The problem is that programming "interactive" environments is a royal pain in the butt. There is barely enough time and money to build the graphics engine, do the modeling, program the AI, write the story, etc, etc. Making the environments "active" is a luxury developers just don't have--especially if it adds little to the actual gameplay. Making the TV turn on or the phone dial or the microwave cook is a 5 second "gee that is cool" type thing. And once you get into RPG-like scripting and dialog that opens another large can of worms.
Deus Ex was cool because it was gave the illusion of a non-static environment. Your choices made little difference except with the ending. The levels had a choice between using stealth/hack/or fight or mixture--but the stealth wasn't exactly Thief and the hacking wasn't exactly detailed.
What Deus Ex did well IMHO was put the player in non-combat environments as well as combat ones. Instead of one big bloodbath sometimes you had to walk around and explore a little bit. Two I remember off the top of my head were a hospital clinic and a nightclub.
I can certainly see that point of view. If you're the only one big enough to build something, and you build it, you're a monopoly and that just isn't fair.
So by your argument having no network is more "fair" than having a monopoly controlled one?
If a monopoly is the only way to bring service, then a monopoly should be allowed. Service to some people is better than no service at all.
Sure Saddam is a monster, but he's a small-time monster. Mao was a bigtime monster, and his regime is still in power...There we had a clearcut (if pointless) humanitarian mission, but when we took a few casualties it was Sayonara Somalia....Bosnia really wasn't our finest hour. We did bomb the Chinese, something we've never dared to do to them in China.
If we cannot take down the small time monsters, how can we take down the big time ones? Sure Kuwait isn't a democracy, but that doesn't give anyone the right to invade it. Saddam invading Kuwait wasn't exactly a gigantic blow to our oil interests. It's not like he was going to turn off the wells. We could have just made sweetheart deals with him like the French (do a Google on Total Elf Fina). But we decided it wasn't right and did something about it.
As for Bosnia, I would disagree. I believe it was one of our finest hours. The US could have just turned the other way and let Slobodan Milosevic butcher thousands of Muslims. We could have easily said it was Europe's problem. But we stood up against genocide and were victorous. Sure it wasn't clean, but war never is.
And honestly Bosnia shouldn't have been our problem. Neither should have Iraq or Somalia. That is what the UN is for. Unfortunately the UN has proven itself to be completely impotent. I am still sickened by the Srebrenica massacre where the UN set up a safe haven, put Dutch troops there, and just watched idly by while 7,000 Bosnian men were killed because they were the "wrong religion".
The US cannot solve every genocidal conflict. We are labeled an evil imperialistic empire for the small places we try to help. Even now when we try to put military consequences behind UN resolutions we spur millions of anti-war protestors.
I would like to hear your solutions to world peace.
But do you really want VoIP telephony to remain unconnected to the POTS network? The existing telephone network is a tremendously useful infrastructure.
A 'tie' is where two people get exactly the same number of votes. Voting systems aren't interested in statistical margins of error. They're interested in numbers of votes.
Take a math or science class sometimes, especially one with some probability. Nothing in this world is ever 100% Nothing. There is always an element of chance in the real world. Planes do not land safely 100% of the time. Computers do not run 100% of the time. You cannot calculate the force of an object to 100% certainty. Just because you aren't interested in statistics does not mean probability does not exist. If you are working in the real world you have to deal with probability.
And the ballots used in Florida were EXTREMELY prone to chance. Number one, they were paper ballots. They can be dropped, misplaced, or otherwise lost. Second, the ballots had those evil chads that were easily lost. There was a weird almost-Heisenberg like effect going on where the act of counting the ballots changed the outcome of the count due to chads falling off.
Note there are plenty of places with elections that require 51% of the vote to win and that have runoffs if noone gets above the threshhold.
Bullcrap. The US has relatively little interest in Iraqi oil compared to, say, the French. That's right the French. Go do a google on TotalFinaElf and Iraq.
The North Koreans are a far bigger threat than the Iraqis,
So going to war with Iraq is bad, but if North Korea pisses us off we should commence bombing immediately? We are merely doing with North Korea what we did with Iraq--diplomacy first then war. Iraq signed a peace treaty to disarm, but has stalled for over a decade. Diplomacy has not worked. It may not work with North Korea but we are at least trying.
but there's no sign of troops going in there - why? Because you got your arses handed to you last time?
Actually North Korea was going to fall (see Inchon) when the Chinese suddenly jumped in a forced us back to the original parallel. Sure it would have been nice to free North Korea, we did keep the South liberated. Check them out sometime and tell me which one you would rather live in.
No, Gore won. In popular, and in the final Florida vote count across the state. Bush STOLE the presidency, fair & square.
Wrong. It was a TIE. The number of votes one candidate got was WAY WAY below the margin of error, especially for a punch-card system. Unfortunately, the current election system had no way to deal with ties. So the result of the election was essentially random.
Forget the punch-cards and computer upgrades. What we really need is a change in the law to deal with statistical ties since such ties will happen in any system. What Florida should have done is have some sort of a runoff election between between the top two candidates.
Trying to change the random result by counting hanging chads is like losing a coin toss and asking if you can get a reflip. Eventually you would get a result in your favor (chad randomly fall off, someone misplaces.0001% of the ballots). But the fundamental problem is that it came down to a coin toss in the first place!
If you live in a heavily democratic state (say NY or CA) and you are a republican your vote is wasted, if you live in a heavily republican state (say MT or AZ) and you are a democrat you might as well not even bother to vote.
This way everybody can vote feel like our vote counts. As an added bonus we give increased power to minority parties and that can't be bad.
