Surprised no one mentioned this so far, but there's one development that has grown in influence over the last few years, and that's the Forge Booth. In a nutshell, this is a Gencon booth run by regulars at The Forge, a website devoted to discussion of RPG theory and how to make games that are coherent, instead of a jumbled mishmash of things put in either because they were "cool" or because "that's how RPGs are supposed to be."
It is pointless to make more and more complex games, when computers can do a much better job of tracking complex rule systems than people can. Not to mention that no one wants to play "Physics: The Calculating". Simulating reality is therefore kind of pointless. Instead you have to focus on the non-wargamey parts of RPGs, i.e. the story.
The Forge people get this and design their games accordingly. They have a laser-sharp focus on their subject matter and often produce amazing game sessions.
Dogs is set in a mythical west, where the PCs are a bit like Templars with six-guns. The game addresses the question of "how far are you willing to go to have your vision of righteousness made manifest?"
Master, on the other hand, addresses the premise of "Can you survive through love?" It is set in an anonymous central European town, where all the PCs are minions of an evil Master, a la Dr. Frankenstein/Igor. They have to try and gradually work up the courage (via forming relationships with the townsfolk) to overthrow the Master. Of course we know that eventually the Master will be overthrown (just like we know this in the movie, or we know that in D&D the PCs will slay the dragon); the excitement is in how it happens and what happens to the Minions prior to, and after, this event.
Now of course these games will never achieve the commercial success of D&D, or even one of the 2nd- or 3rd-tier of popularity like Vampire or GURPS. But in 5-10 years (mark my words!) this approach to RPGs will have sneakily infiltrated the mainstream.
I work for a national book chain. What cracked me up is that all of the pallets containing the new Harry Potter came in black shrink wrap (not unusual) and the delivery bill from the shipper said Hannukah on it!
IANAJ (Jew), but if I were I think I would be a little ticked off here -- what was the warehouse thinking? "Hmm, what loser holiday does NOBODY care about and will therefore encourage absolutely NO ONE to look inside the boxes?"
FYI: The next time your place of business gets 6000 pounds of Hannukah books for real... call the police because it's a PLO plot!
The music industry has been involved in payola for years and years, despite it being illegal. Why should they see this as anything different? They'll just come up with yet another excuse as to why this isn't payola. Is it a private gift from one individual to another, which -- totally coincidentally -- happens to be from an RIAA member to a NYPD officer? You can't prove anything! What, you want to outlaw gifts?
Which reminds me, I wonder if anyone at the IRS actually checks what job title you put on your tax forms?
As someone who used to work for the IRS, I can say yes, but it doesn't really matter. It's only when there is a large discongruity between your stated occupation and your actual income that it would raise a red flag.
I've seen people put "Bum" and "Domestic Goddess", in addition to a whole host of other things. In general, anyone worth the agency's resources to pursue for tax fraud is going to use a tax attorney anyway, who would therefore prima facie lack any sense of humor anyway. =^)
You wont get rats to stop trying to eat your food by hiding it. They just look harder for it because they know its still there. But if you can poison the food, they will die painfully.
Not true for rats, at least, and (therefore, presumably) not true for advertising.
According to Rats: Observations on the History and Habitat of the City's Most Unwanted Inhabitants by Robert Sullivan, poisoning rats has the opposite effect on the overall rat population. When the rat population density lowers, female rats have larger litters, and become pregnant more often. So the rat population increases, and because rats learn very quickly, they stop eating poisoned bait. The rat population will always expand to the limits of the edible food supply. The only way to lower their population is to starve them off.
I suspect it's the same with advertisers, from spammers to popup senders. Killing an individual type of advertising just creates a vacancy in the public mindshare that will be filled by the latest form of branding.
Rats is an excellent read, and the similarities between rats and advertisers are really too many to enumerate.
More people die every month in car crashes than died in the 9/11 attacks. While murderous intent is not behind these, the decisions made regarding drinking and driving, national auto safety standards, national road safety standards, etc., certainly are deliberate. Where's the outrage over this? The original poster was correct -- 9/11 was a tragedy, but let's keep our sense of perspective.
Pornographers were the ones arguing hardest for an XXX TLD during the TLD proposal a while back.
As a fan and patron of XX-rated movies, I resent this implicit discrimination. Anyone can put in an explicit love scene and get a cheesy single X. Anyone can show hardcore penetration and get two more. Achieving the coveted XX rating requires a subtle sense of artistic balance, combined with a grand vision -- yet.xx doesn't get a TLD? A travety.
