes fail to understand that computers are not the only thing that matters. There is an entire world out there beyond your screens. Jon Katz tries to make you believe that those people that exist outside of computerdom do not matter, that we are more important than them. It isn't true. We are all a part of humanity, each of us just as important, or as worthless, as the next.
I'm sorry to sound so harsh, but I do not believe all of this ooey-gooey "We are kewl" type of ego stroking is good for people. If you actually start to believe you are a part of the most important thing ever, you fail to complete anything that could be important. You begin to spend more time stroking your ego than completing work that could make an important impact. It isn't healthy, mentally or historically.
Not to say that computer people are bad, but we are not the most important creatures to ever inhabit the Earth. Please, let's try to keep some perspective here people.
The computer is the most powerful representational medium ever conceived. Seers like Murray have argued that computing should be put to the highest tasks of society. We know that gamers are the new prophets and story-tellers of society, that gaming is approaching a universal generational experience. So gamers are important. It seems clear that the future is in their hands.
Now, I must reiterate something that I have stated in the past. Jon Katz seemingly has intelligent thought processes. But unfortunately, he is suffering from major delusions when he states publicly, over and over again, that everything he has been involved in, or has done, is THE biggest and most important andvancement in the existence of the human race.
Video games are entertainment. I've played a few, more than a few, but I don't believe, even for a second, that playing video games makes you "better" than other people. I think the people that are smarter, more intuitive, more insightful, whatever, are that way to start with, and video games, good ones anyway, tap into their larger than normal imagination.
It's like that old fashioned thinking that listening to heavy metal will make you an anti-social outcast. The observation is wrong. It isn't that listening to heavy metal makes you an outcast (or playing video games makes you more imaginative) it's that being an outcast attracted you to heavy metal (or being imaginative, you enjoy a good video game).
Jon tries to make a good point, but he has missed the boat this time. I will again say, I think it is time for Mr. Katz to take a vacation. He is only one step removed from being a member of the "GOD COMPLEX CLUB". He believes that everything he has been a part of is the biggest influence ever on the human race. It's just one facet of humanity that is interesting, but not the be-all end-all of human existence.
Wow, you only work 8-5? Holy crap, I gotta get a new job!
On another note, my companies president is an idiot. He decided that the best color for office walls was bright yellow. Although it is pretty entertaining to watch people wander around with their eyes darting about nervously this way and that. It's amazing how paranoid and hyper you get when you have to put up with a constant barage of "turn-it-off" type color streaming into your eyes.
Re:There is a case for supporting them, you know.
on
Fandom vs. Fandom.com
·
· Score: 1
OK then, how about I call my company "the" without any caps? (Just to be argumentative.)
My question would be do they owe this company for all the years they used the word "fandom" in their dictionary before the company even existed? I mean, the article says it's been defined since 1903, so does a company only a couple of years old have the right to "commandeer" a word that existed almost 100 years before they did?
Re:There is a case for supporting them, you know.
on
Fandom vs. Fandom.com
·
· Score: 1
While what you say is true to some extent, does it apply if you take a common everyday word and use that as your company's "brand" name?
Say I call my company "THE". Nothing else, just "THE". Do I then have the right to sue the bejebus out of any other company, enterprise, or individual that dares to use the word "the" in anyting? If so, then damn it, I picked the wrong name for my site.
The more I think about it, the more that "article" seemed like a sales pamphlet. I mean, the guy saying that Sun's attempt is "lame"? No explanation, just that it's lame, and that Microsoft is the "only" business that is putting any "real" effort forth. I guess this one is just a press release that got glossed up as an article.
Well, the article made it appear that BizTalk Server is supposedly up for review as a "standard" solution in it's field. I guess they could have been a little clearer, but I just don't think the words "standard" and Microsoft should be used in the same stenence unless it is explicitly stated that this is considered the "Microsoft Standard", in which case you will ignore all other standards.
Did anyone else notice that the proposed "standard" by Microsoft will require SQL server 2000? At the bottom of the article it is explained that SQL server is required to implement Microsoft's proposed "standard".
I'm sorry, but at what point did we decide that all standards should be dependent on Microsoft being able to sell more copies of its software? Something about that just makes me feel dirty. Surely there would be a way to implement it without using SQL server from Microsoft. And if not, will any "standards" group actually accept it?