The situation you just described would be even worse if there was no electoral college. Without an electoral college the opinions of vast regions of the country would be meaningless. Picking a president is not *just* about picking someone that represents the most people but also about picking someone that represents the country geographically. If the mid west or Alaska felt like the government just didn't represent their needs why wouldn't they try to leave the union and form a government that better met their needs. For a small modern day example, check out the current LA succession battle.
This is about an obvious quid pro quo. It is not shutting down a "Vote for Gore" or a "Vote for Nader" site. This isn't about free speech. What is the difference between this site and a site matching people willing to vote for Nader with people willing to pay 50 bucks to people who vote for Nader? The fact that the "recieved" part isn't monitary changes nothing.
If it does not violate the letter of the law it at least violates the spirit of what representative government is about.
Actually, I'm willing to bet we will learn much more from those Jet fighters and that Missle Defense system than we will ever get out of the mostly political Internation Space Station. The F22 will be able to hit supersonic without afterburners. The Missle Defense system is pushing the limits in a bunch of different technologies, including advanced laser research.
Before you poo-poo Defense Spending remember that you have an Internet because of a certain DARPA project started in the late 60's. The Moon Walk was cool and all but how did it change your daily life? I would argue that the Internet has had a much greater impact on mankind than the moon walk.
Pretty much any new consumer electronic device that can read a DVD or CD can play MP3s. This includes my new DVD player and my new stereo. Of course this isn't lamps and planters, but it does signal a shift as you have noted.
MP3s are popular and MP3 support is so easy to add, why not add it? And this is a good thing because the more people who are exposed, the harder it is to stop the whole thing.
What about simple sabotage? Everyone is noting how complex a Space Shuttle is. Cut a line here or there. Change the adhesive used to attach the tiles.
One again, as I said highly unlikely to impossible. I believe it was a mechanical failure of some sort.
But flying 2 jumbo jets into the Twin Towers, destroying the towers and killing 1000s of people was unlikely too. So I retain some skeptism of "accidents" especially on such a large target.
"It's frustrating that the media can't let go of war sensationalism even now, at a time like this."
Yea, why would anyone want to kill an Israeli? Completely unprecedented. They are never kidnapped from Olympic games or blown up while worshipping on their holiest days.
Look, I'm not saying it is terrorism. I highly doubt it. Blowing up an American Space Shuttle with the first Israeli astronaut would be a Extreme-Muslim Terrorist's dream.
OK, I can see something go wrong during takeoff when you have thousands of pounds of rocket fuel strapped to your back. But landing? At landing the shuttle is a glorified glider.
Considering this and looking at the pictures, the only conclusion is that it just broke up in the atmosphere. Which means that either the thermal protection system failed or it hit the atmosphere at the wrong angle due to a malfunction causing the pilot to be unable to control the shuttle or (highly unlikely) pilot error.
Actually, I really liked the Star Wars games before Episode I. Games like XWing and Tie Fighter are classics. Dark Forces and JKI were right up there too. I even liked the old console games (even though they were hard as heck). They were even willing to take a few risks. XWing vs. Tie Fighter was simply ahead of its time in being a primarily "Internet Only" game.
Around Episode I is when the games really started to suck. It was just too many games put together too quickly.
However, Lucasarts seems to be turning around with some help from companies like Raven and Bioware. Jedi Knight 2 deserves better than an honorable mention. It is in my opinion the best Star Wars game ever. It is the only game I have bothered playing through twice in many many years. It wasn't afraid to give you the full power of a Jedi in the name of presenting a "challenge". I am also looking forward to the upcoming Knights of the Old Republic RPG from Bioware.
Gary Kurtz, the producer of ANH and ESB, spoke at the Sci-Fi Expo in Plano, TX this weekend along with his daughters Tiffany and Melissa (as children they played Jawas in ANH). He shared with the crowd about meeting Lucas, leaving the Star Wars films and the original plans for the entire saga. . . . EPISODE 1: Was to focus on the origins of the Jedi Knights and how they are initiated and trained EPISODE 2: Introduction and development of Obi-Wan Kenobi EPISODE 3: Introduction and life of Vader EPISODE 4: There were seven different drafts of the film. At one point, they pursued buying the rights to Hidden Fortress because of the strong similarities. At one point, Luke was a female, Han was Luke's brother, Luke's father was the one in prison (interesting point for some debates) and the film featured 40 wookies EPISODE 5: Once written, the screenplay of Empire is almost exactly what is seen on screen. The only cut scenes were those involving wampas in the rebel base (cut because of time and unsolved technical glitches) and about two minutes of Luke/Yoda Jedi training with no real dialog. EPISODE 6: Leia was to be elected "Queen of her people" leaving her isolated. Han was to die. Luke confronted Vader and went on with his life alone. Leia was not to be Luke's sister. EPISODE 7: Third trilogy was to focus on Luke's life as a Jedi, with very few details planned out. EPISODE 8: Luke's sister (not Leia) appears from another part of the galaxy. EPISODE 9: First appearance of the Emperor.
Take a look at the "mythical" 7, 8, and 9. They don't take place after the fall of the Empire. They basically drag out everything that happened in Jedi over 4 movies instead of one, killing Han in the process. Can you imagine EPISODE 7, an entire Star Wars movie devoted solely to Mark Hamill!?!?
From what I've read the reason why Kasdan left Jedi was because he wanted the episode 6 listed here instead of ending it at Jedi.
