As long as they keep selling the eMac, how significant is this announcement? I mean, provided that you can spend the extra coin, the eMac seems like a better choice what with the larger CRT and all.
Still, it will be hard to make a fishtank out of the flat-panel iMACs...
Do you mean that the server should ensure the source IP isn't masqueraded, or that the originating domain in the From: header should match the domain of the IP address?
I am suggesting the latter - that the IP address must be registered to the same domain as the mail_from header claims to be.
In the latter case, refusing mail from mismatched domains would prevent me from using my email address at school when I send mail from home via my ISP. That's an important convenience I wouldn't want to give up, and I suspect that many more people use this feature.
Yes, it would be a bit of an inconvenience. But contrast that with the inconvenience of SPAM. No laws are going to stop the spammers. As someone else has pointed out, what the spammers are selling is not necessarily legal in the first place, so they are hardly likely to be worried about breaking a few laws in the process. SPAM filters are not the solution either, as they are never going to be 100% successful. So, in light of that reality, does the ability to send mail from a different domain outweigh the inconvenience of SPAM?
With your solution, that would mean that Earthlink customers would only be able to use @earthlink.net addresses- not an ideal solution.
There is no such thing as an ideal solution that will satisfy everyone. So, we have to manage with what is do-able and manageable.
I would not have a problem with earthlink customers being forced to send email with an earthlink.net email address. It might be inconvenient, but it would inconvenience the spammers even more!
You would not believe what a large fraction of the Internet is configured to fail that kind of test -- or else you would not seriously contemplate that solution.
Actually, I am aware that it would cause a certain amount of inconvenience. It would effectively prevent anyone from using a store-and-forward mail server. IMHO however, the trade-off would be worth it. It is perhaps an overly simple solution, but it would certainly be effective in blocking SPAM.
Why do we just not modify the mailer daemons to do a forward and reverse DNS lookup whenever another host attempts to send it mail. If the domain the mail originates from does not resolve, or the source IP address of the sender is not registered to the same domain that the mail originates from, the message is considered SPAM and the connection dropped.
Why wouldn't that work to vastly reduce the amount of SPAM?
The Grateful Dead encouraged lived taping of their shows and the swapping scene that this created. I doubt it did their ticket sales or their album sales any harm.
While that is true, the Dead might be a poor example of the new Internet-friendly model for selling/distributing music. As Janis herself stated in her slashdot interview:
"And until we see our first Internet & Live Shows Only artist sell a million CDs without a label deal, the major labels will be the only mainstream route available. Don't quote Grateful Dead statistics to me - they're the exception, not the rule. "
In this case, one counter-example may not be sufficient to disprove the argument made by the RIAA...
When I travel abroad I make sure to carry a couple of canadian flags with me. I pretend to be a Canadian.
I don't think that you are the only American to do that, but I respect that you have the nads to admit it.
Unfortunately, many Europeans are not so easily fooled.The maple leaf won't matter if you have a noticable American accent and behave in an un-Canadian manner or in a manner consistent with the stereotype of the typical American tourist.
If I was a congressman (in which case I wouldn't be writing this, but suppose) I would be looking at the expected future of the US economy. Technology/manufacturing or content creation.
If you were a congressman, you would be far too busy worrying about your re-election prospects and campaign expenses to be bothered taking the long-term view about anything. There are no votes to be had in taking the long-term view because the voters tend to have short memory spans and are interested in immediate self-gratification.
Eventually some nice lobbiests are going to come for a visit and explain why you should support some legislation they have purchased. They will even make a contribution to your re-election fund to help you continue with your good works
(wink, wink, nudge nudge). If you don't take the money, someone else definitely will and it takes a lot of coin to fight an election these days...
There are a few politicians out there who put their principles before their pocketbooks, but they are the exception and not the rule.
are there any studies that can claim to show that pre-trial publicity can actually bias a jury one way or another?
What sort of controlled experiment could you possibly conduct that would produce any relevant data? I suspect one could examine specific case studies, but that cannot establish a causal relationship or help in identifying any potential corelations.
