Are there any organizations/groups that can exert pressure on software companies (or even government bodies) to simplify EULAs? If so, we should support these efforts. If not, one should be created.
The era of "the customer is always right" is long gone. Shady and immoral business practices are no longer isolated to organized crime rings; they are now used by large, popular corporations. We are no longer customers in the minds of businesspeople - we are only consumers.
Well, this is certainly interesting. I'm not too terribly concerned about it right now, because I know how great Otomo's Akira is. (It was great for me, anyway. If you don't like it, that's fine with me.)
I propose that we wait and see. When the remake is released, one of two major scenarios will occur:
~Scenario I~
John Doe, American TV-Watcher: "That movie was good/great/awesome/cool/etc."
Bob Smith, Otaku: "Since you liked that, why not see the original? If you have any questions about it, I'd be happy to answer them."
~Scenario II~
John Doe: "That movie sucked/was horrible/etc."
Bob Smith: "Yeah, the adaptation was badly done. You might like the original better. If you have any questions, just let me know."
You see, whether the adaptation turns out to be good or bad is less important than what we, the anime-experienced, do to introduce the viewers to the original Akira. The adaptation can be a portal, an introduction to anime for those who don't know about it, or whose knowledge consists of what anime they see on American television (which, if you think about it, is all adapted in some form before it reaches the networks/cable).
Wow, check this out. As of right now, about 30% of voters are surprised (and probably a bit upset) of "Fellowship of the Ring being largely shunned".
Maybe Slashdot should start giving out awards. How about little golden statuettes of CowboyNeal? I can't imagine anybody who wouldn't want one of those.
As far as precedent dictates, The Two Towers and The Return of the King are just as eligible for Oscars as The Fellowship of the Ring.
Take Star Wars for example. The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi were both sequels to A New Hope, but both ESB and RotJ won awards, even after ANH won 6 Oscars.
I'm sure there are other examples as well, but this was the first one that came to mind.
Furthermore, IMHO, "Towers" and "Return" have a greater potential of being recognized, simply because the story was just getting started with "Fellowship". The next two will hopefully be even better than the first.
One principle of data storage that many people overlook is data maintenance. Think about it; it makes sense. Everything decays, whether it's rock, paper, celluloid, magnetic tape/disk, or plastic-encased discs of reflective metal. Even the polarization of magnetic domains and the waveforms of electromagnetic energy. It all breaks down eventually.
Furthermore, storage methods and technologies evolve. It wasn't very long ago that Thomas Edison made the very first audio recording on a cylinder of metal foil. Look how far we've come since then.
For these two reasons (decay and evolution), you cannot record one generation of something (for example, the first edition of a book, or the original pressing of a CD) and expect the information to last. If you want it to last, you must maintain the data, and the medium on which it is stored. This would mean checking the integrity of the data every few years, and re-recording the data when necessary, possibly on a new type of media.
Because the development of new forms of storage is a continuous, overlapping process, there should be no trouble transferring the data from one type of media to another as long as it's done within a reasonable amount of time. For example, it's currently very easy (legal barriers aside) to convert the information on old audio casette tapes to CD or DVD audio. As long as both technologies exist in some form (or can be reconstructed), the conversion can be made.
Finally, proper storage of media is essential. Most of the ancient information media that we have today, such as the Rosetta Stone, are still around because they were "stored" in environments that did little damage to them. The six most important words for storing data media are "Keep in a cool, dry place."
A year or two ago, my team (Team 85, Built on Brains) used pneumatics with considerable success. Albeit the use was limited to one or two subsystems (opening an closing the lid of a bin, opening and closing a claw), but these subsystems performed their jobs very well when the robot was completed. And the whole robot was about 80% student built, too.
You can use pneumatics successfully, if you do it right!
As a former FIRST team member, (Go Team 85! Go BOB!) I can say without reservation that this program is excellent. It does just what it was created to do: it inspires students to pursue careers in science and technology.
As many of you probably realize, there's much, much more that goes into a team's season that simply building the robot. Here's a rough breakdown of the 'season':
-Kickoff: The game, the rules, and the items supplied to the teams are described and distributed.
-Design: Students and corporate engineers work together to design a robot that performs the necessary tasks to play the game with the materials they are allowed to use. Concepts become sketches, sketches become designs, designs become blueprints.
Construction: The robot is put together. Students and engineers fabricate the frame and construct the robot. Control, drive, pneumatic, and sensory systems are installed.
Programming: The electronic control system (based on Parallax's BASIC Stamp) is programmed.
Testing and Practice: The robot is tested, and bugs are worked out. Drivers are selected, and practice playing the game.
The ideal final product is a high-performance robotic athlete. This all happens within 6 weeks. The robot is then shipped to be approved for competition.