Whatever Lucas's mistakes, ending it at Jedi was an excellent move (and one that cost Lucas a great deal of money). Ending it at Jedi helped save the original Star Wars movies from dragging out and getting stale. Whatever you say about the new movies, if you wish you can essentially ignore them and just enjoy the great story told in the original 3.
Sometimes so-called "Corporate Welfare" is a good thing. For example, you give a corporation a tax break to set up shop in your town. In turn they provide jobs for the citizens. Cities compete for businesses just like people compete for jobs, which I do not thing is a bad thing.
Secondly sometimes "Corporate Welfare" is to help an otherwise good business get through bad times. Having the entire US Airline industry collapse after 9/11 would have been a bad idea. Thousands would be laid off and the 1 or 2 airlines that survived would charge much higher rates due to the lack of competition. Not to mention that 9/11 was an unexpected even out of their control.
The problem with the music industry wanting to tax blank CD's is the fact that it is a crutch. What the industry really needs to do is grow and evolve. Competition should weed out those companies that don't change, and the ones that are left should provide a much better product.
Instead they blame everyone except themselves. Maybe I'm getting too old, but the music nowadays is absolute crap. It's not that it is too wild or ground breaking or revolutionary. It is just crap. Same boring generic crap. That is why the companies are losing sales.
This is a very dumb move by Microsoft. Digital media is one of the biggest reasons people are upgrading their computers and operating systems. You can run a Word Processor on a PII with Windows 95 without any problems. Ripping and burning CDs are a different story.
So why on earth would they cave-in to DRM pressure? They shouldn't give a darn what the music industry thinks. Technology is the lifeblood of our economy, both directly and indirectly. The Music industry is a bunch of annoying, overpayed execs and stars. In a PR battle technology would win hands down, especially if the battle was over taking rights away from the consumers.
My guess is Microsoft wants to monopolize the music and movie industry. They want the next CD you buy to only be playable in a Microsoft OS. Sure they may release some half-hearted buggy specs (for a price).
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system."
The problem I have with his statement was that he said he "created" the Internet. Not sponsored legistation. Not funded scientists. Not *helped* but *created*.
His statement just came off as way too arrogant to the point of being silly. Which is why everyone makes fun of it. No one person or organization created the Internet. Heck, no one politician was responsible for its funding. Ronny was president January 1, 1983 and I believe LBJ was president during the initial ARPA funding. His statement gave no credit to anyone else whatsoever. Heck the Internet would be nothing without the WWW and that came out of Europe's CERN. His statement sounds like he sat in a back room with a computer and cooked up the Internet all by himself.
The worst part is that this speech was obviously written and wasn't some off the cuff remark. It was deliberate and is a great example of why polticians suck. I'm reminded of the King in Dragonslayer who comes up to the remains of the dragon, sticks his sword in, and takes the credit for everything.
If Al Gore is "greatest political champion technology has ever had on capitol hill" then why did the DMCA get passed under his watch? Why didn't he convince Bill to rally against it and veto it? If he is the greatest champion we are in big trouble.
And while Al was a promoter of the Internet, he didn't "make" the Internet. The big event for the Internet was the invention of the WWW and the founding of Netscape. When everyone saw what this new technology could do that's when the boom began.
He did not say he invented the Internet, but he did say "I took the initiative in creating the Internet". From snopes.com:
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system."
Now sure the "urban legend" uses the word invent instead of create, but the point is the same. Al Gore seemed to be taking credit for something that was *MUCH* larger that he was---even as Vice President. Especially for a project that had been going on since the late 60's. What about Vint Cerf the developer of TCP/IP? Or Tim Berners-Lee, developer of the World Wide Web. Or Ray Tomlinson founder of e-mail? Heck, if we are going to talk about politicans what about LBJ since the DARPA project that became the Internet was started during his administration?
There are a thousand people more deserving to proclaim they "took the initiative in creating the Internet". Sure Al may take credit in helping to promote it, but his statement was way too broad and arrogant. He didn't even acknowledge anyone else. It is everything I dislike about a powerful person taking credit for the work of the "little guy".
The Catholic Church has a bunch of original works by the Martin Luther? Author of 95 theses? One of the founders of the Reformation and perhaps the biggest and most influential critic of the Vatican? I'm curious as to why they have them. History shows they weren't exactly the most open-minded bunch back when they collected them. Was it to "learn thy enemy"?
That's like finding out Linus has a collection of signed First Edition books written by Bill Gates.
Porn and political speech are obviously not identical, and I am not trying to say they are, but I don't see them as being distinct enough to warrant encouraging one and censoring the other.
Well we've been doing it since the country was founded and there is plenty of case law doing just that.
draw distinctions based on something as vague and morpheous as "morality"
If all morality is "vague and morpheous" then how can you say it is "wrong" for the library to block porn?
I wrote an email to my girlfriend this morning telling her that the second she walked in the door I was going to kiss her. It was "writing" that was "intended to cause sexual excitement."
No. Next question.
And you're taking the position that the hinge upon which something is either pornographic or not is INTENT??
Come on, its not that hard for a normal human being to look at a picture or a site and tell whether the site is intended for sexual arousal or another purpose (ex. medical).
and yet you did not attempt to classify the two websites (1 [body-n-mind.com], 2 [fetbot.com]) that I asked about. Please tell me if these qualify as "pornographic" in your book.
I looked at body-n-mind.com for about a split second and closed it immediately when I saw naked children in France. Honestly, I didn't look at it long enough to know whether it was porn or not. Obviously there are times when child nudity is porn, and times it is not (baby pictures).
