Is Amnesty right? Making the technology is fine, but if we know that it could be used for ill, aren't we bound to not sell to some countries and companies?
in my opinion amnesty and the submitter are completely correct.
however, this argument is no different to the arms trade. every so often in the uk there is a discussion on the UK selling arms to israel or some other country, who then turn around and use them to supress dissidents.
the response to that is just the same as the microsoft response in the article:
"[microsoft is] focused on delivering the best technology to people throughout the world. However, Microsoft cannot control the way it may ultimately be used."
i don't see any difference here between arms and software. although if anything the arms trade is the more serious offender - taking away someone's freedom of speech is, if you ask me, not nearly as bad as taking away their right to be alive. if the arms industry can (apparently) get away with it, why on earth should the software industry not?
that said, i agree with the amnesty argument. people (and organisations) should be concerned and aware of what their products and technology will be used for. they should NOT be allowed to sell either arms or software to places where they know they will be used imorally or unethically.
why is this remarkable? record companies have been doing this for years?
if i recall correctly, emi distributed walkmans with copies of Radiohead's OK Computer album glued into them, back in 1997. and i belive this was by no means the first time the idea had been used.
the cost of several hundred (or even thousand) cheap cd walkmans is hardly going to eat into a multinational record companies bottom line.
i mis-read the title as 'U.S. Considers Passport as National ID'. and thought "well thats not so strange, here in the UK, i sometimes use my Passport as ID".
then i re-read and realise they're talking about MICROSOFT Passport!!!?
yikes!!!!
Re:'TrustUnWorthy Computing'
on
XP, Phone Home
·
· Score: 1
you can say that someone is untrustworty. ie. not to be trusted.
given that, i believe my original comment makes sense. unless you want to split hairs about the capitalisations of U, T and W, which i only used because the original writer used them.
'TrustUnWorthy Computing'
on
XP, Phone Home
·
· Score: 1
wouldn't it look and read so much better if that was changed to: 'UnTrustWorthy Computing'
just a suggestion. i'm not sure that 'TrustUnWorthy Computing' means anything like what Randomeyes thinks it means.
it's stupid because the way i read the article, i understood it to mean that Donald Rumsfeld, along with his government chums, had had a strokey beard meeting, and spent a long time and much money to come up with this blindingly obvious statement.
my reaction was a long winded way of saying, "well, d'uh!."
i read a quote from Donald Rumsfeld in the paper today: "The terrorists who struck us on September 11 were clearly not deterred from doing so by the massive US nuclear arsenal."
honestly, i sometimes think that Donald Rumsfeld is overshadowed in stupidity only by George W. Bush himself. of course the terrorists weren't deterred by a Nuclear Arsenal, they were about to fly jet planes into skyscrapers and kill themselves in the process!
i'm fairly sure they weren't thinking "oh, i'd better not, otherwise i might get killed by a future US nuclear strike." Also, given their apparent religious fanatacism, i doubt they would have let a nuclear strike on their home country affect them either, that would have been brushed off simply as countrymen and family dying for the cause.
How can any number of any kind of devastating weapons of mass destruction be of any use whatsoever against people with that kind of mindset?
omtimes i wonder at how some people think, and i'm not just thinking of the terrorists here!
besides, having nuclear weapons and using them are two very different things.
imagine the global outcry if the USA detonated nuclear devices in combat. and given that as far as i'm aware, no-one has done that since 1945, it's also a possiblity that terrorists/bad people might think that america is all talk and no trousers in this regard. and personally i hope they're right.
all this talk of war and 'war'
on
The Drone War
·
· Score: 1
it's possible people are getting confused. fair enough, The Last Hero isn't a children's book, but Terry Pratchett has written a discworld book with a childrens audience in mind. it's called 'Amazing Maurice and His Educated Rodents' (ISBN: 0385601239). it's just been published (hardcover) in the UK, and while it's arguable that most discworld books could be read by children and young adults, this new book is deliberately written with children in mind, (it states as much on the jacket).
...and after all the seven books have been written and turned into films? what happens then? are kids more likely to spend the time (days/weeks?) reading a 'long' book? or are they likely to ditch the book for a 'compact' 2hr 30min film?
