What about menapause? Women only have a certain number of eggs. Will this be stopped by cleaning out the toxins, or will this happen anyway?
Certain things happen to the body at certain times. You grow, voice deepens, etc... Is he suggesting that we litterally stop ageing (freeze people at an age) or do we just stay healty indefinitely?
In case your wondering, I didn't read the whole article cuz I didn't want to register.
That isn't necessarily true. There were a bunch of old movies that weren't very good. I think the big difference here, is that it is easier and cheaper to make movies now than before. There are more theaters so the revenues are higher. There are more production houses so more movies can be turned out.
So even though your statement is true: Most movies today are crap, the reason behind this (which you implied as a general degradation of film across the board) is not valid. Whenever a market is flooded with a certain type of product, the number of quality items (movies in this case) doesn't go down...the number of bad items (movies) just increases.
Ditto with the music industry. Because of MTV and VH1 and all the teeny-boppers that like what they like because they are told they like it by the industry, the market has been flooded with crap. Why? Cuz they can sell it. The same quality exits out there, you just have to find it.
This can be applied to anything...electronics, TV, cars, fads, etc...
First off let me say that in no way is it up to game developers to put this kind of content in their product if it doesn't call for it. The gaming industry isn't here to raise your child...that is the parents job.
Now then, I don't necessarily agree with the author, but his article has sparked my interest. Not so much in the way of what content should be acceptable in games or that games need to have a clear set of what is right and what is wrong and focus on the 'right'. But in the way that the majority of games out there already *do* have this present...it's just subtle. They don't come straight out and say "This is good! Do this!", "This is bad! Don't do that!", but the elements are all there.
Take GTA... there is no doubt that what you do in this game is bad. It is unethical, it is unmoral, it is just... evil. But that is what makes it fun right? We can play this game and do things that we wouldn't dream of doing in real life. So, in a way this game clearly defines what *not* to do in real life. Isn't that educational in a slightly squewed sense? How hard is it to teach a child that that kind of thing is only ok in video games? It doesn't seem like that big of a leap to me. (not that I'm saying kids should play GTA...god no).
A better example might be Ninja Gaiden. You play Ryu, a *good* bad ass who is avenging the death of his family and putting a stop to evil in the world. Ultimately that is what is happening in the story. On some level does this not say: "Fight for what you believe in. Don't let bad things happen." Granted the way you carry this out in the game is purely fantasy...but can't the values be applied to life?
The trick is making the connection to what is already present in the games and applying it to real life situations. Let's think who would do this? The parent! If the parent is doing their job they will know the content of the games their child is playing. All it takes is sitting the kid down for 15 min to discuss what is being said / done in the game and why this is or is not acceptable in reality. Kids are smart, they'll understand.
With all that said, could game producers emphasise this more in their games? Absolutely. It would be wonderful to clearly define what is right and wrong. In an ideal world there would be no gray area.
Is it up to game producers to do this? Absolutely not! We don't see this in movies, or books, or TV...why should video games be different. It is the parents job to educate the child, not the rest of the world.
I apologize if my thoughts came out all broken, but I'm in a super hurry...
and yes, I agree with someone else who said his films were commentaries, and not documentaries
This is very true. But then again, most documentaries are commentaries. The director picks a side, viewpoint, or political statement and shows the film from that standpoint.
In college I took a film class that studied different types of films. During the documentary section we watched several. 2 of them were about the same topic, but from opposite sides (obviously made by different people).
Besides, isn't that the whole point of a documentary? To expose a situation (perhaps from a biased point of view) to invoke discussion or exposure of some kind?
Anyway, you pretty much hit it right on the head if you ask me. Just adding my.02.
Slashdot is dedicated to news with a heavy emphasis on technology (hence why they cover movies, books, etc, that don't necessarily have much if anything to do with technology). Things like this interest the mass public, so it is good that they show it here.
If you don't like the story's topic. Don't read it. Why take the time to post if you are just going to bitch. Relax and move on.
They are suppose to. The author has stated several times that as Harry grows up, so will the world around him.