Briefly pulled up fetbot.com. It is a collection of bondage and fetish gear links. Pictures of people in bondage and stories would probably be pornographic. Simple discussions would not. For example, if you having a discussion on religion and BSDM it would not be porn because it would not be intended to arouse.
Yes, and they've also busted moms for taking pics of their babies, nude, in the tub. In other words, pornography is in the eye of the beholder. Beholders get elected. Beholders get unelected. To say that guidelines for what qualifies as pornographic does not change with the political tide because it is enshrined in law is stupid and naive because it pretends that laws are not interpreted.
You are greatly exaggerating the amount that people differ in what they consider porn and what people define as port. Just because someone got busted for something doesn't mean it was right or that they were convicted. If the pics weren't intended to arouse then it wasn't porn.
Your acting as if one year politicans decide women stripping isn't porn and the next year they decide it is. 99% of the stuff they thought was porn 100 years ago probably is still considered porn. Sure there is this 1% that we have an "Art vs. Porn" debate about.
"You can right now view porn in the comfort of your own home. The Chinese cannot read political dissent in the comfort of their own home. That is the difference."
It's a distinction. An irrelevant one, but yes, it's a distinction.
Why, because it refutes most of your argument? You have the freedom to view as much porn as you like it America. The Chinese are not free to read political dissent. Your comparison of US vs. Chinese is flawed because of this.
I'm a taxpayer. I already have.
Then vote for politicans that promise porn in libraries.
When I fund an institution that provides access to information, I have a reasonable expectation that the information be there.
So you expect libraries to carry every book in existence?
that people have a reasonable expectation to not have information at an informational institution.
Does your library stock Hustler, Playboy, and other porno mags? Does it have a collection of porn videos? Not even a few? But what if you are doing a research paper on feminism and pornography and need research and the library does not have internet access? Don't you have a "reasonable expectation for information at an informational institution."?
The vast vast majority of the time porn is not used for informational purposes. It is used for sexual arousal and jacking-off. Libraries are intended for use for educational and enlightenment purposes.
You cannot give up some bit of freedom as irrelevant. It is a toehold for those who wish to oppress.
Then the United States has been oppressive ever since its founding, since that is how long it has regulated porn.
And again, an issue you utterly ignored, is that the Chinese consider your idea of freedom as way, way past obscene so your notion of free speech being accessable by all as 'good' and porn being accessable by all as 'bad' is 100% cultural in addition to relative and subjective.
If everything is cultural, relative, and subjective then why are we debating? I believe the Chinese are wrong because they give no access (public or private) to certain information. And they restrict political information, which should be the least restricted information in a free society. I believe the US is better because although we may restrict some things in publically owned areas (libraries) you can still access these thing in the privacy of your own home.
Think of your ownership of a library as 1 stake (a vote). You only have 1 vote in how to run the library. If all the other people with stakes did not want porn, it is unfair for you to force it on them. However, you have 100% stake in your house. Therefore you can run it as you like.
If you allow "Decency Laws" to exist, then someone who seeks to keep a free people away from information simply needs to find a way to label it as "obscene."
These is where you make your Non Sequitur fallacy. "Decency Laws" restrict what you can do in your own home with your own property. You cannot jump from talking about a publically owned library and a privately owned home. And it does not follow that just because porn is restricted in libraries it will then be restricted in your home.
I'm...trying to...equate political speech with porn? What??
Quoting the original article: seek to prevent our own citizens from seeing certain things and at the same time subsidize methods to defeat such techniques in other countries
Define "certain things". "Things" in reference to the US means porn. "Things" in reference to other countries means things like political speech (China). Those are two different "things". It would only be hypocricy if we were trying to allow porn into China while trying to block it here.
And I wouldn't be doing my argument justice if I didn't bring up the thorny but oh-so-necessary "who decides?" question.
From Merriam-Webster: "the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement"
So breast reconstructive surgery does not fall under this definition but playboy.com does. It really is not that hard. Really, there are only a very small number of cases that will fall into the gray area.
And no, pornography does not "shift with the political tide". Like I said, we have had regulation on this sort of stuff for many years. New York by Gaslight has some interesting stuff of police in the mid to late 1800's dealing with busting up strip clubs trying to pose as art.
The issue is the tacit assumption and enforcement of the notion that people should be entitled to say what they want BUT other people should not necessarily be able to hear it. The only way for you to get around this is by taking the position that photography does not qualify as speech. Good luck.
You can right now view porn in the comfort of your own home. The Chinese cannot read political dissent in the comfort of their own home. That is the difference.
Noone is seriously trying to ban porn from the Internet. However, a library is a public taxpayer funded place and hence operates under a different set of rules because we all own it. Hence democratic government dictates how the people want to run what is their property. You want a library with free porn? Its a free country, start your own.
Ah, the you-must-not-really-be-genuine-in-your-concern-els e-you'd-be-doing--instead argument.
Kinda like what you wrote about: But then, I guess if we can subsidize murder in other countries when it suits us and then have the chutzpah to call the same done to us as "terrorism," this shouldn't actually come as a shock, should it?
Anyway, my point was instead of worrying so much about the right to read porn in a public place, why not worry more about your right to exercise political speech. That is far more imporant than arguing over porn.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is that programming "interactive" environments is a royal pain in the butt. There is barely enough time and money to build the graphics engine, do the modeling, program the AI, write the story, etc, etc. Making the environments "active" is a luxury developers just don't have--especially if it adds little to the actual gameplay. Making the TV turn on or the phone dial or the microwave cook is a 5 second "gee that is cool" type thing. And once you get into RPG-like scripting and dialog that opens another large can of worms.