Personally, I believe that the accused person's right to a fair trial outweighs the right of the tabloids to report on the gory details. We certainly don't want Pickton's trial to become a media spectacle like the farce that was OJ Simpson's trial.Besides, the judge is only asking that any of the information presented at the pre-trial not be reported until the jury is picked and the trial begins.
This is not the act of an authoritarian regime. There is no need to get the tinfoil hats out.
I think that genetic engineering can, in the hands of those who are honest, wise, and well intentioned, also be used to enhance human abilities without trying to alter human nature.
Good intentions always lead to good results, right? I'm sorry, but eugenics is a repugnant concept. Diversity is a powerful means to survival. Take a look at what is happening to purebred dogs right now. In order to enhance the characteristics that are desirable for a given breed, the dogs are being interbred too much and the results have been unpredictable. Sure, we get the characteristics we are looking for, but with undesired and unintended consequences. Most purebred dogs simply do not have the lifespan they used to, and they develop more and more complicated health issues than your average mutt.
Why? - because the gene pool is getting too shallow. I don't think that is the fate we want for humanity, regardless of how noble the original intentions.
What's a pity is that most people have a tremendously poor understanding of science and the scientific method.
Unfortunately, there have been a number of scientists who have chosen to conduct research that would not be considered ethical today. When the potential for money is involved, some people might turn a blind eye to the odd ethical lapse because the stakes are so high. Can you be certain that all of the research taking place is done for the sake of pure research and not potential financial gain?
I have some questions for those who freak out about the prospect of human reproductive cloning. What's wrong with human reproductive cloning?
I cannot claim to have the answer to any of the questions surrounding this debate. A number of people have been able to articulate clear and salient points that we as a society need to consider before enbarking down this path. For example, it might be possible to clone non-sentient human bodies that we can use for organ harvesting. Do you have an issue with that? Personally, I do, regardless of the potential benefits to society.
As we brutalize others, so do we brutalize ourselves...
I was rather angry at Bush when he decided to limit stem cell research. I felt that his decision was affected directly by his religious beliefs.
GWB's religious beliefs do not seem to be slowing him down from a pointless war against Iraq in which a number of non-combatants will become "colateral damage"...
I guess he is able to choose when his beliefs come into play and when they can be cast aside...
Some might argue that the featuses do respond to stimuli and pain and therefore shouldn't be used. Well, so does beetles and flowers. We still wouldn't hesitate to use them for the sake of science.
I am not interested in any sort of flamewar about abortion. I do not think that it is reasonable to equate flora and fauna with a human fetus however... Even the pro-abortion faction distinguishes between the fetus and a wart - yet they can still frame arguments in favour of abortion rights despite that ackowledgement.
In cultural settings where the child is raised with guns (taken hunting, taught to respect the weapon, allowd supervised access to the weapon if he/she asks) the incidence of accidental gun deaths/shootings of/by children is hugely reduced (e.g. near zero).
If you cannot provide a citation or reference to a respected peer-reviewed journal to support this claim, kindly withdraw the claim. Prove it or lose it.
In simple point of fact, virtually all gun accidents involve improperly trained or otherwise clueless people.
As before: Citation? Reference? FUD?
But untill and unless you can compile statistics about the number of times a gun was "used" without being fired, you can't construct any statistically or culturally valid statemets that meaningfully compare the "cost of having them" in lives and property loss, to the "cost of not having them" in lives and property saved.
Oh please. The stastics I referenced were peer-reviewed and the data was compiled by academics who are working in their area of competance. The results were published by a highly respected organization which does not have any particular axe to grind with respect to the topic of gun control. If you reject those statistics, that I very much suspect that you would reject any and all other statistics that disagree with your stated point of view.
So your numbers, like virtually all the numbers in the debate, are ad homonym, and uselessly incomplete.
Thank-you for proving my point.
The data is accurate and comes from a trusted source. If you want to dispute the numbers, do so. It will only improve the quality of the debate. Please do not trivialize the loss of human life with your own ad hominem attacks and expect me to accept that as rational argumentation.
It is quite the point that the average citizen *MUST* be at least as well armed as the police to keep the police from becomming an occupying force.
