My school did this, under the slight misnomer of Computer Club. In theory, we maintained the school website, and did productive things, but it was pretty much an excuse to play Starcraft on school computers for a few hours.
Of course, we did the same thing in most of my programming classes..
Overall, the AUP wasn't really a problem. The only staff close enough to enforce it was the sponsor of the club, and was usually playing with us as well.
Executive 1: Ok, we've got a good pricing plan worked out, and we think we can make some real cash off this, go tell development to throw a game around it so we can ship it next month..
Executive 2: What about this Deer Hunter engine we've been sitting on? Logically, since it sold so well, it should do great online.
Executive 1: Good! Go with it!
(fin)
In short, in order for any business plan like this to work, you have to spend some time making an acual good game, which isn't happening for the most part, and then convince people that it's worth paying to play instead of going with free online play. EQ and company have done well, but I'd rather take Diablo 2 and being able to eat this month..
I did like the like the old host of Junkyard Wars as opposed to either of the new ones, but it's still a solid show. And I find Battlebots (maybe not the same but it's the same concept as Robot Wars) much more entertaining than Robot Wars. The difference here is that Iron Chef had a strong following because of the elements from Japan (dubbing, strange foods, Chairman Kaga). Despite the Shatner factor, I don't think it'll be enough of a success for UPN to keep it around for long..
The reason the US government says otherwise is because way back when people started using more parts of the spectrum, the people who were making all this stuff didn't want everyone to have access to it. Thus, we get a litigious solution rather than a technological one.. I agree that anything that is broadcast (radio, TV, cell phone) should be fair game for anyone who can recieve it, expecially cell, instead of just fooling people into believing it's a secure communication method. Back to the point though..
It's probably right that they don't have a legal backing on this. Like someone previous said: They get paid to put commercials into the broadcast. That doesn't mean we have to watch them.
One of the only strong (i.e. non-Microsoft) arguments against open-source is that coders may want to retain ownership over what they write. You can't make a living off the satisfaction that you're supporting a movement, after all. The arguments of a lack of coordinated direction and perhaps of a high degree of zealotry also work for me..
In some part or another of 'In the Beginning Was the Command Line.' he talks about the fundamental difference in the handling of bugs in code by commercial and non-commercial software companies. Microsoft has built up this almost communist-party level need to appear infallable, and thus almost never publicly acknowledges any bug. And like most everyone else has said, people writing exploits of some of the more serious bugs forces MS to take note and fix it, lest their products be seen as the straw giants they really are.
To throw in another analogy, who would we be pointing the finger at when some day care service, recently exposed as a sweat shop cover, blames the reporter who outed them?
The only difference here is that most reporters, deservedly or not, are seen as agents of truth and justice. But try convincing the average man on the street that Back Orifice is a good thing in the long run, and see how far you get.
Segregation used to be a law too. The point being that if you think a law is wrong, you try to get it changed. Y'know, civil disobedience, lobbying, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilence" and all that..
I do see some logic behind this.. A dedicated hacker with a malicious streak can do a LOT of damage, and had a few beew working in concert with the terrorist attacks of 9-11, much of the country could easily have been thrown into chaos..
That said, I see this as the same variety of short-sighted legislation that brought us the DMCA, only this time we also get an extra layer of reactionism on top, creating new law that is both far too broad and FAR too severe.
This proposal appears to make no distinction between website defacement (the rough equivalent to tagging a wall somewhere IMHO) and majorly disrupting traffic through DoS attacks or releasing a virus. (admittedly much more serious stuff) And LIFE in prison? More than many violent criminals recieve? Did the Krull invade while I wasn't looking?
Looking at the abolished statute of limitations, I wonder if Mafiaboy will be getting a knock on the door soon.. I wouldn't be surprised if a few of the higher profile groups (2600, most likely) got some trouble out of this too..