Re:"Sorcerer's Stone" vs. "Philosopher's Stone"
on
Review: Harry Potter
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
apparently (according to news sources in the uk), it's because american audiences (of the book and the film) wouldn't understand who/what a philosopher is. so they simplified it.
it's strange, that books applauded for getting kids reading again, rather than playing computer games and staring at films, are themselves being made into computer games and films?
i'm probably going to get modded down as an off-topic or something for this, but here goes...
i think my main concerns with the harry potter phenomenon are based around the comments that the books have got kids reading again. i think this is a fantastic thing, i think that the more kids get into reading the better and i highly applaud the books for that!
but. the concerns i have are that the making of the books into feature films, and possibly more specifically, into a forthcoming computer game, are undoing all the good work. the books are dragging kids away from computers (and to a lesser extent movie theatres) and towards reading books. but are the computer game(s) just going to undo all that work?
does it not strike anyone else as strange, that everyone books applauded for getting kids reading again, rather than playing computer games and staring at films, are themselves being made into computer games and films?
and as far as the films are concerned, there are apparently going to be seven books in the series (we've had four so far), i'm worried that soon kids will see the films, and wait for the films of the future books, rather than read them. why read and use your imagination, when you can just wait for some film director to do all that for you?
of course, another concern is J K Rowling's apparent indifference too all the merchandising, and marketting and so on, films, computer games, toys, etc, etc. i bet she's loving the royalties... apparently she's already nicknamed
J K Rowling-in-Money here in the uk.
Blue Byte have been pushing a game called The Settlers, in various incarnations for years. it's _much_ more focused to supply lines as was stated. houses need to be supplied with builder people, and then wood and so on, and everything needs to come from the main base and carried out, or supplied from within your territory (from a woodcutter in a forest, for example). you couldn't believe how involved it is to do something simple like making bread for people to eat!
i'm not sure how bloodthirsty it was, since its years since i played it, (i _must_ get the latest version, i recall MANY sleepless nights), and everyone here seems to be talking battle games, but i'm sure the key elements could be incorporated or something?
everyone should check it out anyway, it was/is a wonderful game!
ooooh, i'm not sure about that. it sounds to me too much like asking geeks and nerds to go out and do something, rather than letting then stare at their monitors mindlessly waffling on and complaining.
voting for Browne makes every kind of sense if thats who you believe will do the best job.
the point of a democracy is that you have a selection of candidates who all have (maybe) slightly differing views. then the electorate gets to choose the candidate that they would like to see elected. its a free choice.
irrespective of whether you like the particular system, first past the post, proportional representation etc. you have to work within the system and maybe vote for someone who will try to change that system.
not voting for Browne because 'he has no chance' is the worst thing to do. its self defeating, and its allowing all the major, apparently undesirable candidates an easier ride into government. and changes nothing.
vote for who you want to see elected. its as simple as that. if everyone did that, rather than over analysing and deciding to 'strategic' vote, maybe you'd see some changes.
i thought that they were getting proof readers for that sort of thing.
i mean, come on jon. the movie is directed by Stephen FREARS, not 'Fears', and based on the book by Nick HORNBY, not 'Hornsby'. I thought the number one rule of writing was to read back what you write?
Still, they seem to have sorted out the horribly overlong nature of some of jon's articles...so it can't be all bad...
Slashdot Mirror
in my opinion amnesty and the submitter are completely correct.
however, this argument is no different to the arms trade. every so often in the uk there is a discussion on the UK selling arms to israel or some other country, who then turn around and use them to supress dissidents.
the response to that is just the same as the microsoft response in the article:
i don't see any difference here between arms and software. although if anything the arms trade is the more serious offender - taking away someone's freedom of speech is, if you ask me, not nearly as bad as taking away their right to be alive. if the arms industry can (apparently) get away with it, why on earth should the software industry not?
that said, i agree with the amnesty argument. people (and organisations) should be concerned and aware of what their products and technology will be used for. they should NOT be allowed to sell either arms or software to places where they know they will be used imorally or unethically.
why is this remarkable? record companies have been doing this for years?
if i recall correctly, emi distributed walkmans with copies of Radiohead's OK Computer album glued into them, back in 1997. and i belive this was by no means the first time the idea had been used.
the cost of several hundred (or even thousand) cheap cd walkmans is hardly going to eat into a multinational record companies bottom line.
i mis-read the title as 'U.S. Considers Passport as National ID'. and thought "well thats not so strange, here in the UK, i sometimes use my Passport as ID".
then i re-read and realise they're talking about MICROSOFT Passport!!!?
yikes!!!!
urm...
but 'untrustworthy' is a word too...
you can say that someone is untrustworty. ie. not to be trusted.
given that, i believe my original comment makes sense. unless you want to split hairs about the capitalisations of U, T and W, which i only used because the original writer used them.
wouldn't it look and read so much better if that was changed to: 'UnTrustWorthy Computing'
just a suggestion. i'm not sure that 'TrustUnWorthy Computing' means anything like what Randomeyes thinks it means.
it's stupid because the way i read the article, i understood it to mean that Donald Rumsfeld, along with his government chums, had had a strokey beard meeting, and spent a long time and much money to come up with this blindingly obvious statement.
my reaction was a long winded way of saying, "well, d'uh!."
a deterent is only any good if it works.
i read a quote from Donald Rumsfeld in the paper today: "The terrorists who struck us on September 11 were clearly not deterred from doing so by the massive US nuclear arsenal."
honestly, i sometimes think that Donald Rumsfeld is overshadowed in stupidity only by George W. Bush himself. of course the terrorists weren't deterred by a Nuclear Arsenal, they were about to fly jet planes into skyscrapers and kill themselves in the process!
i'm fairly sure they weren't thinking "oh, i'd better not, otherwise i might get killed by a future US nuclear strike." Also, given their apparent religious fanatacism, i doubt they would have let a nuclear strike on their home country affect them either, that would have been brushed off simply as countrymen and family dying for the cause.