Furtunately, I live in a country where the primary obligation of the government is to provide "peace, order, and good government". I do not live in fear of the government or the police. You have my sympathies.
Further, there is the issue of "rights" in the (USA biased here) core social conscience. The idea that a right is absolute is, well, absolute nonsense.
Agreed.
And (reguardless of topic) when you see or hear someone who shows no signs of that requisite minimum thought, you should discard their statements as pre-opinionated dogma.
What then should I do when I encounter someone who attempts to obfuscate facts and engages in somewhat intelligently applied ad hominem argumentation?
A firearm in the hands (or closet) of a lawful, responsible person is no threat to you, if you do not break into his home or otherwise attack him.
You make a number of assumptions that the weapons are properly stored, and that the owner is a mature, responsible, well-balanced person without any violent tendencies. Even then, guns can be stolen. The presence of guns in a house may pose a significant risk to the inhabitants of that household though. Most women who are murdered by their spouse are killed by guns.
Another unfortunate side effect you ignore is the threat guns in the house pose to children.
Some statistics from the American Acandemy of Pediatrics
suggest that:
* In 1997 there were 32,436 firearm-related deaths, of which 4,223 of the victims were children and adolescents younger than 20 years of age.
* Handguns continue to account for the majority of deaths and injuries from firearms in the United States.
* In 1997, 85 percent of all homicides and 63 percent of all suicides for adolescents 15 through 19 years of age were committed with a firearm.
* The United States has the highest rates of firearm-related deaths (including homicide, suicide and unintentional deaths) among industrialized countries. The overall rate of firearm-related deaths for US children younger than 15 years of age is nearly 12 times greater than that found for 25 other industrialized countries, and the rate of firearm-related homicide is nearly 16 times higher than that in all the other countries combined.
* In 1994, the mean medical cost per gunshot injury was approximately $17,000, with the 134,445 gunshot injuries in the United States in 1994 producing $2.3 billion in lifetime medical costs, of which $1.1 billion (49 percent) was paid by US taxpayers.
* 1997, 306 children and adolescents younger than 20 years killed by firearms died as a result of unintentional firearm-related injuries.
* 10 children die each day from gunfire in America, approximately one every 2 1/2 hours. That is the equivalent of a classroom of children every two days.
* In 1998, nearly three times as many children under 10 died from gunfire as the number of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty.
So, how about some facts to back up your rhetoric?
Personaly I'd LOVE (not that I'm holding me breath) to see a law that requires everyone over 18 with no police record to start learning the proper useages of a handgun and to be expected to actually openly carry at the age of 21.
I know that the US has a gun culture and all, but it is opinions like that that make me very proud to be Canadian. The US is a nice place to visit and all, but I wouldn't want to live there.
You have my sympathies. It must be terrible to live in so much fear that the propsed of an openly armed society is comforting. It reminds me of of how when asked what he thought of Western civilization, Ghandi thought it would be a good idea...
Canada certainly has much more of a monolithic culture than does America.
You got it wrong on the first sentence. Canada is the mosaic, not a melting pot. I take it that you have never been to Toronto which is probably the most diverse city on the planet?
I think much of what America terms as "problems" are simply the costs of having a truly heterogenous society
LOL! Exactly when did the US suddenly transform into a heterogeneous society? I must have blinked and not noticed it happen!
Columnist Michael Medved makes the claim that if you isolate the gun crime among people like Canadians (i.e., whites), the numbers even out quite a bit.
The question was looking for an unbiased analysis. Read the article, and this Medved guy is extremely biased in his assessment of the movie and gun control. He does not refute any arguments about the Canada vs US difference in crime and gun control BTW. He merely uses the review as a vehicle for his own personal views and opinions
There's no dilema here. You have just as much opportunity as Disney does to create animated works based on these classic tales.
The dilemma is that in the current copyright climate, there are not likely to be any more "classic tales" in the future because the public domain is deliberately being starved. Disney has legitimately used what is in the public domain, and Disney has spent a lot of money to ensure that their own works will not end up in the public domain.
The fact that you don't doesn't mean Copyright is broken, it means you have failed to take advantage of the same opportunities afforded to all.
