More like having a law in your city saying you can only give half a sandwich to the homeless beggars on the street. Since it's such an inhumane law, should you protest it by not giving half a sandwich to one of them as you drive by?
Who is being punished by this humanitarian perspective? The government that sets up the unfair laws, or the people who already have to suffer under them?
You must be talking about a different Amiga than I'm familiar with.
The A500/A1200 models were so far cheaper than PCs that they were considered toys, or at best, a game console. They were stocked in our Software Etc store, right beside the NES and Sega. And the big-box Amigas were competitive until the mid-90's, when Commodore was finally going downhill.
I priced an A1200 system with an HD and monitor for $500 for a friend in '96, at least half the price of a PC that would run comparable software and games.
Now, I could see that argument being used about Apple. The Mac Plus debuted at $2600 in 1986, the SE/30 for $5000(!) in 1989. And it was still B&W. Ouch.
Would you like to hear about my Polish friend who sells shoe polish?
Case isn't the real issue here, sometimes human languages are just broken like that. Look at the present and past tense of "read" - both spelled the same, but pronounced different when spoken. Polish for shoes can be capitalized too, depending on how it's used.
Just as I don't expect a compiler do differentiate between "read" and "read" I don't expect it to differentiate between "Polish" and "polish" either.
If you have a Windows computer and a WMA player, the restrictive DRM still lets you do everything you need to, namely play music. It's nice to be the first guy to say "I can't wait until they crack this," but chances are, nothing will change for you when they crack it.
I used to figure the same.
Well, two years ago I bought some WMAs from an online store, and I've since upgraded to a new PC. Several unanswered emails and disconnected telephone numbers later, these WMAs are now worthless bits of data on my harddrive. This is problem inherent in DRM, and practically requires that people crack the platform.
Well, assuming you have a spare computer to set up as their sandbox. In my house, the kids have admin access on the kids' computers, even the 3 year old. When they screw up, they don't get to play their games for a few days until I have time to get it running again. Eventually, they'll be responsible for fixing it themselves.
They've got limited accounts on my and my fiance's computers, though.
While I was working delivering a free weekly paper in Sarasota, Florida, I noticed a funny pattern amongst the gated condo communities on the keys.
When I started the route, I only had the code for some of the condos, so the first few weeks I just left a bundle of papers at the condo gate for the others. We got some calls about it, and two of the places mentioned they had a master code of "1-2-3-4". I started experimenting, and it turns out that almost every gate on the keys will let you in with "1-2-3-4(-5)" or "9-8-7-6(-5)".
This seems to be consistent everywhere else I've tried since. Seems like these gates would be rather expensive to put for just an illusion of security.
I have similar experiences, except I *have* used Outlook ever since I gave up on Netscape 4.x in '99. That's also the time I started using IE regularly instead of Netscape, and I only finally felt Mozilla had matured enough to switch to FireFox here in the last couple months. To hack a line from the drug war ads: Common sense is my anti-virus.
The problem is those people who either don't have the same common sense as we do, or don't think to utilize it.
You're quite correct, I don't have the right to do whatever I want. I can't use my liberties to infringe on the liberties of others. I didn't say that I, or anyone else, could. Even though I'm insulted by your foul language, that doesn't mean anyone can take away your freedom of speech, because it doesn't violate my liberties.
By our Constitution, our government does not have the privledge (there is no such thing as "rights" of government, only people have "rights") to infringe on the liberties of others either. To say otherwise means you're amending the Constitution without going through the proper process.
Why must people get a licence, or permit, to become married? There is no reason why I must get permission from the government to choose who I want to start a family with. This shouldn't be a debate over whether it's a state or federal authority to regulate, because neither one can infringe my rights.
I agree we should use the courts whenever possible, but you also need to realize the courts actually don't have the power to judicial review - they gave themselves that power. Courts ruling themselves new powers is just as unconstitutional as legislatures legislating themselves new powers.
In the end, We the People are expected to ensure our government is following the rules, not the courts. We have to know what our Constitution actually says, and we have to know what our state and federal legistlators, judges, city council members, governors, and president are doing, and we have to stand up to defend our freedoms when they are violated.
This is nothing new, it's been going on for a long time. Just because we've gotten this far with only one major rebellion doesn't mean it's right.
And I doubt either side had permits to assemble...
What a bloody brilliant idea... The government giving people permission to exercise an unalienable right!