Deus Ex was cool because it was gave the illusion of a non-static environment. Your choices made little difference except with the ending. The levels had a choice between using stealth/hack/or fight or mixture--but the stealth wasn't exactly Thief and the hacking wasn't exactly detailed.
What Deus Ex did well IMHO was put the player in non-combat environments as well as combat ones. Instead of one big bloodbath sometimes you had to walk around and explore a little bit. Two I remember off the top of my head were a hospital clinic and a nightclub.
I can certainly see that point of view. If you're the only one big enough to build something, and you build it, you're a monopoly and that just isn't fair.
So by your argument having no network is more "fair" than having a monopoly controlled one?
If a monopoly is the only way to bring service, then a monopoly should be allowed. Service to some people is better than no service at all.
Brian
Sure Saddam is a monster, but he's a small-time monster. Mao was a bigtime monster, and his regime is still in power...There we had a clearcut (if pointless) humanitarian mission, but when we took a few casualties it was Sayonara Somalia....Bosnia really wasn't our finest hour. We did bomb the Chinese, something we've never dared to do to them in China.
If we cannot take down the small time monsters, how can we take down the big time ones? Sure Kuwait isn't a democracy, but that doesn't give anyone the right to invade it. Saddam invading Kuwait wasn't exactly a gigantic blow to our oil interests. It's not like he was going to turn off the wells. We could have just made sweetheart deals with him like the French (do a Google on Total Elf Fina). But we decided it wasn't right and did something about it.
As for Bosnia, I would disagree. I believe it was one of our finest hours. The US could have just turned the other way and let Slobodan Milosevic butcher thousands of Muslims. We could have easily said it was Europe's problem. But we stood up against genocide and were victorous. Sure it wasn't clean, but war never is.
And honestly Bosnia shouldn't have been our problem. Neither should have Iraq or Somalia. That is what the UN is for. Unfortunately the UN has proven itself to be completely impotent. I am still sickened by the Srebrenica massacre where the UN set up a safe haven, put Dutch troops there, and just watched idly by while 7,000 Bosnian men were killed because they were the "wrong religion".
The US cannot solve every genocidal conflict. We are labeled an evil imperialistic empire for the small places we try to help. Even now when we try to put military consequences behind UN resolutions we spur millions of anti-war protestors.
I would like to hear your solutions to world peace.
Brian Ellenberger
But do you really want VoIP telephony to remain unconnected to the POTS network? The existing telephone network is a tremendously useful infrastructure.
Ever hear of DSL?
A 'tie' is where two people get exactly the same number of votes. Voting systems aren't interested in statistical margins of error. They're interested in numbers of votes.
Take a math or science class sometimes, especially one with some probability. Nothing in this world is ever 100% Nothing. There is always an element of chance in the real world. Planes do not land safely 100% of the time. Computers do not run 100% of the time. You cannot calculate the force of an object to 100% certainty. Just because you aren't interested in statistics does not mean probability does not exist. If you are working in the real world you have to deal with probability.
And the ballots used in Florida were EXTREMELY prone to chance. Number one, they were paper ballots. They can be dropped, misplaced, or otherwise lost. Second, the ballots had those evil chads that were easily lost. There was a weird almost-Heisenberg like effect going on where the act of counting the ballots changed the outcome of the count due to chads falling off.
Note there are plenty of places with elections that require 51% of the vote to win and that have runoffs if noone gets above the threshhold.
Brian Ellenberger
All he wants out of Iraq is cheap oil.
Bullcrap. The US has relatively little interest in Iraqi oil compared to, say, the French. That's right the French. Go do a google on TotalFinaElf and Iraq.
The North Koreans are a far bigger threat than the Iraqis,
So going to war with Iraq is bad, but if North Korea pisses us off we should commence bombing immediately? We are merely doing with North Korea what we did with Iraq--diplomacy first then war. Iraq signed a peace treaty to disarm, but has stalled for over a decade. Diplomacy has not worked. It may not work with North Korea but we are at least trying.
but there's no sign of troops going in there - why? Because you got your arses handed to you last time?
Actually North Korea was going to fall (see Inchon) when the Chinese suddenly jumped in a forced us back to the original parallel. Sure it would have been nice to free North Korea, we did keep the South liberated. Check them out sometime and tell me which one you would rather live in.
Brian Ellenberger
No, Gore won. In popular, and in the final Florida vote count across the state. Bush STOLE the presidency, fair & square.
.0001% of the ballots). But the fundamental problem is that it came down to a coin toss in the first place!
Wrong. It was a TIE. The number of votes one candidate got was WAY WAY below the margin of error, especially for a punch-card system. Unfortunately, the current election system had no way to deal with ties. So the result of the election was essentially random.
Forget the punch-cards and computer upgrades. What we really need is a change in the law to deal with statistical ties since such ties will happen in any system. What Florida should have done is have some sort of a runoff election between between the top two candidates.
Trying to change the random result by counting hanging chads is like losing a coin toss and asking if you can get a reflip. Eventually you would get a result in your favor (chad randomly fall off, someone misplaces
Brian Ellenberger
If you live in a heavily democratic state (say NY or CA) and you are a republican your vote is wasted, if you live in a heavily republican state (say MT or AZ) and you are a democrat you might as well not even bother to vote.
This way everybody can vote feel like our vote counts. As an added bonus we give increased power to minority parties and that can't be bad.