What opportunities will Disney afford me (or anyone else for that matter) to derive new works based on Mickey Mouse? Had they not bought the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, Micky would be in the public domain by now. As it stands now, it is unlikely that Mickey will ever enter the public domain. So yes, I believe that in it's present form, copyright is indeed broken.
I couldn't help but notice that every site you referenced is not exactly impartial on the matter. I am not likely to read something by an individual who has already made up their mind and is merely looking to justify their opinions. I heard it once said that the very powerful and the very stupid have something in common - they change the facts to support their beliefs rather than change their beliefs to support the facts.
Find something that has been subject to peer-review and has been published in a legetimate and respected academic journal, and then you would have my attention.
Disney's never going to have to come up with anything new, because they'll just keep getting extensions for Mickey Mouse.
And therein lies the dilemma. Disney has made several fortunes by taking something that was already in the public domain and building on it. I don't know if the Brothers Grimm even get mentioned in the credits of the Disney films that are based on their stories. Now we see Disney purchasing politicians and legislation to extend their copyrights in perpetuity.
I wonder if anyone at Disney recognizes the irony of it all...
A traditional online game has a goals of sorts - to adventure, to kill monsters, to work as a team, to compete against other teams, to acquire wealth and status etc.
How does the Sims Online correspond to that model?
When I read the article, it appeared to me that the goal of the game was to encourage players to co-operate with each other. Furthermore, players who creating interesting things would be rewarded with additional resources that would permit them to create more interesting things. To that extent, it fits with the model you have described...
Another alternative is that MAXIS might view TOS as a zero sum game...
When you buy a car, you pay for manufacturing it, but when you buy a piece of software, you pay for the design. What's the difference after all?
Well, I can think of one big difference. I bought a car last year and it came with a warranty, and if the car turns out to be a total lemon, I can seek various remedies from the manufacturer to have it repaired, or if need be, replaced. Now, contrast that experience with your typical EULA - no warranty implied or otherwise, no guarantee of functionality, and the user absolves the manufacturer of any and all liability.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sure I'm not the only one that loves to use vi on the emacs.
Brilliant!
Where are the moderation points when you need them?
As long as they keep selling the eMac, how significant is this announcement? I mean, provided that you can spend the extra coin, the eMac seems like a better choice what with the larger CRT and all.
Still, it will be hard to make a fishtank out of the flat-panel iMACs...
Do you mean that the server should ensure the source IP isn't masqueraded, or that the originating domain in the From: header should match the domain of the IP address?
I am suggesting the latter - that the IP address must be registered to the same domain as the mail_from header claims to be.
In the latter case, refusing mail from mismatched domains would prevent me from using my email address at school when I send mail from home via my ISP. That's an important convenience I wouldn't want to give up, and I suspect that many more people use this feature.
Yes, it would be a bit of an inconvenience. But contrast that with the inconvenience of SPAM. No laws are going to stop the spammers. As someone else has pointed out, what the spammers are selling is not necessarily legal in the first place, so they are hardly likely to be worried about breaking a few laws in the process. SPAM filters are not the solution either, as they are never going to be 100% successful. So, in light of that reality, does the ability to send mail from a different domain outweigh the inconvenience of SPAM?
With your solution, that would mean that Earthlink customers would only be able to use @earthlink.net addresses- not an ideal solution.
There is no such thing as an ideal solution that will satisfy everyone. So, we have to manage with what is do-able and manageable.
I would not have a problem with earthlink customers being forced to send email with an earthlink.net email address. It might be inconvenient, but it would inconvenience the spammers even more!
You would not believe what a large fraction of the Internet is configured to fail that kind of test -- or else you would not seriously contemplate that solution.
Actually, I am aware that it would cause a certain amount of inconvenience. It would effectively prevent anyone from using a store-and-forward mail server. IMHO however, the trade-off would be worth it. It is perhaps an overly simple solution, but it would certainly be effective in blocking SPAM.
Why do we just not modify the mailer daemons to do a forward and reverse DNS lookup whenever another host attempts to send it mail. If the domain the mail originates from does not resolve, or the source IP address of the sender is not registered to the same domain that the mail originates from, the message is considered SPAM and the connection dropped.