I feel lucky to live in a city that doesn't make it illegal to peaceably assemble unless "approved" by the government. The Secret Service got pissed off that the local cops wouldn't arrest Libertarian protesters standing in front of a hotel Cheney was speaking at a few weeks ago. The protesters were asked to move, they refused, and that was the end of it. The police apparently realized that they work for us, not the other way around.
Has anyone noticed that the elections in Afganistan seem to have been a lot more "democratic" than our own? How about someone comes over here and liberates us for a change?
Little late to the party, but I thought I'd make a note here.
I've accidently left my '91 Aerostar in drive when turning it off before, and it let me lock the column and take the keys out without a complaint. However, it's also one of those two-handed systems - have to push a button with the left hand while turning the cylinder to lock with the right hand - so it's not likely you'll lock the column if you don't mean to. Also, the accessory position is *past* lock, with just "off" between run and lock which definately kills power-assist.
More troubling, though, is that I did the same thing in the past with my '86 Park Avenue and '94 Cutlass (yes, it's a bad habit of mine), and they didn't have the inconvenient two-handed feature. I obviously never tried it, but I would assume from this experience you could lock the steering wheel while in motion on these cars and many others. The worst part is, it won't lock until you start turning the wheel, and then it won't let you straighten it out.
My fiance's family used to tell their kids that if they were riding in a car and the driver passed out, take the keys out of the ignition because an out of control stopping car is better than an out of control speeding car. I had to correct her and teach our kids to turn it off and then try to control it, but *don't* try to take the keys out...
Well, you see, if that's the best explanation for mandatory seat-belt laws, they ought to think about getting rid of those pesky airbags. Darn things blow up right in your face! Of course, most modern ones deflate pretty fast, but there's still a good chance of getting burns and temporary blindness, plus broken limbs if your arms aren't where they're supposed to be.
Now, I can see how there are cases where an airbag, even if causing an injury itself, could save my life, so I'd rather have one in my car. But since we're already taking away one right to make an informed decision, why not keep going?
If you're going to take that argument, should the government force everyone to wear bullet-proof vests? So that if someone happens to shoot you, you're less likely to be a burden to society?
Should we legislate condom use?
And no building your own computers or electronics outside certified labs, because if you're stupid, you might get electrocuted.
I don't have any statistics to back me up, but it seems to me that if you're in a high-speed collision without a seatbelt, you're more than likely going to be dead at the scene. End of story.
On the other hand, if you did wear a seatbelt and survived, you're likely suffering from a lot of trauma. Which then leads to the ER visit, surgery, ICU stay, and recovery.
I'd like to see some research about this, but I haven't ever bothered to try looking for it. Maybe I should, so either (A) I can shut up, or (B) I can prove my point better.
I understand some laws that are designed to correct for economic disparity in decision making - for example, laws requiring seatbelts to be present in all cars, because otherwise the poor like me would be driving around in seatbelt-less cars.
But don't treat me like I'm stupid. I can research all the evidence pro and con and make my own decision, and if it's the wrong one, I'm the one to blame. I don't need a legislator making that decision for me.
I'm against seatbelt laws and helmet laws for adults not because I have any desire to not wear my seatbelt. Heck, I wear a helmet when I ride my bicycle.
However, the conceptual basis for laws in our country is to protect your rights to personal freedom, until they interfere with the rights of others. For example, I'm allowed to swing a baseball bat, but not if I'm swinging it at your head.
Under this concept, the government should be able to say I have to drive with headlights on at dark, and that I can't drive drunk. But why does the government want to say I can't decide for myself whether or not to wear a seatbelt? It has no relevence on anyone else's rights but mine.
(Now, minors are a different issue... we have a lot of laws that take away parents' rights under the assumption they're too stupid to protect their children properly. I won't go into that one...)
Hm. I don't quite know what point I'm trying to make here, but here goes anyway.
I think we're only going to see more of this as games become more and more realistic and involve online communities rather than single-player games or shoot-em-ups. The latter is specifically made so that if a person loses one fight, he isn't set back much. It wouldn't be fun otherwise.
I play an online turn-based strategy/rp game called BattleMaster, where you have quite a bit of freedom to behave however you like, within the RP restrictions of your realm and class. You can be a jerk, you can be noble, you can be snooty. I'm amazed at the people who are able to pick a path for their characters, and stick with it - "this character will always be true to his country, even at the expense of other players", or "this character will do whatever it takes to get the highest fame and fortune", etc. I, on the other hand, keep coming up against the fact that there are real people on the other side of the computer screen, and they've invested months playing these characters up to this point. We're all here to have fun, and it simply isn't fun to lose all that effort.