Remember, we are seeing the story from Harry's perspective (well not literally, but from someone of his maturity level). Therefore, as Harry becomes more mature, so does the story. Remember how fairy tale like the first book was...how everything was surreal. That is how Harry saw his world. Now a few books later, the books have lost that edge, and have taken a more serious turn. Politics are coming into play as well as mature / adult themes...
To keep with this the producers have switched directors. The same director who did "Y Tu Madre Tambien" (can't remember his name off hand) is directing the movie coming out this summer. (I was at first put off by this, until I found out how well respected his is). At any rate, his skill with movies is more encompassing than the previous director, so I think the movies will stay true to the story. Whereas, if the director didn't change, we would still see these movies as being fairy-tale like.
Just my thoughts.
Oh, and about Star Wars. Star Wars didn't try to become silly (I didn't find the Ewoks silly...annoying at times maybe), but George's vision changed. Ep. 4 was suppose to be free standing until George realized he had a hit on his hands. Ep. 5 was wonderfully dark, as it should be. Ep 6 was action packed and fun, also as it should be. The original trilligy held true to the vision of what Star Wars was suppose to be.
Now then, tack on 20 years and the altered perception from George and the movies now suck. Constant tweaking and him making the films 'for himself and his children' is crap.
Fire George Lucas... considering he just about owns everything there is to own about Star Wars and that he is bankrolling the film, that will be hard to do.
You are totally right. I could take a bunch of my used clothes, package it and put a Star Wars name on it and they would go ape-shit for it...
I wish they would stick to their guns and finish what they start. Sam and Max would have been an awesome game. So would another installment of Monkey Island...those will never get old. If it wasn't for the horrible graphics of the original, I'd still play that once and a while.
So the fact that the banker was stupid makes it ok that the thief stole the money?
I never said that there wouldn't be repercussions...there would. My point is, everyone is always so quick to blame the person for not preventing it from happening...no one ever looks at the situation to place the blame on the person doing the illegal act.
That's what I'm saying. I still have no clue how she was awarded all that money. That makes as much sense and me handing a 10 year old keys to a car and then blambing the house he ran into for being in the way...
Anyhoo...In a perfect world no one would have to worry about things like coffee being 'hot' or killers running rampant or software not 100% secure (which is impossible). Unfortunatly we don't live in a perfect world and we have to protect ourselves against stupid people as well as those who wish to exploit others.
We shouldn't *only* blame companies like MS when security holes are found. Granted, they should work to better the sofware and correct the issues, but it isn't their fault that *others* purposfully and *illegally* make use of these holes.
If a banker left a stack of 100 dollar bills on the counter and steped away to go to the bathroom, it isn't the banks fault that the money was stolen. It was the thief's fault. True, the bank should have taken steps to prevent it from happening, but they aren't the ones at fault here...
"No judge, I'm not guilty of writing a computer virus that cost business millions of dollars. If MS created better software, I wouldn't have done it. Fine MS, not me." Bah!
CODE IS WRITTEN LANUAGE. It is a sequence of thoughts. There's no need for a computer at all, any program can be "run" through pure thought by thinking through the steps and calculations.
Wow. I wonder what MS, Apple, IBM, HP, Sun, and the rest of them have been patenting all these years...
It seems the system doesn't agree with you. Last time I checked, software (ya know, code...errr written language compiled into an application) is a product, not a thought or idea.
Yeah it's currently "legal" in the US, and Microsoft deserves a good share of blame for that.
Wow. I wonder why you didn't include Apple, IBM, HP, Sun, and 100 other tech. companies. They deserve as much 'blame' as MS does. Biased?
CODE IS WRITTEN LANUAGE. It is a sequence of thoughts. There's no need for a computer at all, any program can be "run" through pure thought by thinking through the steps and calculations.
Wow. I wonder what MS, Apply, IBM, HP, Sun, and the rest of them have been patenting all these years...
This is a pretty bold statement, and I don't think it is true.
An architect does not patent his building. The tools used to design it are not patented. The concept of building from drawn plans and not a scale model is not patented. So, why should the tools and ideas behind software be locked away, but architects can use their tools and ideals freely?