Re:Why does it all involve...?
on
The Renaissance
·
· Score: 1
I agree with your assessments about culture. I just think that there are times you can look at something without automatically tying it to whatever your prime subject of interest is. While I agree that there is "some" connection, I just think Katz goes waaaaaay too far in trying to say that we are a part of the "new" renaissance just because of the Internet. The Internet (for all its popularity in the press) is still something pretty small in the grand scheme of things. While it has the potential for great things, saying over and over again that those great things are a foregone conclusion is just going to lead to complacency and stupid arrogance. Unfortunately, it seems that Mr. Katz has gotten himself stuck feeling exactly that way. Thus, my suggestion he "get away from it" for a while and just live a little. You'd be suprised how silly some of your day to day concerns seem once you've had a breather from them. Vacations are great at giving you perspective.
Sorry, I should have clarified this earlier. I didn't mean to imply that not being an Arnold fan was necissarily a bad thing. Just, don't call yourself one if your not.
And for the record, I own a few Arnold movies, watch them when I catch them on the tube, and consider myself a fan. But I'm not one of those people that owns every movie he's ever been in, has posters hanging over my bed, and dreams of being cool enough to hold two machine guns (one in each hand) and firing into a crowd. There's a big difference between a fan and a FAN(atic).;-).
I hate to jump on the "Katz Sucks" bandwagon, but I have got to ask this. Why does everything revolve around the Internet or "new technology" when it comes to Katz?
(In a way, sounds like the Net's early architecture.)
OK, now, I understand drawing some parrallel conclusions, but I really, seriously doubt that anyone writing a book about the classical Renaissance is trying to go out of their way to justify the current Internet revolution through the "hindsight of the classical period". I'm sorry, it just doesn't seem that way to me.
While I agree that we should always strive to remember the lessons of the past, I ask that we have the right to draw our own conclusions. Jon Katz reviews a book, and he tells us what we are supposed to take out of it. I thought it was the job of the reviewer to say whether ( in the case of an historical book) the author has managed to cover the subject matter well, not to try and tell the reader how to read the book, or what conclusions to draw.
Is Katz really this entrenched in the technology sector? I mean, surely no one can truly be that one dimensional. Yes, I want to learn the lessons of the past, but when I read about the history of the Greek or Roman empires, I do not go out of my way to try and link that history with anything that I am currently working on. It just seems daft to assume that whatever you are working on is automatically to be considered as important, in an historical context, as something as big and powerful (at the time) as the Roman Empire, or the Renaissance and the intellectual revolution that evolved from it.
It is possible that we are in such a time. But we have a long way to go before we can say that all humanity will benifit from this whole Internet thing in the same way all humanity benifited from that time. And frankly, I'm not real interested in having all of my history lessons applied to the Internet. There are other things happening in the world, even now, that aren't directly tied up in the Internet. Perhaps Katz should step away from his job for a while and check some of those things out? Just a suggestion. A vacation never hurt anybody.
Being "intellectual" shouldn't mean that you can't enjoy pointless and stupid violence. After all, I enjoy most Arnold films, and I'm a WWF fan, but I don't really think I'm an idiot (well, depending on the day).
Anyway, if you don't enjoy that sort of thing, you aren't an Arnold fan at all. Total Recall was a good film (I thought). It was one of his least "bloodbath for the sake of a bloodbath" films, and actually was pretty interesting. But let's face it, it's Hollywood, where everyone eventually gets type-cast. For Arnold, it's either funnyman (with Devito), or BadAss. That's just the way it is. And I kind of enjoy the self-mocking that goes on with his movies. Although, I would probably be willing to pay someone to use a Total Recall machine to remove my memory of Last Action Hero. You can only take self-mocking so far before it becomes ridiculous.
You forgot, this is slashdot. It is automatically assumed that everyone here is exactly the same: a teenage male, geeky, slightly neurotic, and definitely social inert person. Of course, if you don't fit that mold, then you don't belong here.
Keep in mind that this is coming from a 27 year old male, happily married, about to start a family, extremely relaxed and basically (not perfect, but) well adjusted person. Guess I'd better leave now.
Slashdot Mirror
ID does, the other company is the one disputing this time around.
But, I understand what you are saying. But I still think a company is shooting themselves in the foot if someone is making something free that uses one of their characters and they think they should "sue them for damages". They aren't being damaged by something that is basically free advertising. It just doesn't make sense.
If "mod" is made for money, then they have a legitimate complaint (especially if they aren't getting their cut), but free stuff, that points to an owned work without blatantly stealing said work, should be looked at as a fan admiration act and let go at that. But, I suppose that's a tough determination to make.
Maybe, but we can't know that. And besides, free advertising shouldn't be snickered at.
Too many businesses forget how much money can be made by fresh interest generated by some of this sort of "free advertising". If the company/person in question isn't profitting by making something based on a character, then why shut them down? It just seems stupid to me.