Actually, you have a fourth choice: buy CDs from independent labels. Many labels don't belong to the RIAA and aren't owned by the Big Five. Yes, it takes more effort to find out about bands but IMO the rewards justify it -- you actually find stuff that sounds different than the generic flavor-of-the-month that dominates pop radio, MTV, etc.
How old are you, 15? So if a movie is really not worth paying for, but you want to see it, someone should sneak in? This just reinforces the view that open-source types want everything without paying for it.
You should sneak into movies that you want to see, not because you want something without paying for it, but to make up for all the times that Hollywood has tricked you into paying for the same recycled crap. Very few industries use such blatantly false advertising, and even the most discerning moviegoer gets suckered on occasion by the cold, heartless maggots who decide upon the latest bilge to disguise as entertainment. Lex talionis works works for me: They rip me off, I rip them off.
There's a story of a king who passed an edict forbidding the tide from rising. He sent his soldiers to the beach with orders to beat the ocean back if it didn't obey the edict. The King was trying to make a point that even he, the almighty King, could not alter the forces of nature by a simple decree.
That's no mere story! It's recorded in Herodotus' Histories. The king in question was Xerxes II, ruler of Persia in ~450 BCE. He was trying to build a bridge across the Hellespont (in the upper right of this map -- almost 2/3rds of a mile, no small feat back then) when a sudden storm tore apart the almost-completed bridge.
Xerxes flew into a rage and ordered that the Hellespont be given 300 lashes with a whip. During the whipping, the scourgers were instructed to say a variety of hateful insults to the ocean, and then a pair of leg irons were thrown into the sea as additional punishment. To top it all off, he had the sea branded a few times!
Xerxes wasn't really trying to make a point so much as he was a megalomaniac (he believed he was an incarnated god).
I believe the saying goes something like "Truth is stranger than fiction because fiction has to make sense to the writer."
(Extrapolation to our current commander-in-chief is left as an exercise for the reader.)
if you think being a consumer sucks right now (and it does...) try being a struggling musician.
If you think being a consumer sucks, try being less of a consumer. People got along fine for thousands of years without CDs. Are they often convenient and enjoyable? Yes. Necessary? No. Stop confusing wants with needs.
This is a really good start and definately something that is worth working towards. It would also be easy (well, in theory) to implement since it's basically a codification of rights that have already been established. I think, however, that if the copyright system were patched up (i.e. if there was less incentive for corporate control of the media and its distribution), something like this would be superfluous. Here's something that's been kicking around my brain for a few weeks that could stand to be improved, so comments and suggestions would be nice. It's more radical than the "DCCR", so I'll freely admit that the odds of it ever happening are far slimmer. The basic idea is to create a compromise between the current situation and the anti-IP camp (disclaimer: I'm basically in the latter, but not fanatic about it) that seems reasonable and still respects the work of creators. So:
1. Copyright can only be owned by individuals, not companies, although any number of individuals may jointly own copyright.
1a. Presumably the copyright holders would contractualize the details of decision making regarding the copyrighted material.
2. Once copyright is declared, it may not be transferred.
2a. To this end, perhaps a governmental copyright record should be implemented. If you want your copyright to be legally recognized, then send them the title of the work, its category, some sort of checksum derived from it, and the list of copyright holders. And maybe a small processing fee, $5 or less perhaps.
3. Once all copyright holders have died, the work becomes public domain.
And that's basically it. Creators have control over their work, although they can give up their claim to it if they like (e.g. all individual animators on a Disney film giving up their copyright interest to Michael Eisner). The creators, and only the creators, can benefit from the system. There are plenty of logistic kinks but it's also better than the current system IMNSHO. The main problem I see with it is that it's definately a temporary fix, since any technology that either extends human lifespan significantly, or blurs the notion of individuality (like personality backups into sentient computers or something similar) would easily get around the system. Instead of 150-year-old corporations owning this, you'd just have a 250-year-old Michael Eisner owning everything.
I think the key word to emphasize here is style. Programming has far more freedom than any form of material engineering (gravity and material strength can be so repressive sometimes!), and so the style of the individual programmer is truly a form of expression -- his or her personal preference for getting from point A to point B, out of a near-infinite number of choices.
Slashdot Mirror
...that just don't happen to be video games: link.
A little redundant, unless you're a creationist.
Wow, if you only need Jimbo Wales' behavior to sour you on Objectivism, then I don't recommend that you read any Rand bios.