Of course the architect doesn't. Most of the ideas and concepts and tools used are old and public domain. But I wouldn't be too sure if some of the concepts they apply aren't patented. How many patents came out of the Sears Tower Construction? How about the Airport in Japan that is on the ocean? If the architecht came up with a new structural design that is sounder, more sturdy, safer, etc... than what is know today, they would patent that in a second. If someone came up with a tool or machine that would help build a building faster / cheaper, you bet it would be patented.
I don't think you are grasping the concept here...
If Rockefeller had patented the concept of a gasoline filling station would the governmet and general public have allowed it?
Right. The concept isn't patented, but the technologly behind it sure was / would have been. The next time you open a twist off beer cap...that was patented. They used to put wax in there to seal it before. The concept of sealing the bottle can't be patented, but the *way* to seal it was.
Next time you shave your beard (or legs, I dunno if you are a guy or girl:) ) notice the razer. That contraption is patented. Gillet's Mach 3 is patented. Again, the idea isn't of shaving isn't, but the device is.
Remember, all M$ products are based on STOLEN ideas,concepts, and code. They are not in a position to claim originality on any derivative products. (To borrow some SCO legal logic which M$ seems to agree with)
There is nothing wrong with expanding or using someone's idea. It happens all the time in business...how many on line movie rental companies are there? This is nothing new.
If they stole code, now you have problems. I'm sure I remember them doing this in the past, and I'm sure I remember them being sued and settling over this too. Code is a product. The idea is not.
I'm not sure how well I'm doing making my point...but let me try to sum it up: If you create something, it is yours. If someone else takes it and puts a clock on it, then we have a new product. That isn't illegal, and it is done all the time. Don't single out MS for something that everyone does, and is actually...legal.
Ahhh...I gotcha now. I don't agree on all points, but I understand.
True large companies need to be kept in check, but in this case, I think things are fine. When it comes to patenting things, it is usually a defensive mechinism (I would think). This way MS has proof that it was their idea years later when Mr. Joe Innovator tries to cash in on them for something he thought up but never implemented. I'm sure it also has to do with making sure other companies don't sue them for the same reasons. A few others have posted about this and it sound valid.
If we want to come down on companies with patents and screwing people over, I'd rather examine and pick apart the drug companies. You want to talk about a plasma cannon...
So even though someone has bought several large plasma cannons and parked them outside your house but not fired them you're supposed to trust that they won't do so in the future? I'd rather they not own plasma cannons in the first place.
I'm confused. So you would prefer there be no corporations innovating at all? And, since when is having a patent like placeing a large plasma cannon outside my house? Without patents, no one would innovate. They are protecting their interests...just like you do...and the govt. does...and all other companies do...
Also, how is this anything like the Enron thing? MS Patents its products vs. Enron... what? Embezzleing money, lying, cheating its employees, scamming the govt., etc...
Actually, he probably does. Depending on the stock price, in order for Gates to get an adequate return on his investments it might be rational to buy that much of a stock.
lets say it is 20 dollars a share. for me and you 100 - 200 shares woudl be more than enough to invest in that company (that is 2000 - 4000 dollars). You think he's going to do that? No. that would be stupid. What do you think he'd buy? 1000 shares (20000 dollars woth)? Still not worth it. 10,000 shares? 100,000 shares? now we're starting to talk....
No. Matha Stewart used illegal insider trading to make money.
Bill Gates bought a stock (probably on recommendation from his broker) and failed to notify the govt of his purchase...in fact, his broker probably failed to notify the govt. of the purchase, but Gates is untimatly responsible for this.
Slashdot Mirror
No no no. There are two constants in the world: death and taxes.
:)
Didn't you ever see "Meet Joe Black"?.
What about menapause? Women only have a certain number of eggs. Will this be stopped by cleaning out the toxins, or will this happen anyway?
Certain things happen to the body at certain times. You grow, voice deepens, etc... Is he suggesting that we litterally stop ageing (freeze people at an age) or do we just stay healty indefinitely?
In case your wondering, I didn't read the whole article cuz I didn't want to register.