How can any number of any kind of devastating weapons of mass destruction be of any use whatsoever against people with that kind of mindset?
omtimes i wonder at how some people think, and i'm not just thinking of the terrorists here!
besides, having nuclear weapons and using them are two very different things.
imagine the global outcry if the USA detonated nuclear devices in combat. and given that as far as i'm aware, no-one has done that since 1945, it's also a possiblity that terrorists/bad people might think that america is all talk and no trousers in this regard. and personally i hope they're right.
"a war, is when two armies fight"
it's possible people are getting confused. fair enough, The Last Hero isn't a children's book, but Terry Pratchett has written a discworld book with a childrens audience in mind. it's called 'Amazing Maurice and His Educated Rodents' (ISBN: 0385601239). it's just been published (hardcover) in the UK, and while it's arguable that most discworld books could be read by children and young adults, this new book is deliberately written with children in mind, (it states as much on the jacket).
...and after all the seven books have been written and turned into films? what happens then? are kids more likely to spend the time (days/weeks?) reading a 'long' book? or are they likely to ditch the book for a 'compact' 2hr 30min film?
apparently (according to news sources in the uk), it's because american audiences (of the book and the film) wouldn't understand who/what a philosopher is. so they simplified it.
it's strange, that books applauded for getting kids reading again, rather than playing computer games and staring at films, are themselves being made into computer games and films?
i'm probably going to get modded down as an off-topic or something for this, but here goes...
i think my main concerns with the harry potter phenomenon are based around the comments that the books have got kids reading again. i think this is a fantastic thing, i think that the more kids get into reading the better and i highly applaud the books for that!
but. the concerns i have are that the making of the books into feature films, and possibly more specifically, into a forthcoming computer game, are undoing all the good work. the books are dragging kids away from computers (and to a lesser extent movie theatres) and towards reading books. but are the computer game(s) just going to undo all that work?
does it not strike anyone else as strange, that everyone books applauded for getting kids reading again, rather than playing computer games and staring at films, are themselves being made into computer games and films?
and as far as the films are concerned, there are apparently going to be seven books in the series (we've had four so far), i'm worried that soon kids will see the films, and wait for the films of the future books, rather than read them. why read and use your imagination, when you can just wait for some film director to do all that for you?
of course, another concern is J K Rowling's apparent indifference too all the merchandising, and marketting and so on, films, computer games, toys, etc, etc. i bet she's loving the royalties... apparently she's already nicknamed
J K Rowling-in-Money here in the uk.
just my 2p. flame away...
Blue Byte have been pushing a game called The Settlers, in various incarnations for years. it's _much_ more focused to supply lines as was stated. houses need to be supplied with builder people, and then wood and so on, and everything needs to come from the main base and carried out, or supplied from within your territory (from a woodcutter in a forest, for example). you couldn't believe how involved it is to do something simple like making bread for people to eat!
i'm not sure how bloodthirsty it was, since its years since i played it, (i _must_ get the latest version, i recall MANY sleepless nights), and everyone here seems to be talking battle games, but i'm sure the key elements could be incorporated or something?
everyone should check it out anyway, it was/is a wonderful game!
ooooh, i'm not sure about that. it sounds to me too much like asking geeks and nerds to go out and do something, rather than letting then stare at their monitors mindlessly waffling on and complaining.
voting for Browne makes every kind of sense if thats who you believe will do the best job.
the point of a democracy is that you have a selection of candidates who all have (maybe) slightly differing views. then the electorate gets to choose the candidate that they would like to see elected. its a free choice.
irrespective of whether you like the particular system, first past the post, proportional representation etc. you have to work within the system and maybe vote for someone who will try to change that system.
not voting for Browne because 'he has no chance' is the worst thing to do. its self defeating, and its allowing all the major, apparently undesirable candidates an easier ride into government. and changes nothing.
vote for who you want to see elected. its as simple as that. if everyone did that, rather than over analysing and deciding to 'strategic' vote, maybe you'd see some changes.
i thought that they were getting proof readers for that sort of thing.
i mean, come on jon. the movie is directed by Stephen FREARS, not 'Fears', and based on the book by Nick HORNBY, not 'Hornsby'. I thought the number one rule of writing was to read back what you write?
Still, they seem to have sorted out the horribly overlong nature of some of jon's articles...so it can't be all bad...