Why wouldn't that work to vastly reduce the amount of SPAM?
While that is true, the Dead might be a poor example of the new Internet-friendly model for selling/distributing music. As Janis herself stated in her slashdot interview:
In this case, one counter-example may not be sufficient to disprove the argument made by the RIAA...
When I travel abroad I make sure to carry a couple of canadian flags with me. I pretend to be a Canadian.
I don't think that you are the only American to do that, but I respect that you have the nads to admit it.
Unfortunately, many Europeans are not so easily fooled.The maple leaf won't matter if you have a noticable American accent and behave in an un-Canadian manner or in a manner consistent with the stereotype of the typical American tourist.
If I was a congressman (in which case I wouldn't be writing this, but suppose) I would be looking at the expected future of the US economy. Technology/manufacturing or content creation.
If you were a congressman, you would be far too busy worrying about your re-election prospects and campaign expenses to be bothered taking the long-term view about anything. There are no votes to be had in taking the long-term view because the voters tend to have short memory spans and are interested in immediate self-gratification.
Eventually some nice lobbiests are going to come for a visit and explain why you should support some legislation they have purchased. They will even make a contribution to your re-election fund to help you continue with your good works (wink, wink, nudge nudge). If you don't take the money, someone else definitely will and it takes a lot of coin to fight an election these days...
There are a few politicians out there who put their principles before their pocketbooks, but they are the exception and not the rule.
are there any studies that can claim to show that pre-trial publicity can actually bias a jury one way or another?
What sort of controlled experiment could you possibly conduct that would produce any relevant data? I suspect one could examine specific case studies, but that cannot establish a causal relationship or help in identifying any potential corelations.
Personally, I believe that the accused person's right to a fair trial outweighs the right of the tabloids to report on the gory details. We certainly don't want Pickton's trial to become a media spectacle like the farce that was OJ Simpson's trial.Besides, the judge is only asking that any of the information presented at the pre-trial not be reported until the jury is picked and the trial begins.
This is not the act of an authoritarian regime. There is no need to get the tinfoil hats out.
I think that genetic engineering can, in the hands of those who are honest, wise, and well intentioned, also be used to enhance human abilities without trying to alter human nature.
Good intentions always lead to good results, right? I'm sorry, but eugenics is a repugnant concept. Diversity is a powerful means to survival. Take a look at what is happening to purebred dogs right now. In order to enhance the characteristics that are desirable for a given breed, the dogs are being interbred too much and the results have been unpredictable. Sure, we get the characteristics we are looking for, but with undesired and unintended consequences. Most purebred dogs simply do not have the lifespan they used to, and they develop more and more complicated health issues than your average mutt.
Why? - because the gene pool is getting too shallow. I don't think that is the fate we want for humanity, regardless of how noble the original intentions.
What's a pity is that most people have a tremendously poor understanding of science and the scientific method.
Unfortunately, there have been a number of scientists who have chosen to conduct research that would not be considered ethical today. When the potential for money is involved, some people might turn a blind eye to the odd ethical lapse because the stakes are so high. Can you be certain that all of the research taking place is done for the sake of pure research and not potential financial gain?
I have some questions for those who freak out about the prospect of human reproductive cloning. What's wrong with human reproductive cloning?
I cannot claim to have the answer to any of the questions surrounding this debate. A number of people have been able to articulate clear and salient points that we as a society need to consider before enbarking down this path. For example, it might be possible to clone non-sentient human bodies that we can use for organ harvesting. Do you have an issue with that? Personally, I do, regardless of the potential benefits to society.
As we brutalize others, so do we brutalize ourselves...
I was rather angry at Bush when he decided to limit stem cell research. I felt that his decision was affected directly by his religious beliefs.
GWB's religious beliefs do not seem to be slowing him down from a pointless war against Iraq in which a number of non-combatants will become "colateral damage"...
I guess he is able to choose when his beliefs come into play and when they can be cast aside...
Some might argue that the featuses do respond to stimuli and pain and therefore shouldn't be used. Well, so does beetles and flowers. We still wouldn't hesitate to use them for the sake of science.