That isn't necessarily true. There were a bunch of old movies that weren't very good. I think the big difference here, is that it is easier and cheaper to make movies now than before. There are more theaters so the revenues are higher. There are more production houses so more movies can be turned out.
So even though your statement is true: Most movies today are crap, the reason behind this (which you implied as a general degradation of film across the board) is not valid. Whenever a market is flooded with a certain type of product, the number of quality items (movies in this case) doesn't go down...the number of bad items (movies) just increases.
Ditto with the music industry. Because of MTV and VH1 and all the teeny-boppers that like what they like because they are told they like it by the industry, the market has been flooded with crap. Why? Cuz they can sell it. The same quality exits out there, you just have to find it.
This can be applied to anything...electronics, TV, cars, fads, etc...
First off let me say that in no way is it up to game developers to put this kind of content in their product if it doesn't call for it. The gaming industry isn't here to raise your child...that is the parents job.
... evil. But that is what makes it fun right? We can play this game and do things that we wouldn't dream of doing in real life. So, in a way this game clearly defines what *not* to do in real life. Isn't that educational in a slightly squewed sense? How hard is it to teach a child that that kind of thing is only ok in video games? It doesn't seem like that big of a leap to me. (not that I'm saying kids should play GTA...god no).
Now then, I don't necessarily agree with the author, but his article has sparked my interest. Not so much in the way of what content should be acceptable in games or that games need to have a clear set of what is right and what is wrong and focus on the 'right'. But in the way that the majority of games out there already *do* have this present...it's just subtle. They don't come straight out and say "This is good! Do this!", "This is bad! Don't do that!", but the elements are all there.
Take GTA... there is no doubt that what you do in this game is bad. It is unethical, it is unmoral, it is just
A better example might be Ninja Gaiden. You play Ryu, a *good* bad ass who is avenging the death of his family and putting a stop to evil in the world. Ultimately that is what is happening in the story. On some level does this not say: "Fight for what you believe in. Don't let bad things happen." Granted the way you carry this out in the game is purely fantasy...but can't the values be applied to life?
The trick is making the connection to what is already present in the games and applying it to real life situations. Let's think who would do this? The parent! If the parent is doing their job they will know the content of the games their child is playing. All it takes is sitting the kid down for 15 min to discuss what is being said / done in the game and why this is or is not acceptable in reality. Kids are smart, they'll understand.
With all that said, could game producers emphasise this more in their games? Absolutely. It would be wonderful to clearly define what is right and wrong. In an ideal world there would be no gray area.
Is it up to game producers to do this? Absolutely not! We don't see this in movies, or books, or TV...why should video games be different. It is the parents job to educate the child, not the rest of the world.
I apologize if my thoughts came out all broken, but I'm in a super hurry...
I think the article was using this as a comparison...plus isn't coal considered a fossil fuel? And there are still a bunch of plants that use coal.
and yes, I agree with someone else who said his films were commentaries, and not documentaries
.02.
This is very true. But then again, most documentaries are commentaries. The director picks a side, viewpoint, or political statement and shows the film from that standpoint.
In college I took a film class that studied different types of films. During the documentary section we watched several. 2 of them were about the same topic, but from opposite sides (obviously made by different people).
Besides, isn't that the whole point of a documentary? To expose a situation (perhaps from a biased point of view) to invoke discussion or exposure of some kind?
Anyway, you pretty much hit it right on the head if you ask me. Just adding my
I give a rat's ass about this...
Slashdot is dedicated to news with a heavy emphasis on technology (hence why they cover movies, books, etc, that don't necessarily have much if anything to do with technology). Things like this interest the mass public, so it is good that they show it here.
If you don't like the story's topic. Don't read it. Why take the time to post if you are just going to bitch. Relax and move on.
Dude, you didn't even give us time to guess...
:)
You just blurted out the answer. Shame on you.
They are suppose to. The author has stated several times that as Harry grows up, so will the world around him.
Remember, we are seeing the story from Harry's perspective (well not literally, but from someone of his maturity level). Therefore, as Harry becomes more mature, so does the story. Remember how fairy tale like the first book was...how everything was surreal. That is how Harry saw his world. Now a few books later, the books have lost that edge, and have taken a more serious turn. Politics are coming into play as well as mature / adult themes...