The situation you just described would be even worse if there was no electoral college. Without an electoral college the opinions of vast regions of the country would be meaningless. Picking a president is not *just* about picking someone that represents the most people but also about picking someone that represents the country geographically. If the mid west or Alaska felt like the government just didn't represent their needs why wouldn't they try to leave the union and form a government that better met their needs. For a small modern day example, check out the current LA succession battle.
Brian Ellenberger
This is about an obvious quid pro quo. It is not shutting down a "Vote for Gore" or a "Vote for Nader" site. This isn't about free speech. What is the difference between this site and a site matching people willing to vote for Nader with people willing to pay 50 bucks to people who vote for Nader? The fact that the "recieved" part isn't monitary changes nothing.
If it does not violate the letter of the law it at least violates the spirit of what representative government is about.
Brian Ellenberger
Actually, I'm willing to bet we will learn much more from those Jet fighters and that Missle Defense system than we will ever get out of the mostly political Internation Space Station. The F22 will be able to hit supersonic without afterburners. The Missle Defense system is pushing the limits in a bunch of different technologies, including advanced laser research.
Before you poo-poo Defense Spending remember that you have an Internet because of a certain DARPA project started in the late 60's. The Moon Walk was cool and all but how did it change your daily life? I would argue that the Internet has had a much greater impact on mankind than the moon walk.
Brian Ellenberger
Pretty much any new consumer electronic device that can read a DVD or CD can play MP3s. This includes my new DVD player and my new stereo. Of course this isn't lamps and planters, but it does signal a shift as you have noted.
MP3s are popular and MP3 support is so easy to add, why not add it? And this is a good thing because the more people who are exposed, the harder it is to stop the whole thing.
Brian Ellenberger
What about simple sabotage? Everyone is noting how complex a Space Shuttle is. Cut a line here or there. Change the adhesive used to attach the tiles.
One again, as I said highly unlikely to impossible. I believe it was a mechanical failure of some sort.
But flying 2 jumbo jets into the Twin Towers, destroying the towers and killing 1000s of people was unlikely too. So I retain some skeptism of "accidents" especially on such a large target.
Brian Ellenberger
"It's frustrating that the media can't let go of war sensationalism even now, at a time like this."
Yea, why would anyone want to kill an Israeli? Completely unprecedented. They are never kidnapped from Olympic games or blown up while worshipping on their holiest days.
Look, I'm not saying it is terrorism. I highly doubt it. Blowing up an American Space Shuttle with the first Israeli astronaut would be a Extreme-Muslim Terrorist's dream.
Brian Ellenberger
OK, I can see something go wrong during takeoff when you have thousands of pounds of rocket fuel strapped to your back. But landing? At landing the shuttle is a glorified glider.
Considering this and looking at the pictures, the only conclusion is that it just broke up in the atmosphere. Which means that either the thermal protection system failed or it hit the atmosphere at the wrong angle due to a malfunction causing the pilot to be unable to control the shuttle or (highly unlikely) pilot error.
Brian Ellenberger
Actually, I really liked the Star Wars games before Episode I. Games like XWing and Tie Fighter are classics. Dark Forces and JKI were right up there too. I even liked the old console games (even though they were hard as heck). They were even willing to take a few risks. XWing vs. Tie Fighter was simply ahead of its time in being a primarily "Internet Only" game.
Around Episode I is when the games really started to suck. It was just too many games put together too quickly.
However, Lucasarts seems to be turning around with some help from companies like Raven and Bioware. Jedi Knight 2 deserves better than an honorable mention. It is in my opinion the best Star Wars game ever. It is the only game I have bothered playing through twice in many many years. It wasn't afraid to give you the full power of a Jedi in the name of presenting a "challenge". I am also looking forward to the upcoming Knights of the Old Republic RPG from Bioware.
Brian Ellenberger
From:
D =2 624
http://cgi.theforce.net/theforce/tfn.cgi?storyI
Gary Kurtz, the producer of ANH and ESB, spoke at the Sci-Fi Expo in Plano, TX this weekend along with his daughters Tiffany and Melissa (as children they played Jawas in ANH). He shared with the crowd about meeting Lucas, leaving the Star Wars films and the original plans for the entire saga.
.
.
.
EPISODE 1: Was to focus on the origins of the Jedi Knights and how they are initiated and trained
EPISODE 2: Introduction and development of Obi-Wan Kenobi
EPISODE 3: Introduction and life of Vader
EPISODE 4: There were seven different drafts of the film. At one point, they pursued buying the rights to Hidden Fortress because of the strong similarities. At one point, Luke was a female, Han was Luke's brother, Luke's father was the one in prison (interesting point for some debates) and the film featured 40 wookies
EPISODE 5: Once written, the screenplay of Empire is almost exactly what is seen on screen. The only cut scenes were those involving wampas in the rebel base (cut because of time and unsolved technical glitches) and about two minutes of Luke/Yoda Jedi training with no real dialog.
EPISODE 6: Leia was to be elected "Queen of her people" leaving her isolated. Han was to die. Luke confronted Vader and went on with his life alone. Leia was not to be Luke's sister.
EPISODE 7: Third trilogy was to focus on Luke's life as a Jedi, with very few details planned out.
EPISODE 8: Luke's sister (not Leia) appears from another part of the galaxy.
EPISODE 9: First appearance of the Emperor.
Take a look at the "mythical" 7, 8, and 9. They don't take place after the fall of the Empire. They basically drag out everything that happened in Jedi over 4 movies instead of one, killing Han in the process. Can you imagine EPISODE 7, an entire Star Wars movie devoted solely to Mark Hamill!?!?
From what I've read the reason why Kasdan left Jedi was because he wanted the episode 6 listed here instead of ending it at Jedi.