As a ruler, I had thirty characters under my command and I controlled not only the future of both my realm as a whole, but through that, each of these characters as well. I ended up failing both miserably, thanks to bad timing and alliances that fell through, and I will probably never try being a ruler again. I have the political skills, but the stress of so much fate resting in my hands was too much of a burden.
Another character of mine once defected from one nation to another. I've seen other players do it all the time. My stomach was queasy and my hands were literally shaking, though, while I wrote my manifesto to my ex-comrades and clicked the button to become a traitor. It took me some time to realize exactly what I was scared of, sitting safely in a cozy computer chair in my living room... I was scared about what everyone else would think of me - that in their eyes, I was a rebel and traitor, not a man of honor.
I have a hard time keeping my real self out of my virtual characters. I set myself a high standard to live up to, and that rolls over into my online lives as well. Likewise, when someone thinks I've done something dishonorable online, it hits me about as hard as someone telling me to my face.
In the end, though, the advantage of the game world is the ability to turn it off, which I will be doing for this game next month. With a couple clicks, I won't ever again hear from any of the people I've endured harassment from or any of the people who I feel I've failed as their leader, yet I can still draw from the experiences as though they were my own - because they were.
Rather reminds me of going into the Nursing field. My classes have similar proportions, in the other direction. And everywhere I go, when I mention what I'm doing, everyone says, "great, we need more men to be nurses!"
Slashdot Mirror
More like having a law in your city saying you can only give half a sandwich to the homeless beggars on the street. Since it's such an inhumane law, should you protest it by not giving half a sandwich to one of them as you drive by?
Who is being punished by this humanitarian perspective? The government that sets up the unfair laws, or the people who already have to suffer under them?
You must be talking about a different Amiga than I'm familiar with.
The A500/A1200 models were so far cheaper than PCs that they were considered toys, or at best, a game console. They were stocked in our Software Etc store, right beside the NES and Sega. And the big-box Amigas were competitive until the mid-90's, when Commodore was finally going downhill.
I priced an A1200 system with an HD and monitor for $500 for a friend in '96, at least half the price of a PC that would run comparable software and games.
Now, I could see that argument being used about Apple. The Mac Plus debuted at $2600 in 1986, the SE/30 for $5000(!) in 1989. And it was still B&W. Ouch.
Looks like FPS geeks aren't leaving the house this weekend.
Yeah, because that's how long it's gonna take to download it.
Would you like to hear about my Polish friend who sells shoe polish?
Case isn't the real issue here, sometimes human languages are just broken like that. Look at the present and past tense of "read" - both spelled the same, but pronounced different when spoken. Polish for shoes can be capitalized too, depending on how it's used.
Just as I don't expect a compiler do differentiate between "read" and "read" I don't expect it to differentiate between "Polish" and "polish" either.
If you have a Windows computer and a WMA player, the restrictive DRM still lets you do everything you need to, namely play music. It's nice to be the first guy to say "I can't wait until they crack this," but chances are, nothing will change for you when they crack it.
I used to figure the same.
Well, two years ago I bought some WMAs from an online store, and I've since upgraded to a new PC. Several unanswered emails and disconnected telephone numbers later, these WMAs are now worthless bits of data on my harddrive. This is problem inherent in DRM, and practically requires that people crack the platform.
Where are mod points when I need them???
Now I'm gonna have to dig out Eliza for my Apple II when I get back home...
Well, assuming you have a spare computer to set up as their sandbox. In my house, the kids have admin access on the kids' computers, even the 3 year old. When they screw up, they don't get to play their games for a few days until I have time to get it running again. Eventually, they'll be responsible for fixing it themselves.
They've got limited accounts on my and my fiance's computers, though.
While I was working delivering a free weekly paper in Sarasota, Florida, I noticed a funny pattern amongst the gated condo communities on the keys.
When I started the route, I only had the code for some of the condos, so the first few weeks I just left a bundle of papers at the condo gate for the others. We got some calls about it, and two of the places mentioned they had a master code of "1-2-3-4". I started experimenting, and it turns out that almost every gate on the keys will let you in with "1-2-3-4(-5)" or "9-8-7-6(-5)".