To keep with this the producers have switched directors. The same director who did "Y Tu Madre Tambien" (can't remember his name off hand) is directing the movie coming out this summer. (I was at first put off by this, until I found out how well respected his is). At any rate, his skill with movies is more encompassing than the previous director, so I think the movies will stay true to the story. Whereas, if the director didn't change, we would still see these movies as being fairy-tale like.
Just my thoughts.
Oh, and about Star Wars. Star Wars didn't try to become silly (I didn't find the Ewoks silly...annoying at times maybe), but George's vision changed. Ep. 4 was suppose to be free standing until George realized he had a hit on his hands. Ep. 5 was wonderfully dark, as it should be. Ep 6 was action packed and fun, also as it should be. The original trilligy held true to the vision of what Star Wars was suppose to be.
Now then, tack on 20 years and the altered perception from George and the movies now suck. Constant tweaking and him making the films 'for himself and his children' is crap.
Ahhh well...now I'm rambling.
Fire George Lucas... considering he just about owns everything there is to own about Star Wars and that he is bankrolling the film, that will be hard to do.
It's life Jim,
but not as we know it,
not as we know it,
not as we know it...
Scotty has a verse too, but I can't remember it.
You are totally right. I could take a bunch of my used clothes, package it and put a Star Wars name on it and they would go ape-shit for it...
I wish they would stick to their guns and finish what they start. Sam and Max would have been an awesome game. So would another installment of Monkey Island...those will never get old. If it wasn't for the horrible graphics of the original, I'd still play that once and a while.
So the fact that the banker was stupid makes it ok that the thief stole the money?
I never said that there wouldn't be repercussions...there would. My point is, everyone is always so quick to blame the person for not preventing it from happening...no one ever looks at the situation to place the blame on the person doing the illegal act.
That's what I'm saying. I still have no clue how she was awarded all that money. That makes as much sense and me handing a 10 year old keys to a car and then blambing the house he ran into for being in the way...
Anyhoo...In a perfect world no one would have to worry about things like coffee being 'hot' or killers running rampant or software not 100% secure (which is impossible). Unfortunatly we don't live in a perfect world and we have to protect ourselves against stupid people as well as those who wish to exploit others.
We shouldn't *only* blame companies like MS when security holes are found. Granted, they should work to better the sofware and correct the issues, but it isn't their fault that *others* purposfully and *illegally* make use of these holes.
If a banker left a stack of 100 dollar bills on the counter and steped away to go to the bathroom, it isn't the banks fault that the money was stolen. It was the thief's fault. True, the bank should have taken steps to prevent it from happening, but they aren't the ones at fault here...
"No judge, I'm not guilty of writing a computer virus that cost business millions of dollars. If MS created better software, I wouldn't have done it. Fine MS, not me." Bah!
Ok. I've said my peice.
Huh? LucasArts isn't making the game...they are publishing it.
Wasn't LucasArts doing Sam and Max all themselves?
There is a huge difference between creating a game and publishing it.
Funny how people blame MS for this, and not the person who developed the virus.
It isn't the man's fault he raped and killed the girl, it is the man's parents for not raising him right.
hmm...dunno what happened here...
CODE IS WRITTEN LANUAGE. It is a sequence of thoughts. There's no need for a computer at all, any program can be "run" through pure thought by thinking through the steps and calculations.
Wow. I wonder what MS, Apple, IBM, HP, Sun, and the rest of them have been patenting all these years...
It seems the system doesn't agree with you. Last time I checked, software (ya know, code...errr written language compiled into an application) is a product, not a thought or idea.
Yeah it's currently "legal" in the US, and Microsoft deserves a good share of blame for that.
Wow. I wonder why you didn't include Apple, IBM, HP, Sun, and 100 other tech. companies. They deserve as much 'blame' as MS does. Biased?
CODE IS WRITTEN LANUAGE. It is a sequence of thoughts. There's no need for a computer at all, any program can be "run" through pure thought by thinking through the steps and calculations.