Whatever Lucas's mistakes, ending it at Jedi was an excellent move (and one that cost Lucas a great deal of money). Ending it at Jedi helped save the original Star Wars movies from dragging out and getting stale. Whatever you say about the new movies, if you wish you can essentially ignore them and just enjoy the great story told in the original 3.
Brian Ellenberger
Sometimes so-called "Corporate Welfare" is a good thing. For example, you give a corporation a tax break to set up shop in your town. In turn they provide jobs for the citizens. Cities compete for businesses just like people compete for jobs, which I do not thing is a bad thing.
Secondly sometimes "Corporate Welfare" is to help an otherwise good business get through bad times. Having the entire US Airline industry collapse after 9/11 would have been a bad idea. Thousands would be laid off and the 1 or 2 airlines that survived would charge much higher rates due to the lack of competition. Not to mention that 9/11 was an unexpected even out of their control.
The problem with the music industry wanting to tax blank CD's is the fact that it is a crutch. What the industry really needs to do is grow and evolve. Competition should weed out those companies that don't change, and the ones that are left should provide a much better product.
Instead they blame everyone except themselves. Maybe I'm getting too old, but the music nowadays is absolute crap. It's not that it is too wild or ground breaking or revolutionary. It is just crap. Same boring generic crap. That is why the companies are losing sales.
This is a very dumb move by Microsoft. Digital media is one of the biggest reasons people are upgrading their computers and operating systems.
You can run a Word Processor on a PII with Windows 95 without any problems. Ripping and burning CDs are a different story.
So why on earth would they cave-in to DRM pressure? They shouldn't give a darn what the music industry thinks. Technology is the lifeblood of our economy, both directly and indirectly. The Music industry is a bunch of annoying, overpayed execs and stars. In a PR battle technology would win hands down, especially if the battle was over taking rights away from the consumers.
My guess is Microsoft wants to monopolize the music and movie industry. They want the next CD you buy to only be playable in a Microsoft OS. Sure they may release some half-hearted buggy specs (for a price).
Brian Ellenberger
From: http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.htm
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system."
The problem I have with his statement was that he said he "created" the Internet. Not sponsored legistation. Not funded scientists. Not *helped* but *created*.
His statement just came off as way too arrogant to the point of being silly. Which is why everyone makes fun of it. No one person or organization created the Internet. Heck, no one politician was responsible for its funding. Ronny was president January 1, 1983 and I believe LBJ was president during the initial ARPA funding. His statement gave no credit to anyone else whatsoever. Heck the Internet would be nothing without the WWW and that came out of Europe's CERN. His statement sounds like he sat in a back room with a computer and cooked up the Internet all by himself.
The worst part is that this speech was obviously written and wasn't some off the cuff remark. It was deliberate and is a great example of why polticians suck. I'm reminded of the King in Dragonslayer who comes up to the remains of the dragon, sticks his sword in, and takes the credit for everything.
Brian Ellenberger
If Al Gore is "greatest political champion technology has ever had on capitol hill" then why did the DMCA get passed under his watch? Why didn't he convince Bill to rally against it and veto it? If he is the greatest champion we are in big trouble.
And while Al was a promoter of the Internet, he didn't "make" the Internet. The big event for the Internet was the invention of the WWW and the founding of Netscape. When everyone saw what this new technology could do that's when the boom began.
Brian Ellenberger
He did not say he invented the Internet, but he did say "I took the initiative in creating the Internet". From snopes.com:
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system."
Now sure the "urban legend" uses the word invent instead of create, but the point is the same. Al Gore seemed to be taking credit for something that was *MUCH* larger that he was---even as Vice President. Especially for a project that had been going on since the late 60's. What about Vint Cerf the developer of TCP/IP? Or Tim Berners-Lee, developer of the World Wide Web. Or Ray Tomlinson founder of e-mail? Heck, if we are going to talk about politicans what about LBJ since the DARPA project that became the Internet was started during his administration?
There are a thousand people more deserving to proclaim they "took the initiative in creating the Internet". Sure Al may take credit in helping to promote it, but his statement was way too broad and arrogant. He didn't even acknowledge anyone else. It is everything I dislike about a powerful person taking credit for the work of the "little guy".
Brian Ellenberger
This reminds me of UNIX's parent, Multics, which had similar goals but never achieved widespread acceptance.
The Catholic Church has a bunch of original works by the Martin Luther? Author of 95 theses? One of the founders of the Reformation and perhaps the biggest and most influential critic of the Vatican? I'm curious as to why they have them. History shows they weren't exactly the most open-minded bunch back when they collected them. Was it to "learn thy enemy"?
That's like finding out Linus has a collection of signed First Edition books written by Bill Gates.
Porn and political speech are obviously not identical, and I am not trying to say they are, but I don't see them as being distinct enough to warrant encouraging one and censoring the other.
Well we've been doing it since the country was founded and there is plenty of case law doing just that.
draw distinctions based on something as vague and morpheous as "morality"
If all morality is "vague and morpheous" then how can you say it is "wrong" for the library to block porn?
I wrote an email to my girlfriend this morning telling her that the second she walked in the door I was going to kiss her. It was "writing" that was "intended to cause sexual excitement."
No. Next question.
And you're taking the position that the hinge upon which something is either pornographic or not is INTENT??
Come on, its not that hard for a normal human being to look at a picture or a site and tell whether the site is intended for sexual arousal or another purpose (ex. medical).
and yet you did not attempt to classify the two websites (1 [body-n-mind.com], 2 [fetbot.com]) that I asked about. Please tell me if these qualify as "pornographic" in your book.