Of course, it also seems stupid to me when a band says that some fanzine needs to "cease-and-desist". Pissing off fans/supporters is never a good way to win more support. But what do I know, I'm just an idiot in the crowd.
The real question is, when does storage/memory speed get to catch up to processor speeds?
Frankly, I've got a dual PII 333 and more often than not the bottleneck is waiting for my (already RAID striped SCSI based) thrashing hard disk to catch up. When is that going to change?
The mention of Pentium-class in a post talking about 750Ghz is almost enough to make me want to throw up.
There has got to be something better than x86. And if consumers are still stuck with x86 when processor speeds hit 750Ghz for the common computer, well, I have lost my interests in computers for life.
I can see it now:
750Ghz PentiumXXXIV processor 1Ghz FSB 2Ghz memory 500Mhz access to storage and a graphics processor that is only capable of pumping out three frames per second in Quake 25.
We have got to leave behind the baggage before we hit multi-Ghz speeds. Please god, don't keep the architecture.
Unless the toy was given away for free, then we aren't exactly talking about the same thing. I can't think of too many toys that are completely free. And basically, it just seems wierd to me to sue someone that is giving you free advertising.
However, someone turning a profit on a character that you own, well, you should have every right to sue, ask for part of the take, or get something out of it. But that's only if they are selling something. Things given away for free aren't the same as things being sold. Or at least, that's how I see it.
Um, this article wasn't exactly about that sort of thing. But I'll run with it.
If the company said, "You can make any sort of mod you want, in fact, here's how you do it....Now, you can do so any way you want, just don't charge for it. If you do, you will need a license agreement." then they have no right to jump on someone making mods.
Fortunately, this is not what this particular case was described as.
God, if that doesn't sound like the plot of a bad, b-type horror movie. Look out Hollywood.;-)
There was a time when companies and other copyright holder understood that when someone (like say, a game mod maker) makes something that uses some parodies or some other representation of a copyrighted, trademarked, or otherwise "owned" character, it would generate more interest in the "real" character.
For some reason, common sense has totally left this field. It seems that the only way to be truly "safe" is to avoid using any material that is owned by anyone.
The other thing that bothers me is that protecting copyrights and trademarks used to be about protecting companies/owners from losing money. If someone makes something, and totally gives it away, absolutely does not require any payment at all for it (like some game mods), how are they causing the original "owner" to lose money? They are creating something that gets the name owned by the owner more exposure, thus generating more interest in the owners "product" and if anything creating more revenue for the owner. Much like fanzines and such, why would you want to destroy someone that is giving you free advertising?
This entire bunch of copyright/trademark disputes just makes me sick. What happened to common sense in this day and age? Do we all have to have a law degree before we are considered to have any knowledge that is "worthwhile"? I just don't get it.
They don't own this text. They may "own" the medium it's delivered on, but considering you can download the complete text from the web, as it's public domain, I don't think they have the right to say you cannot read it aloud.
Or does just making a license and attaching it to something that someone else created make me the legal "owner" of that thing? If so, I've got some writing to do!
Parental control is completely different from parental guidance. There are those people that feel a child should be told exactly what to do and forced to do it at all costs. It seems you are talking about parental guidance and using a poor choice of words. If you are not one of those "You will never, ever listen to that kind of muse/watch that TV show/listen to that radio station/see that movie/do anything enjoyable" type of parents, then you aren't talking about controlling them. You are talking about giving guidance, which is exactly what should be done. The brainwashing of christianity, well, I'll leave that garbage for someone else to cover. Other than this, Christianity teaches you that no matter what you do, no matter how hard you try, you are a worthless fuck, and you deserve nothing but death and damnation. It is not a healthy mental image to stir in youth, but if that is your choice, so be it.
Oh yeah, and the conversation started with talk of TV. That's why I threw that in there.
You call for more parental control? Your kids will be a mess!
Invariably the children that are messed up at an early age are the kids raised by "controlling" parents. The first chance they get, they go out, get drunk, do drugs, fuck everybody they can, and get knocked up. You have to teach your children to deal with situations that may present themselves to them. You can't just keep them locked in a "safety" room their entire childhood and expect them to emerge as an adult "ready to take on the world". It is a cruel and heartless action that will lead to devestated adulthood and and feeling of contempt for the parent.
I'm not suggesting that more TV time is needed. I'm suggesting that involvement with a child is very, very different from controlling them. You don't need "parental control" to properly raise children. You need "parental guidance". Do you know what that actually means? It means teaching your childrens, reading with them, helping them out with problems when they need the help, and occassionally allowing them to go out and figure out things on their own. Even, god fobid, allowing them to make the occassional mistake. Just always be waiting at home for them with open arms, open minds, and open hearts. Talk with them as a friend, guide them as a teacher, and love them as a parent.