When Jackson wants to be paid $250 million, he's just being greedy. But when the studios want to NOT pay $250 million, they're not greedy at all.
The densest element so far was found in Dubya? Guess he's a member of the reality-based community after all!
http://www.sjgames.com/gamerfinder/
http://findplay.anvilwerks.com/
http://roleplayers.meetup.com/
(For starters.)
Khan shoots first.
Surprised no one mentioned this so far, but there's one development that has grown in influence over the last few years, and that's the Forge Booth. In a nutshell, this is a Gencon booth run by regulars at The Forge, a website devoted to discussion of RPG theory and how to make games that are coherent, instead of a jumbled mishmash of things put in either because they were "cool" or because "that's how RPGs are supposed to be."
It is pointless to make more and more complex games, when computers can do a much better job of tracking complex rule systems than people can. Not to mention that no one wants to play "Physics: The Calculating". Simulating reality is therefore kind of pointless. Instead you have to focus on the non-wargamey parts of RPGs, i.e. the story.
The Forge people get this and design their games accordingly. They have a laser-sharp focus on their subject matter and often produce amazing game sessions.
Two Forge games that are universally critically hailed are Dogs In The Vineyard and My Life With Master.
Dogs is set in a mythical west, where the PCs are a bit like Templars with six-guns. The game addresses the question of "how far are you willing to go to have your vision of righteousness made manifest?"
Master, on the other hand, addresses the premise of "Can you survive through love?" It is set in an anonymous central European town, where all the PCs are minions of an evil Master, a la Dr. Frankenstein/Igor. They have to try and gradually work up the courage (via forming relationships with the townsfolk) to overthrow the Master. Of course we know that eventually the Master will be overthrown (just like we know this in the movie, or we know that in D&D the PCs will slay the dragon); the excitement is in how it happens and what happens to the Minions prior to, and after, this event.
Now of course these games will never achieve the commercial success of D&D, or even one of the 2nd- or 3rd-tier of popularity like Vampire or GURPS. But in 5-10 years (mark my words!) this approach to RPGs will have sneakily infiltrated the mainstream.
I work for a national book chain. What cracked me up is that all of the pallets containing the new Harry Potter came in black shrink wrap (not unusual) and the delivery bill from the shipper said Hannukah on it!
IANAJ (Jew), but if I were I think I would be a little ticked off here -- what was the warehouse thinking? "Hmm, what loser holiday does NOBODY care about and will therefore encourage absolutely NO ONE to look inside the boxes?"
FYI: The next time your place of business gets 6000 pounds of Hannukah books for real... call the police because it's a PLO plot!
There's no way Lucas is going to pass up the opportunity to make "The Gungan Christmas Special"!
The music industry has been involved in payola for years and years, despite it being illegal. Why should they see this as anything different? They'll just come up with yet another excuse as to why this isn't payola. Is it a private gift from one individual to another, which -- totally coincidentally -- happens to be from an RIAA member to a NYPD officer? You can't prove anything! What, you want to outlaw gifts?
(In Soviet Russia, gifts outlaw YOU!)
Every geek knows that "hack" means a creative demonstration of skill, not to make an unauthorized break-in of someone else's system.
Therefore, the appropriate verb in this case is GNU/crack.
Thank you.
Which reminds me, I wonder if anyone at the IRS actually checks what job title you put on your tax forms?
As someone who used to work for the IRS, I can say yes, but it doesn't really matter. It's only when there is a large discongruity between your stated occupation and your actual income that it would raise a red flag.
I've seen people put "Bum" and "Domestic Goddess", in addition to a whole host of other things. In general, anyone worth the agency's resources to pursue for tax fraud is going to use a tax attorney anyway, who would therefore prima facie lack any sense of humor anyway. =^)
You wont get rats to stop trying to eat your food by hiding it. They just look harder for it because they know its still there. But if you can poison the food, they will die painfully.
Not true for rats, at least, and (therefore, presumably) not true for advertising.
According to Rats: Observations on the History and Habitat of the City's Most Unwanted Inhabitants by Robert Sullivan, poisoning rats has the opposite effect on the overall rat population. When the rat population density lowers, female rats have larger litters, and become pregnant more often. So the rat population increases, and because rats learn very quickly, they stop eating poisoned bait. The rat population will always expand to the limits of the edible food supply. The only way to lower their population is to starve them off.
I suspect it's the same with advertisers, from spammers to popup senders. Killing an individual type of advertising just creates a vacancy in the public mindshare that will be filled by the latest form of branding.