1. Songs about killing, blowing stuff up, etc.
Stuff that is indeed at least in bad taste, if not downright offensive.
ex. Drowning Pool "Bodies", Mudvayne "Death Blooms"
2. Songs whose titles contain words somehow relating to the tragedy.
Stuff that isn't in itself offensive, but may be a good idea to hold off on for now.
ex. Surfaris "Wipeout", Beastie Boys "Sabotage", Savage Garden "Crash and Burn", Dave Matthews Band "Crash Into Me"
3. WTF? Songs that reaffirm my belief that Clear Channel has a gas leak somewhere in their corporate HQ.
ex. The Beatles "Obla Di, Obla Da", 311 "Down"
, Alanis Morissette "Ironic"
Even though some of these songs might be considered offensive, and most of them are ripe for any dope who wants to get both a reputation as a shock DJ and fired in the same day, I don't see the point behind censoring them. It seems like a better idea to leave it to the discretion of each station, and let them exercise a little judgement. But of course, why exercise your own judgement when you've got Big Brother to think for you?
The point behind this it to make sure we don't let reactionist politicians make a bad situation worse by turning the US into a police state under the flag of protecting it.
I can see your point when applied to elementary school, but moving into middle and high schools, and even in the higer grades of elementary, the focus IS on preparing children for an independant life. And like it or not, you WILL encounter a computer at some point, and I think we'd be doing students a disservice by denying them at least a basic education in using them.
And yes, maybe I wasn't the most social person in school, and maybe I preferred a good game of Quake to going to some party, but I like to think it'll all pay off when I'm making twice as much as the fools who took Woodworking instead of Computer Science..
Also, I would advise you take a look at some of the Jon Katz articles, where people talk about how these sort of things helped them survive theliving hell their education had become..
Of course, I'm only a college freshman, so I could be way off..
Yes, but it's far less expensive to make a secure product than buy a few politicians and arrest anybody who finds out it's not secure.. Which is pretty much the whole point behind the DMCA..
Slashdot Mirror
My school did this, under the slight misnomer of Computer Club. In theory, we maintained the school website, and did productive things, but it was pretty much an excuse to play Starcraft on school computers for a few hours.
Of course, we did the same thing in most of my programming classes..
Overall, the AUP wasn't really a problem. The only staff close enough to enforce it was the sponsor of the club, and was usually playing with us as well.
Overall: Fantastic idea!
I DARE you to try to watch Space Ghost with all the similar frames removed! Or half of the other Adult Swim shows for that matter..
(inside the boardroom of Game Company X)
Executive 1: Ok, we've got a good pricing plan worked out, and we think we can make some real cash off this, go tell development to throw a game around it so we can ship it next month..
Executive 2: What about this Deer Hunter engine we've been sitting on? Logically, since it sold so well, it should do great online.
Executive 1: Good! Go with it!
(fin)
In short, in order for any business plan like this to work, you have to spend some time making an acual good game, which isn't happening for the most part, and then convince people that it's worth paying to play instead of going with free online play. EQ and company have done well, but I'd rather take Diablo 2 and being able to eat this month..
Oligopoly
You're forgetting that a good number of people will spend all their time leeching files..
I've got all mine going to a .edu right now.. Seems like a good investment..
I did like the like the old host of Junkyard Wars as opposed to either of the new ones, but it's still a solid show. And I find Battlebots (maybe not the same but it's the same concept as Robot Wars) much more entertaining than Robot Wars. The difference here is that Iron Chef had a strong following because of the elements from Japan (dubbing, strange foods, Chairman Kaga). Despite the Shatner factor, I don't think it'll be enough of a success for UPN to keep it around for long..
The reason the US government says otherwise is because way back when people started using more parts of the spectrum, the people who were making all this stuff didn't want everyone to have access to it. Thus, we get a litigious solution rather than a technological one.. I agree that anything that is broadcast (radio, TV, cell phone) should be fair game for anyone who can recieve it, expecially cell, instead of just fooling people into believing it's a secure communication method. Back to the point though..
It's probably right that they don't have a legal backing on this. Like someone previous said: They get paid to put commercials into the broadcast. That doesn't mean we have to watch them.