I am not interested in any sort of flamewar about abortion. I do not think that it is reasonable to equate flora and fauna with a human fetus however... Even the pro-abortion faction distinguishes between the fetus and a wart - yet they can still frame arguments in favour of abortion rights despite that ackowledgement.
In cultural settings where the child is raised with guns (taken hunting, taught to respect the weapon, allowd supervised access to the weapon if he/she asks) the incidence of accidental gun deaths/shootings of/by children is hugely reduced (e.g. near zero).
If you cannot provide a citation or reference to a respected peer-reviewed journal to support this claim, kindly withdraw the claim. Prove it or lose it.
In simple point of fact, virtually all gun accidents involve improperly trained or otherwise clueless people.
As before: Citation? Reference? FUD?
But untill and unless you can compile statistics about the number of times a gun was "used" without being fired, you can't construct any statistically or culturally valid statemets that meaningfully compare the "cost of having them" in lives and property loss, to the "cost of not having them" in lives and property saved.
Oh please. The stastics I referenced were peer-reviewed and the data was compiled by academics who are working in their area of competance. The results were published by a highly respected organization which does not have any particular axe to grind with respect to the topic of gun control. If you reject those statistics, that I very much suspect that you would reject any and all other statistics that disagree with your stated point of view.
So your numbers, like virtually all the numbers in the debate, are ad homonym, and uselessly incomplete.
Thank-you for proving my point.
The data is accurate and comes from a trusted source. If you want to dispute the numbers, do so. It will only improve the quality of the debate. Please do not trivialize the loss of human life with your own ad hominem attacks and expect me to accept that as rational argumentation.
It is quite the point that the average citizen *MUST* be at least as well armed as the police to keep the police from becomming an occupying force.
Furtunately, I live in a country where the primary obligation of the government is to provide "peace, order, and good government". I do not live in fear of the government or the police. You have my sympathies.
Further, there is the issue of "rights" in the (USA biased here) core social conscience. The idea that a right is absolute is, well, absolute nonsense.
Agreed.
And (reguardless of topic) when you see or hear someone who shows no signs of that requisite minimum thought, you should discard their statements as pre-opinionated dogma.
What then should I do when I encounter someone who attempts to obfuscate facts and engages in somewhat intelligently applied ad hominem argumentation?
A firearm in the hands (or closet) of a lawful, responsible person is no threat to you, if you do not break into his home or otherwise attack him.
You make a number of assumptions that the weapons are properly stored, and that the owner is a mature, responsible, well-balanced person without any violent tendencies. Even then, guns can be stolen. The presence of guns in a house may pose a significant risk to the inhabitants of that household though. Most women who are murdered by their spouse are killed by guns. Another unfortunate side effect you ignore is the threat guns in the house pose to children. Some statistics from the American Acandemy of Pediatrics suggest that:
* In 1997 there were 32,436 firearm-related deaths, of which 4,223 of the victims were children and adolescents younger than 20 years of age.
* Handguns continue to account for the majority of deaths and injuries from firearms in the United States.
* In 1997, 85 percent of all homicides and 63 percent of all suicides for adolescents 15 through 19 years of age were committed with a firearm.
* The United States has the highest rates of firearm-related deaths (including homicide, suicide and unintentional deaths) among industrialized countries. The overall rate of firearm-related deaths for US children younger than 15 years of age is nearly 12 times greater than that found for 25 other industrialized countries, and the rate of firearm-related homicide is nearly 16 times higher than that in all the other countries combined.
* In 1994, the mean medical cost per gunshot injury was approximately $17,000, with the 134,445 gunshot injuries in the United States in 1994 producing $2.3 billion in lifetime medical costs, of which $1.1 billion (49 percent) was paid by US taxpayers.
* 1997, 306 children and adolescents younger than 20 years killed by firearms died as a result of unintentional firearm-related injuries.
* 10 children die each day from gunfire in America, approximately one every 2 1/2 hours. That is the equivalent of a classroom of children every two days.
* In 1998, nearly three times as many children under 10 died from gunfire as the number of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty.
So, how about some facts to back up your rhetoric?