Any parent that thinks control is more important than the three things I listed (friendship, guidance, and love) is going to raise a twisted, sick and mentally unhealthy child. Take a look around. How many of the kids that shot up schools were raised by "controlling" parents that "never let me have anything cool"? It's way more than you think.
Don't spoil your kids, but don't make them feel that anything they enjoy must be worthless either. Always ask yourself how you are making them feel. Think of them, and how it will affect them later in life. Yeah, it's a tough job if it's done correctly. But who said being a parent was supposed to be easy?
That's one of Katz's greatest shortcomings: he assumes everyone is exactly like himself.
Of course, on slashdot I suppose there are a few people, maybe more than a few, that are similar enough to him that his writings strike a chord that makes a lot of heads nod up and down. Unfortunately, I think that he is way too obsessed with telling "computer people" that "computer people" are the most important people ever, are the smartest people ver, are the most insightful people ever, are the most imaginative people ever, are the most misunderstood people ever, are the most underrated people ever, are the most wonderful people ever...
Katz is obsessed with stroking his own ego, and hopefully in the process making us poor, poor misunderstood "computer people" feel that we are just as important as the Roman Empire, the greatest thinkers of all time, the great politically shaping wars of history, and the development of the human race all put together. It just isn't so people. We are just another section of humanity, and while we all "see" how important the Internet, and computing in general, has become to us, we sometimes fail to understand that computers are not the only thing that matters. There is an entire world out there beyond your screens. Jon Katz tries to make you believe that those people that exist outside of computerdom do not matter, that we are more important than them. It isn't true. We are all a part of humanity, each of us just as important, or as worthless, as the next.
I'm sorry to sound so harsh, but I do not believe all of this ooey-gooey "We are kewl" type of ego stroking is good for people. If you actually start to believe you are a part of the most important thing ever, you fail to complete anything that could be important. You begin to spend more time stroking your ego than completing work that could make an important impact. It isn't healthy, mentally or historically.
Not to say that computer people are bad, but we are not the most important creatures to ever inhabit the Earth. Please, let's try to keep some perspective here people.
Now, I must reiterate something that I have stated in the past. Jon Katz seemingly has intelligent thought processes. But unfortunately, he is suffering from major delusions when he states publicly, over and over again, that everything he has been involved in, or has done, is THE biggest and most important andvancement in the existence of the human race.
Video games are entertainment. I've played a few, more than a few, but I don't believe, even for a second, that playing video games makes you "better" than other people. I think the people that are smarter, more intuitive, more insightful, whatever, are that way to start with, and video games, good ones anyway, tap into their larger than normal imagination.
It's like that old fashioned thinking that listening to heavy metal will make you an anti-social outcast. The observation is wrong. It isn't that listening to heavy metal makes you an outcast (or playing video games makes you more imaginative) it's that being an outcast attracted you to heavy metal (or being imaginative, you enjoy a good video game).
Jon tries to make a good point, but he has missed the boat this time. I will again say, I think it is time for Mr. Katz to take a vacation. He is only one step removed from being a member of the "GOD COMPLEX CLUB". He believes that everything he has been a part of is the biggest influence ever on the human race. It's just one facet of humanity that is interesting, but not the be-all end-all of human existence.
Wow, you only work 8-5? Holy crap, I gotta get a new job!
On another note, my companies president is an idiot. He decided that the best color for office walls was bright yellow. Although it is pretty entertaining to watch people wander around with their eyes darting about nervously this way and that. It's amazing how paranoid and hyper you get when you have to put up with a constant barage of "turn-it-off" type color streaming into your eyes.
OK then, how about I call my company "the" without any caps? (Just to be argumentative.)
My question would be do they owe this company for all the years they used the word "fandom" in their dictionary before the company even existed? I mean, the article says it's been defined since 1903, so does a company only a couple of years old have the right to "commandeer" a word that existed almost 100 years before they did?
While what you say is true to some extent, does it apply if you take a common everyday word and use that as your company's "brand" name?
Say I call my company "THE". Nothing else, just "THE". Do I then have the right to sue the bejebus out of any other company, enterprise, or individual that dares to use the word "the" in anyting? If so, then damn it, I picked the wrong name for my site.
The more I think about it, the more that "article" seemed like a sales pamphlet. I mean, the guy saying that Sun's attempt is "lame"? No explanation, just that it's lame, and that Microsoft is the "only" business that is putting any "real" effort forth. I guess this one is just a press release that got glossed up as an article.