Wow. I wonder what MS, Apply, IBM, HP, Sun, and the rest of them have been patenting all these years...
This is a pretty bold statement, and I don't think it is true.
:) ) notice the razer. That contraption is patented. Gillet's Mach 3 is patented. Again, the idea isn't of shaving isn't, but the device is.
An architect does not patent his building. The tools used to design it are not patented. The concept of building from drawn plans and not a scale model is not patented. So, why should the tools and ideas behind software be locked away, but architects can use their tools and ideals freely?
Of course the architect doesn't. Most of the ideas and concepts and tools used are old and public domain. But I wouldn't be too sure if some of the concepts they apply aren't patented. How many patents came out of the Sears Tower Construction? How about the Airport in Japan that is on the ocean? If the architecht came up with a new structural design that is sounder, more sturdy, safer, etc... than what is know today, they would patent that in a second. If someone came up with a tool or machine that would help build a building faster / cheaper, you bet it would be patented.
I don't think you are grasping the concept here...
If Rockefeller had patented the concept of a gasoline filling station would the governmet and general public have allowed it?
Right. The concept isn't patented, but the technologly behind it sure was / would have been. The next time you open a twist off beer cap...that was patented. They used to put wax in there to seal it before. The concept of sealing the bottle can't be patented, but the *way* to seal it was.
Next time you shave your beard (or legs, I dunno if you are a guy or girl
Remember, all M$ products are based on STOLEN ideas,concepts, and code. They are not in a position to claim originality on any derivative products. (To borrow some SCO legal logic which M$ seems to agree with)
There is nothing wrong with expanding or using someone's idea. It happens all the time in business...how many on line movie rental companies are there? This is nothing new.
If they stole code, now you have problems. I'm sure I remember them doing this in the past, and I'm sure I remember them being sued and settling over this too. Code is a product. The idea is not.
I'm not sure how well I'm doing making my point...but let me try to sum it up:
If you create something, it is yours. If someone else takes it and puts a clock on it, then we have a new product. That isn't illegal, and it is done all the time. Don't single out MS for something that everyone does, and is actually...legal.
Ahhh...I gotcha now. I don't agree on all points, but I understand.
True large companies need to be kept in check, but in this case, I think things are fine. When it comes to patenting things, it is usually a defensive mechinism (I would think). This way MS has proof that it was their idea years later when Mr. Joe Innovator tries to cash in on them for something he thought up but never implemented. I'm sure it also has to do with making sure other companies don't sue them for the same reasons. A few others have posted about this and it sound valid.
If we want to come down on companies with patents and screwing people over, I'd rather examine and pick apart the drug companies. You want to talk about a plasma cannon...
So even though someone has bought several large plasma cannons and parked them outside your house but not fired them you're supposed to trust that they won't do so in the future? I'd rather they not own plasma cannons in the first place.
I'm confused. So you would prefer there be no corporations innovating at all? And, since when is having a patent like placeing a large plasma cannon outside my house? Without patents, no one would innovate. They are protecting their interests...just like you do...and the govt. does...and all other companies do...
Also, how is this anything like the Enron thing? MS Patents its products vs. Enron... what? Embezzleing money, lying, cheating its employees, scamming the govt., etc...
Do you even know what you are talking about?
Actually, he probably does. Depending on the stock price, in order for Gates to get an adequate return on his investments it might be rational to buy that much of a stock.
lets say it is 20 dollars a share. for me and you 100 - 200 shares woudl be more than enough to invest in that company (that is 2000 - 4000 dollars). You think he's going to do that? No. that would be stupid. What do you think he'd buy? 1000 shares (20000 dollars woth)? Still not worth it. 10,000 shares? 100,000 shares? now we're starting to talk....
It is all about scale.
No. Matha Stewart used illegal insider trading to make money.
Bill Gates bought a stock (probably on recommendation from his broker) and failed to notify the govt of his purchase...in fact, his broker probably failed to notify the govt. of the purchase, but Gates is untimatly responsible for this.
This is totally different.
This is the most intelligent post I've read on this thread. I so wish I had mod points for you.