I looked at body-n-mind.com for about a split second and closed it immediately when I saw naked children in France. Honestly, I didn't look at it long enough to know whether it was porn or not. Obviously there are times when child nudity is porn, and times it is not (baby pictures).
Briefly pulled up fetbot.com. It is a collection of bondage and fetish gear links. Pictures of people in bondage and stories would probably be pornographic. Simple discussions would not. For example, if you having a discussion on religion and BSDM it would not be porn because it would not be intended to arouse.
Yes, and they've also busted moms for taking pics of their babies, nude, in the tub. In other words, pornography is in the eye of the beholder. Beholders get elected. Beholders get unelected. To say that guidelines for what qualifies as pornographic does not change with the political tide because it is enshrined in law is stupid and naive because it pretends that laws are not interpreted.
You are greatly exaggerating the amount that people differ in what they consider porn and what people define as port. Just because someone got busted for something doesn't mean it was right or that they were convicted. If the pics weren't intended to arouse then it wasn't porn.
Your acting as if one year politicans decide women stripping isn't porn and the next year they decide it is. 99% of the stuff they thought was porn 100 years ago probably is still considered porn. Sure there is this 1% that we have an "Art vs. Porn" debate about.
"You can right now view porn in the comfort of your own home. The Chinese cannot read political dissent in the comfort of their own home. That is the difference."
It's a distinction. An irrelevant one, but yes, it's a distinction.
Why, because it refutes most of your argument? You have the freedom to view as much porn as you like it America. The Chinese are not free to read political dissent. Your comparison of US vs. Chinese is flawed because of this.
I'm a taxpayer. I already have.
Then vote for politicans that promise porn in libraries.
When I fund an institution that provides access to information, I have a reasonable expectation that the information be there.
So you expect libraries to carry every book in existence?
that people have a reasonable expectation to not have information at an informational institution.
Does your library stock Hustler, Playboy, and other porno mags? Does it have a collection of porn videos? Not even a few? But what if you are doing a research paper on feminism and pornography and need research and the library does not have internet access? Don't you have a "reasonable expectation for information at an informational institution."?
The vast vast majority of the time porn is not used for informational purposes. It is used for sexual arousal and jacking-off. Libraries are intended for use for educational and enlightenment purposes.
You cannot give up some bit of freedom as irrelevant. It is a toehold for those who wish to oppress.
Then the United States has been oppressive ever since its founding, since that is how long it has regulated porn.
And again, an issue you utterly ignored, is that the Chinese consider your idea of freedom as way, way past obscene so your notion of free speech being accessable by all as 'good' and porn being accessable by all as 'bad' is 100% cultural in addition to relative and subjective.
If everything is cultural, relative, and subjective then why are we debating? I believe the Chinese are wrong because they give no access (public or private) to certain information. And they restrict political information, which should be the least restricted information in a free society. I believe the US is better because although we may restrict some things in publically owned areas (libraries) you can still access these thing in the privacy of your own home.
Think of your ownership of a library as 1 stake (a vote). You only have 1 vote in how to run the library. If all the other people with stakes did not want porn, it is unfair for you to force it on them. However, you have 100% stake in your house. Therefore you can run it as you like.
If you allow "Decency Laws" to exist, then someone who seeks to keep a free people away from information simply needs to find a way to label it as "obscene."
These is where you make your Non Sequitur fallacy. "Decency Laws" restrict what you can do in your own home with your own property. You cannot jump from talking about a publically owned library and a privately owned home. And it does not follow that just because porn is restricted in libraries it will then be restricted in your home.
Brian Ellenberger
I'm ...trying to ...equate political speech with porn? What??
s e-you'd-be-doing--instead argument.
Quoting the original article:
seek to prevent our own citizens from seeing certain things and at the same time subsidize methods to defeat such techniques in other countries
Define "certain things". "Things" in reference to the US means porn. "Things" in reference to other countries means things like political speech (China). Those are two different "things". It would only be hypocricy if we were trying to allow porn into China while trying to block it here.
And I wouldn't be doing my argument justice if I didn't bring up the thorny but oh-so-necessary "who decides?" question.
From Merriam-Webster: "the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement"
So breast reconstructive surgery does not fall under this definition but playboy.com does. It really is not that hard. Really, there are only a very small number of cases that will fall into the gray area.
And no, pornography does not "shift with the political tide". Like I said, we have had regulation on this sort of stuff for many years. New York by Gaslight has some interesting stuff of police in the mid to late 1800's dealing with busting up strip clubs trying to pose as art.
The issue is the tacit assumption and enforcement of the notion that people should be entitled to say what they want BUT other people should not necessarily be able to hear it. The only way for you to get around this is by taking the position that photography does not qualify as speech. Good luck.
You can right now view porn in the comfort of your own home. The Chinese cannot read political dissent in the comfort of their own home. That is the difference.
Noone is seriously trying to ban porn from the Internet. However, a library is a public taxpayer funded place and hence operates under a different set of rules because we all own it. Hence democratic government dictates how the people want to run what is their property. You want a library with free porn? Its a free country, start your own.
Ah, the you-must-not-really-be-genuine-in-your-concern-el
Kinda like what you wrote about:
But then, I guess if we can subsidize murder in other countries when it suits us and then have the chutzpah to call the same done to us as "terrorism," this shouldn't actually come as a shock, should it?
Anyway, my point was instead of worrying so much about the right to read porn in a public place, why not worry more about your right to exercise political speech. That is far more imporant than arguing over porn.
Brian Ellenberger