There's even more that goes on during the pre-competition season. Funds are raised (this isn't cheap, by any means), and community awareness is promoted. On several occasions, my team has taken robots from previous years and visited local elementary and junior-high schools. There are also several non-game awards, such as the Chairman's Award, awards presented by Autodesk, Judge's award, and awards for sportsmanship and community involvement.
The regional and national competitions are some of the most intense and exciting times any engineering or computer science student will ever experience. Besides controlling the robot for the few brief minutes of actual gameplay, students and engineers repair their robot in the Pit, scope out their competition and potential allies, and support the team from the stands. No two robots are the same; some do one part of the game better, others are good all-around. Each team's robot has a different way of getting the job done, despite the fact that each team received the same materials from the Kickoff.
The competition is fierce. There are stellar victories and crushing defeats. However, the fun and friendliness between opponents is (in most cases) preserved.
This is only a short and rather poor description of FIRST. To get a more whole picture, talk with students and engineers who have participated/are participating in FIRST. There's a very good chance that there's a team at a high school near you!
Now, addressing some of those whose experiences and opinions are not similar to mine (the arguments):
Concerning DeadBugs' "What They Really Learn"
I am sorry to learn that this is how your team works. Your team is missing the point of FIRST by miles. The idea behind FIRST is that the students do most of the designing and creation, and the engineers help and guide them. Some robots in the competition are 75% or more student-built. And yes, these robots can do very well (3rd place nationals). IMHO, your team needs evaluate itself in light of the ideas and purposes of FIRST, and get on the right track.
Concerning cwhittenburg's "Learn more from Junkyard Wars"
First, the teams are most definitely not provided with all the parts they need. Far from it. Teams must purchase much of the items and supplies that are used to construct the robot. The team can also pick and choose which items from the supplied kit they will use on their robot. One of the kit's major purposes is to ensure that robots are not too dissimilar. With the items that are supplied to the teams, the team has several different types of each basic item from which to choose. Continuing with your analogy, this is similar to being provided with several different engines, several different transmissions, several different wheels, etc. It's up to the team to get all these to work together. Also, some items can be significantly modified and customized.
Second, some robots are, very unfortunately, designed, constructed, and programmed mostly by the professional engineers on a team instead of the students. This is contrary to the ideas and purposes behind FIRST. (See above response to "What They Really Learn")
That's my perspective, as a former FIRST Team member and a current senior in high school. The only reason I'm not involved now is the fact that I don't have enough free time to devote myself to extracurricular activities. I'd jump without hesitation at the chance to become involved again.
...John Williams??? Even if the movie is made, it will be in no way complete unless the music is composed and musicians directed by the great John Williams. He created the music for the first three Indy movies. The scores for all four Star Wars films, Jaws, Superman, Saving Private Ryan, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and many, many others have all been composed by Williams. I will be sorely disappointed if Lucas and Spielberg leave him out.
Slashdot Mirror
Are there any organizations/groups that can exert pressure on software companies (or even government bodies) to simplify EULAs? If so, we should support these efforts. If not, one should be created.
The era of "the customer is always right" is long gone. Shady and immoral business practices are no longer isolated to organized crime rings; they are now used by large, popular corporations. We are no longer customers in the minds of businesspeople - we are only consumers.
We need to fight back.
Well, this is certainly interesting. I'm not too terribly concerned about it right now, because I know how great Otomo's Akira is. (It was great for me, anyway. If you don't like it, that's fine with me.)
I propose that we wait and see. When the remake is released, one of two major scenarios will occur:
~Scenario I~
John Doe, American TV-Watcher: "That movie was good/great/awesome/cool/etc."
Bob Smith, Otaku: "Since you liked that, why not see the original? If you have any questions about it, I'd be happy to answer them."
~Scenario II~
John Doe: "That movie sucked/was horrible/etc."
Bob Smith: "Yeah, the adaptation was badly done. You might like the original better. If you have any questions, just let me know."
You see, whether the adaptation turns out to be good or bad is less important than what we, the anime-experienced, do to introduce the viewers to the original Akira. The adaptation can be a portal, an introduction to anime for those who don't know about it, or whose knowledge consists of what anime they see on American television (which, if you think about it, is all adapted in some form before it reaches the networks/cable).
Wow, check this out. As of right now, about 30% of voters are surprised (and probably a bit upset) of "Fellowship of the Ring being largely shunned".
Maybe Slashdot should start giving out awards. How about little golden statuettes of CowboyNeal? I can't imagine anybody who wouldn't want one of those.
As far as precedent dictates, The Two Towers and The Return of the King are just as eligible for Oscars as The Fellowship of the Ring.
Take Star Wars for example. The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi were both sequels to A New Hope, but both ESB and RotJ won awards, even after ANH won 6 Oscars.
I'm sure there are other examples as well, but this was the first one that came to mind.
Furthermore, IMHO, "Towers" and "Return" have a greater potential of being recognized, simply because the story was just getting started with "Fellowship". The next two will hopefully be even better than the first.