Personaly I'd LOVE (not that I'm holding me breath) to see a law that requires everyone over 18 with no police record to start learning the proper useages of a handgun and to be expected to actually openly carry at the age of 21.
I know that the US has a gun culture and all, but it is opinions like that that make me very proud to be Canadian. The US is a nice place to visit and all, but I wouldn't want to live there.
You have my sympathies. It must be terrible to live in so much fear that the propsed of an openly armed society is comforting. It reminds me of of how when asked what he thought of Western civilization, Ghandi thought it would be a good idea...
Canada certainly has much more of a monolithic culture than does America.
You got it wrong on the first sentence. Canada is the mosaic, not a melting pot. I take it that you have never been to Toronto which is probably the most diverse city on the planet?
I think much of what America terms as "problems" are simply the costs of having a truly heterogenous society
LOL! Exactly when did the US suddenly transform into a heterogeneous society? I must have blinked and not noticed it happen!
Columnist Michael Medved makes the claim that if you isolate the gun crime among people like Canadians (i.e., whites), the numbers even out quite a bit.
The question was looking for an unbiased analysis. Read the article, and this Medved guy is extremely biased in his assessment of the movie and gun control. He does not refute any arguments about the Canada vs US difference in crime and gun control BTW. He merely uses the review as a vehicle for his own personal views and opinions
Move along people. Nothing to see here...
There's no dilema here. You have just as much opportunity as Disney does to create animated works based on these classic tales.
The dilemma is that in the current copyright climate, there are not likely to be any more "classic tales" in the future because the public domain is deliberately being starved. Disney has legitimately used what is in the public domain, and Disney has spent a lot of money to ensure that their own works will not end up in the public domain.
The fact that you don't doesn't mean Copyright is broken, it means you have failed to take advantage of the same opportunities afforded to all.
What opportunities will Disney afford me (or anyone else for that matter) to derive new works based on Mickey Mouse? Had they not bought the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, Micky would be in the public domain by now. As it stands now, it is unlikely that Mickey will ever enter the public domain. So yes, I believe that in it's present form, copyright is indeed broken.
I couldn't help but notice that every site you referenced is not exactly impartial on the matter. I am not likely to read something by an individual who has already made up their mind and is merely looking to justify their opinions. I heard it once said that the very powerful and the very stupid have something in common - they change the facts to support their beliefs rather than change their beliefs to support the facts.
Find something that has been subject to peer-review and has been published in a legetimate and respected academic journal, and then you would have my attention.
Disney's never going to have to come up with anything new, because they'll just keep getting extensions for Mickey Mouse.
And therein lies the dilemma. Disney has made several fortunes by taking something that was already in the public domain and building on it. I don't know if the Brothers Grimm even get mentioned in the credits of the Disney films that are based on their stories. Now we see Disney purchasing politicians and legislation to extend their copyrights in perpetuity.
I wonder if anyone at Disney recognizes the irony of it all...
A traditional online game has a goals of sorts - to adventure, to kill monsters, to work as a team, to compete against other teams, to acquire wealth and status etc.
How does the Sims Online correspond to that model?
When I read the article, it appeared to me that the goal of the game was to encourage players to co-operate with each other. Furthermore, players who creating interesting things would be rewarded with additional resources that would permit them to create more interesting things. To that extent, it fits with the model you have described...
Another alternative is that MAXIS might view TOS as a zero sum game...
How are they gonna simulate repeat stories?
The repeat story algorithm is fairly simple. Just keep a log of previous days' activity and re-publish at random.
The Natalie Portman / hot grits and goatse algorithms are probably non-trivial though...
At least TRY ! damnit
Do, or do not. There is no try...
When you buy a car, you pay for manufacturing it, but when you buy a piece of software, you pay for the design. What's the difference after all?
Well, I can think of one big difference. I bought a car last year and it came with a warranty, and if the car turns out to be a total lemon, I can seek various remedies from the manufacturer to have it repaired, or if need be, replaced. Now, contrast that experience with your typical EULA - no warranty implied or otherwise, no guarantee of functionality, and the user absolves the manufacturer of any and all liability.
Big difference...