Well, the article made it appear that BizTalk Server is supposedly up for review as a "standard" solution in it's field. I guess they could have been a little clearer, but I just don't think the words "standard" and Microsoft should be used in the same stenence unless it is explicitly stated that this is considered the "Microsoft Standard", in which case you will ignore all other standards.
Did anyone else notice that the proposed "standard" by Microsoft will require SQL server 2000? At the bottom of the article it is explained that SQL server is required to implement Microsoft's proposed "standard".
I'm sorry, but at what point did we decide that all standards should be dependent on Microsoft being able to sell more copies of its software? Something about that just makes me feel dirty. Surely there would be a way to implement it without using SQL server from Microsoft. And if not, will any "standards" group actually accept it?
I agree with your assessments about culture. I just think that there are times you can look at something without automatically tying it to whatever your prime subject of interest is. While I agree that there is "some" connection, I just think Katz goes waaaaaay too far in trying to say that we are a part of the "new" renaissance just because of the Internet. The Internet (for all its popularity in the press) is still something pretty small in the grand scheme of things. While it has the potential for great things, saying over and over again that those great things are a foregone conclusion is just going to lead to complacency and stupid arrogance. Unfortunately, it seems that Mr. Katz has gotten himself stuck feeling exactly that way. Thus, my suggestion he "get away from it" for a while and just live a little. You'd be suprised how silly some of your day to day concerns seem once you've had a breather from them. Vacations are great at giving you perspective.
Sorry, I should have clarified this earlier. I didn't mean to imply that not being an Arnold fan was necissarily a bad thing. Just, don't call yourself one if your not.
And for the record, I own a few Arnold movies, watch them when I catch them on the tube, and consider myself a fan. But I'm not one of those people that owns every movie he's ever been in, has posters hanging over my bed, and dreams of being cool enough to hold two machine guns (one in each hand) and firing into a crowd. There's a big difference between a fan and a FAN(atic).;-).
OK, now, I understand drawing some parrallel conclusions, but I really, seriously doubt that anyone writing a book about the classical Renaissance is trying to go out of their way to justify the current Internet revolution through the "hindsight of the classical period". I'm sorry, it just doesn't seem that way to me.
While I agree that we should always strive to remember the lessons of the past, I ask that we have the right to draw our own conclusions. Jon Katz reviews a book, and he tells us what we are supposed to take out of it. I thought it was the job of the reviewer to say whether ( in the case of an historical book) the author has managed to cover the subject matter well, not to try and tell the reader how to read the book, or what conclusions to draw.
Is Katz really this entrenched in the technology sector? I mean, surely no one can truly be that one dimensional. Yes, I want to learn the lessons of the past, but when I read about the history of the Greek or Roman empires, I do not go out of my way to try and link that history with anything that I am currently working on. It just seems daft to assume that whatever you are working on is automatically to be considered as important, in an historical context, as something as big and powerful (at the time) as the Roman Empire, or the Renaissance and the intellectual revolution that evolved from it.
It is possible that we are in such a time. But we have a long way to go before we can say that all humanity will benifit from this whole Internet thing in the same way all humanity benifited from that time. And frankly, I'm not real interested in having all of my history lessons applied to the Internet. There are other things happening in the world, even now, that aren't directly tied up in the Internet. Perhaps Katz should step away from his job for a while and check some of those things out? Just a suggestion. A vacation never hurt anybody.
Being "intellectual" shouldn't mean that you can't enjoy pointless and stupid violence. After all, I enjoy most Arnold films, and I'm a WWF fan, but I don't really think I'm an idiot (well, depending on the day).
Anyway, if you don't enjoy that sort of thing, you aren't an Arnold fan at all. Total Recall was a good film (I thought). It was one of his least "bloodbath for the sake of a bloodbath" films, and actually was pretty interesting. But let's face it, it's Hollywood, where everyone eventually gets type-cast. For Arnold, it's either funnyman (with Devito), or BadAss. That's just the way it is. And I kind of enjoy the self-mocking that goes on with his movies. Although, I would probably be willing to pay someone to use a Total Recall machine to remove my memory of Last Action Hero. You can only take self-mocking so far before it becomes ridiculous.
You forgot, this is slashdot. It is automatically assumed that everyone here is exactly the same: a teenage male, geeky, slightly neurotic, and definitely social inert person. Of course, if you don't fit that mold, then you don't belong here.
Keep in mind that this is coming from a 27 year old male, happily married, about to start a family, extremely relaxed and basically (not perfect, but) well adjusted person. Guess I'd better leave now.