This seems to be consistent everywhere else I've tried since. Seems like these gates would be rather expensive to put for just an illusion of security.
I have similar experiences, except I *have* used Outlook ever since I gave up on Netscape 4.x in '99. That's also the time I started using IE regularly instead of Netscape, and I only finally felt Mozilla had matured enough to switch to FireFox here in the last couple months. To hack a line from the drug war ads: Common sense is my anti-virus.
The problem is those people who either don't have the same common sense as we do, or don't think to utilize it.
You're quite correct, I don't have the right to do whatever I want. I can't use my liberties to infringe on the liberties of others. I didn't say that I, or anyone else, could. Even though I'm insulted by your foul language, that doesn't mean anyone can take away your freedom of speech, because it doesn't violate my liberties.
By our Constitution, our government does not have the privledge (there is no such thing as "rights" of government, only people have "rights") to infringe on the liberties of others either. To say otherwise means you're amending the Constitution without going through the proper process.
Why must people get a licence, or permit, to become married? There is no reason why I must get permission from the government to choose who I want to start a family with. This shouldn't be a debate over whether it's a state or federal authority to regulate, because neither one can infringe my rights.
I agree we should use the courts whenever possible, but you also need to realize the courts actually don't have the power to judicial review - they gave themselves that power. Courts ruling themselves new powers is just as unconstitutional as legislatures legislating themselves new powers.
In the end, We the People are expected to ensure our government is following the rules, not the courts. We have to know what our Constitution actually says, and we have to know what our state and federal legistlators, judges, city council members, governors, and president are doing, and we have to stand up to defend our freedoms when they are violated.
This is nothing new, it's been going on for a long time. Just because we've gotten this far with only one major rebellion doesn't mean it's right.
-jupo
And I doubt either side had permits to assemble...
What a bloody brilliant idea... The government giving people permission to exercise an unalienable right!
I feel lucky to live in a city that doesn't make it illegal to peaceably assemble unless "approved" by the government. The Secret Service got pissed off that the local cops wouldn't arrest Libertarian protesters standing in front of a hotel Cheney was speaking at a few weeks ago. The protesters were asked to move, they refused, and that was the end of it. The police apparently realized that they work for us, not the other way around.
Has anyone noticed that the elections in Afganistan seem to have been a lot more "democratic" than our own? How about someone comes over here and liberates us for a change?
-jupo
Little late to the party, but I thought I'd make a note here.
I've accidently left my '91 Aerostar in drive when turning it off before, and it let me lock the column and take the keys out without a complaint. However, it's also one of those two-handed systems - have to push a button with the left hand while turning the cylinder to lock with the right hand - so it's not likely you'll lock the column if you don't mean to. Also, the accessory position is *past* lock, with just "off" between run and lock which definately kills power-assist.
More troubling, though, is that I did the same thing in the past with my '86 Park Avenue and '94 Cutlass (yes, it's a bad habit of mine), and they didn't have the inconvenient two-handed feature. I obviously never tried it, but I would assume from this experience you could lock the steering wheel while in motion on these cars and many others. The worst part is, it won't lock until you start turning the wheel, and then it won't let you straighten it out.
My fiance's family used to tell their kids that if they were riding in a car and the driver passed out, take the keys out of the ignition because an out of control stopping car is better than an out of control speeding car. I had to correct her and teach our kids to turn it off and then try to control it, but *don't* try to take the keys out...
-jupo
Or, even worse, it could develop into a utility, with underground pipes running to your home. Then a whole city could blow up!
Oh wait, we already have natural gas.
Realistically, how much worse would this actually be?
Except it's a lot easier to eat a few crackers than to undergo surgery to replace a battery.
Visitor 1125... few hundred per minute, not too bad.
Well, you see, if that's the best explanation for mandatory seat-belt laws, they ought to think about getting rid of those pesky airbags. Darn things blow up right in your face! Of course, most modern ones deflate pretty fast, but there's still a good chance of getting burns and temporary blindness, plus broken limbs if your arms aren't where they're supposed to be.
Now, I can see how there are cases where an airbag, even if causing an injury itself, could save my life, so I'd rather have one in my car. But since we're already taking away one right to make an informed decision, why not keep going?
That's what's so great about our country... The consistency of our laws.
If you're going to take that argument, should the government force everyone to wear bullet-proof vests? So that if someone happens to shoot you, you're less likely to be a burden to society?
Should we legislate condom use?