One of the only strong (i.e. non-Microsoft) arguments against open-source is that coders may want to retain ownership over what they write. You can't make a living off the satisfaction that you're supporting a movement, after all. The arguments of a lack of coordinated direction and perhaps of a high degree of zealotry also work for me..
In some part or another of 'In the Beginning Was the Command Line.' he talks about the fundamental difference in the handling of bugs in code by commercial and non-commercial software companies. Microsoft has built up this almost communist-party level need to appear infallable, and thus almost never publicly acknowledges any bug. And like most everyone else has said, people writing exploits of some of the more serious bugs forces MS to take note and fix it, lest their products be seen as the straw giants they really are.
To throw in another analogy, who would we be pointing the finger at when some day care service, recently exposed as a sweat shop cover, blames the reporter who outed them?
The only difference here is that most reporters, deservedly or not, are seen as agents of truth and justice. But try convincing the average man on the street that Back Orifice is a good thing in the long run, and see how far you get.
I can see it now..
"Open the pod bay doors Jitter."
Segregation used to be a law too. The point being that if you think a law is wrong, you try to get it changed. Y'know, civil disobedience, lobbying, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilence" and all that..
I do see some logic behind this.. A dedicated hacker with a malicious streak can do a LOT of damage, and had a few beew working in concert with the terrorist attacks of 9-11, much of the country could easily have been thrown into chaos..
That said, I see this as the same variety of short-sighted legislation that brought us the DMCA, only this time we also get an extra layer of reactionism on top, creating new law that is both far too broad and FAR too severe.
This proposal appears to make no distinction between website defacement (the rough equivalent to tagging a wall somewhere IMHO) and majorly disrupting traffic through DoS attacks or releasing a virus. (admittedly much more serious stuff) And LIFE in prison? More than many violent criminals recieve? Did the Krull invade while I wasn't looking?
Looking at the abolished statute of limitations, I wonder if Mafiaboy will be getting a knock on the door soon.. I wouldn't be surprised if a few of the higher profile groups (2600, most likely) got some trouble out of this too..
It looks like Katz was right..
1. Songs about killing, blowing stuff up, etc.
Stuff that is indeed at least in bad taste, if not downright offensive.
ex. Drowning Pool "Bodies", Mudvayne "Death Blooms"
2. Songs whose titles contain words somehow relating to the tragedy.
Stuff that isn't in itself offensive, but may be a good idea to hold off on for now.
ex. Surfaris "Wipeout", Beastie Boys "Sabotage", Savage Garden "Crash and Burn", Dave Matthews Band "Crash Into Me"
3. WTF? Songs that reaffirm my belief that Clear Channel has a gas leak somewhere in their corporate HQ.
ex. The Beatles "Obla Di, Obla Da", 311 "Down"
, Alanis Morissette "Ironic"
Even though some of these songs might be considered offensive, and most of them are ripe for any dope who wants to get both a reputation as a shock DJ and fired in the same day, I don't see the point behind censoring them. It seems like a better idea to leave it to the discretion of each station, and let them exercise a little judgement. But of course, why exercise your own judgement when you've got Big Brother to think for you?
The point behind this it to make sure we don't let reactionist politicians make a bad situation worse by turning the US into a police state under the flag of protecting it.
(insert Benjamin Franklin quote here)
I can see your point when applied to elementary school, but moving into middle and high schools, and even in the higer grades of elementary, the focus IS on preparing children for an independant life. And like it or not, you WILL encounter a computer at some point, and I think we'd be doing students a disservice by denying them at least a basic education in using them. And yes, maybe I wasn't the most social person in school, and maybe I preferred a good game of Quake to going to some party, but I like to think it'll all pay off when I'm making twice as much as the fools who took Woodworking instead of Computer Science.. Also, I would advise you take a look at some of the Jon Katz articles, where people talk about how these sort of things helped them survive theliving hell their education had become.. Of course, I'm only a college freshman, so I could be way off..
Yes, but it's far less expensive to make a secure product than buy a few politicians and arrest anybody who finds out it's not secure.. Which is pretty much the whole point behind the DMCA..