Rats is an excellent read, and the similarities between rats and advertisers are really too many to enumerate.
Well, there is the complete H.P. Lovecraft search engine:
:)
http://www.cthuugle.com
More people die every month in car crashes than died in the 9/11 attacks. While murderous intent is not behind these, the decisions made regarding drinking and driving, national auto safety standards, national road safety standards, etc., certainly are deliberate. Where's the outrage over this? The original poster was correct -- 9/11 was a tragedy, but let's keep our sense of perspective.
Pornographers were the ones arguing hardest for an XXX TLD during the TLD proposal a while back.
.xx doesn't get a TLD? A travety.
As a fan and patron of XX-rated movies, I resent this implicit discrimination. Anyone can put in an explicit love scene and get a cheesy single X. Anyone can show hardcore penetration and get two more. Achieving the coveted XX rating requires a subtle sense of artistic balance, combined with a grand vision -- yet
http://www.fatchucks.com
http://www.newpages.com
You should sneak into movies that you want to see, not because you want something without paying for it, but to make up for all the times that Hollywood has tricked you into paying for the same recycled crap. Very few industries use such blatantly false advertising, and even the most discerning moviegoer gets suckered on occasion by the cold, heartless maggots who decide upon the latest bilge to disguise as entertainment. Lex talionis works works for me: They rip me off, I rip them off.
I personally recommend How To Sneak Into The Movies for those interested in practical techniques.
That's no mere story! It's recorded in Herodotus' Histories. The king in question was Xerxes II, ruler of Persia in ~450 BCE. He was trying to build a bridge across the Hellespont (in the upper right of this map -- almost 2/3rds of a mile, no small feat back then) when a sudden storm tore apart the almost-completed bridge.
Xerxes flew into a rage and ordered that the Hellespont be given 300 lashes with a whip. During the whipping, the scourgers were instructed to say a variety of hateful insults to the ocean, and then a pair of leg irons were thrown into the sea as additional punishment. To top it all off, he had the sea branded a few times!
Xerxes wasn't really trying to make a point so much as he was a megalomaniac (he believed he was an incarnated god).
I believe the saying goes something like "Truth is stranger than fiction because fiction has to make sense to the writer."
(Extrapolation to our current commander-in-chief is left as an exercise for the reader.)
If you think being a consumer sucks, try being less of a consumer. People got along fine for thousands of years without CDs. Are they often convenient and enjoyable? Yes. Necessary? No. Stop confusing wants with needs.
This is a really good start and definately something that is worth working towards. It would also be easy (well, in theory) to implement since it's basically a codification of rights that have already been established. I think, however, that if the copyright system were patched up (i.e. if there was less incentive for corporate control of the media and its distribution), something like this would be superfluous. Here's something that's been kicking around my brain for a few weeks that could stand to be improved, so comments and suggestions would be nice. It's more radical than the "DCCR", so I'll freely admit that the odds of it ever happening are far slimmer. The basic idea is to create a compromise between the current situation and the anti-IP camp (disclaimer: I'm basically in the latter, but not fanatic about it) that seems reasonable and still respects the work of creators. So:
1. Copyright can only be owned by individuals, not companies, although any number of individuals may jointly own copyright.
1a. Presumably the copyright holders would contractualize the details of decision making regarding the copyrighted material.
2. Once copyright is declared, it may not be transferred.
2a. To this end, perhaps a governmental copyright record should be implemented. If you want your copyright to be legally recognized, then send them the title of the work, its category, some sort of checksum derived from it, and the list of copyright holders. And maybe a small processing fee, $5 or less perhaps.
3. Once all copyright holders have died, the work becomes public domain.
And that's basically it. Creators have control over their work, although they can give up their claim to it if they like (e.g. all individual animators on a Disney film giving up their copyright interest to Michael Eisner). The creators, and only the creators, can benefit from the system. There are plenty of logistic kinks but it's also better than the current system IMNSHO. The main problem I see with it is that it's definately a temporary fix, since any technology that either extends human lifespan significantly, or blurs the notion of individuality (like personality backups into sentient computers or something similar) would easily get around the system. Instead of 150-year-old corporations owning this, you'd just have a 250-year-old Michael Eisner owning everything.
Comments?
I think the key word to emphasize here is style. Programming has far more freedom than any form of material engineering (gravity and material strength can be so repressive sometimes!), and so the style of the individual programmer is truly a form of expression -- his or her personal preference for getting from point A to point B, out of a near-infinite number of choices.