And no building your own computers or electronics outside certified labs, because if you're stupid, you might get electrocuted.
I don't have any statistics to back me up, but it seems to me that if you're in a high-speed collision without a seatbelt, you're more than likely going to be dead at the scene. End of story.
On the other hand, if you did wear a seatbelt and survived, you're likely suffering from a lot of trauma. Which then leads to the ER visit, surgery, ICU stay, and recovery.
I'd like to see some research about this, but I haven't ever bothered to try looking for it. Maybe I should, so either (A) I can shut up, or (B) I can prove my point better.
-jupo
Okay, but I also have the right to refuse any medical treatment for any illness I might have... even if that means I die and leave children behind.
Should the government force medical treatments on people? How about if the person thinks the risk of the treatment outweighs the possible benefits?
Oh, wait, that would *cost* the government money, rather than generating revenue from tickets.
-jupo
Exactly.
I understand some laws that are designed to correct for economic disparity in decision making - for example, laws requiring seatbelts to be present in all cars, because otherwise the poor like me would be driving around in seatbelt-less cars.
But don't treat me like I'm stupid. I can research all the evidence pro and con and make my own decision, and if it's the wrong one, I'm the one to blame. I don't need a legislator making that decision for me.
-jupo
I'm against seatbelt laws and helmet laws for adults not because I have any desire to not wear my seatbelt. Heck, I wear a helmet when I ride my bicycle.
However, the conceptual basis for laws in our country is to protect your rights to personal freedom, until they interfere with the rights of others. For example, I'm allowed to swing a baseball bat, but not if I'm swinging it at your head.
Under this concept, the government should be able to say I have to drive with headlights on at dark, and that I can't drive drunk. But why does the government want to say I can't decide for myself whether or not to wear a seatbelt? It has no relevence on anyone else's rights but mine.
(Now, minors are a different issue... we have a lot of laws that take away parents' rights under the assumption they're too stupid to protect their children properly. I won't go into that one...)
-jupo
Hm. I don't quite know what point I'm trying to make here, but here goes anyway.
I think we're only going to see more of this as games become more and more realistic and involve online communities rather than single-player games or shoot-em-ups. The latter is specifically made so that if a person loses one fight, he isn't set back much. It wouldn't be fun otherwise.
I play an online turn-based strategy/rp game called BattleMaster, where you have quite a bit of freedom to behave however you like, within the RP restrictions of your realm and class. You can be a jerk, you can be noble, you can be snooty. I'm amazed at the people who are able to pick a path for their characters, and stick with it - "this character will always be true to his country, even at the expense of other players", or "this character will do whatever it takes to get the highest fame and fortune", etc. I, on the other hand, keep coming up against the fact that there are real people on the other side of the computer screen, and they've invested months playing these characters up to this point. We're all here to have fun, and it simply isn't fun to lose all that effort.
As a ruler, I had thirty characters under my command and I controlled not only the future of both my realm as a whole, but through that, each of these characters as well. I ended up failing both miserably, thanks to bad timing and alliances that fell through, and I will probably never try being a ruler again. I have the political skills, but the stress of so much fate resting in my hands was too much of a burden.
Another character of mine once defected from one nation to another. I've seen other players do it all the time. My stomach was queasy and my hands were literally shaking, though, while I wrote my manifesto to my ex-comrades and clicked the button to become a traitor. It took me some time to realize exactly what I was scared of, sitting safely in a cozy computer chair in my living room... I was scared about what everyone else would think of me - that in their eyes, I was a rebel and traitor, not a man of honor.
I have a hard time keeping my real self out of my virtual characters. I set myself a high standard to live up to, and that rolls over into my online lives as well. Likewise, when someone thinks I've done something dishonorable online, it hits me about as hard as someone telling me to my face.
In the end, though, the advantage of the game world is the ability to turn it off, which I will be doing for this game next month. With a couple clicks, I won't ever again hear from any of the people I've endured harassment from or any of the people who I feel I've failed as their leader, yet I can still draw from the experiences as though they were my own - because they were.
-jupo
Okay, I'm going to be offtopic here. It seems to me enough other people are coming up with solutions. And the above comment is rated funny?
I'd like to get that one for metamoderation.
Rather reminds me of going into the Nursing field. My classes have similar proportions, in the other direction. And everywhere I go, when I mention what I'm doing, everyone says, "great, we need more men to be nurses!"
(And my sister went into physics... go figure!)
-jupo