Don't give up hope!
One principle of data storage that many people overlook is data maintenance. Think about it; it makes sense. Everything decays, whether it's rock, paper, celluloid, magnetic tape/disk, or plastic-encased discs of reflective metal. Even the polarization of magnetic domains and the waveforms of electromagnetic energy. It all breaks down eventually.
Furthermore, storage methods and technologies evolve. It wasn't very long ago that Thomas Edison made the very first audio recording on a cylinder of metal foil. Look how far we've come since then.
For these two reasons (decay and evolution), you cannot record one generation of something (for example, the first edition of a book, or the original pressing of a CD) and expect the information to last. If you want it to last, you must maintain the data, and the medium on which it is stored. This would mean checking the integrity of the data every few years, and re-recording the data when necessary, possibly on a new type of media.
Because the development of new forms of storage is a continuous, overlapping process, there should be no trouble transferring the data from one type of media to another as long as it's done within a reasonable amount of time. For example, it's currently very easy (legal barriers aside) to convert the information on old audio casette tapes to CD or DVD audio. As long as both technologies exist in some form (or can be reconstructed), the conversion can be made.
Finally, proper storage of media is essential. Most of the ancient information media that we have today, such as the Rosetta Stone, are still around because they were "stored" in environments that did little damage to them. The six most important words for storing data media are "Keep in a cool, dry place."
Just my two cents worth of incoherent rambling...
Prof. Woodie Flowers is also the co-founder of FIRST. Think there's a connection? :)
A year or two ago, my team (Team 85, Built on Brains) used pneumatics with considerable success. Albeit the use was limited to one or two subsystems (opening an closing the lid of a bin, opening and closing a claw), but these subsystems performed their jobs very well when the robot was completed. And the whole robot was about 80% student built, too.
You can use pneumatics successfully, if you do it right!
--LF3
As a former FIRST team member, (Go Team 85! Go BOB!) I can say without reservation that this program is excellent. It does just what it was created to do: it inspires students to pursue careers in science and technology.
As many of you probably realize, there's much, much more that goes into a team's season that simply building the robot. Here's a rough breakdown of the 'season':
-Kickoff: The game, the rules, and the items supplied to the teams are described and distributed.
-Design: Students and corporate engineers work together to design a robot that performs the necessary tasks to play the game with the materials they are allowed to use. Concepts become sketches, sketches become designs, designs become blueprints.
Construction: The robot is put together. Students and engineers fabricate the frame and construct the robot. Control, drive, pneumatic, and sensory systems are installed.
Programming: The electronic control system (based on Parallax's BASIC Stamp) is programmed.
Testing and Practice: The robot is tested, and bugs are worked out. Drivers are selected, and practice playing the game.
The ideal final product is a high-performance robotic athlete. This all happens within 6 weeks. The robot is then shipped to be approved for competition.
There's even more that goes on during the pre-competition season. Funds are raised (this isn't cheap, by any means), and community awareness is promoted. On several occasions, my team has taken robots from previous years and visited local elementary and junior-high schools. There are also several non-game awards, such as the Chairman's Award, awards presented by Autodesk, Judge's award, and awards for sportsmanship and community involvement.
The regional and national competitions are some of the most intense and exciting times any engineering or computer science student will ever experience. Besides controlling the robot for the few brief minutes of actual gameplay, students and engineers repair their robot in the Pit, scope out their competition and potential allies, and support the team from the stands. No two robots are the same; some do one part of the game better, others are good all-around. Each team's robot has a different way of getting the job done, despite the fact that each team received the same materials from the Kickoff.
The competition is fierce. There are stellar victories and crushing defeats. However, the fun and friendliness between opponents is (in most cases) preserved.
This is only a short and rather poor description of FIRST. To get a more whole picture, talk with students and engineers who have participated/are participating in FIRST. There's a very good chance that there's a team at a high school near you!
Now, addressing some of those whose experiences and opinions are not similar to mine (the arguments):
Concerning DeadBugs' "What They Really Learn"
I am sorry to learn that this is how your team works. Your team is missing the point of FIRST by miles. The idea behind FIRST is that the students do most of the designing and creation, and the engineers help and guide them. Some robots in the competition are 75% or more student-built. And yes, these robots can do very well (3rd place nationals). IMHO, your team needs evaluate itself in light of the ideas and purposes of FIRST, and get on the right track.
Concerning cwhittenburg's "Learn more from Junkyard Wars"
First, the teams are most definitely not provided with all the parts they need. Far from it. Teams must purchase much of the items and supplies that are used to construct the robot. The team can also pick and choose which items from the supplied kit they will use on their robot. One of the kit's major purposes is to ensure that robots are not too dissimilar. With the items that are supplied to the teams, the team has several different types of each basic item from which to choose. Continuing with your analogy, this is similar to being provided with several different engines, several different transmissions, several different wheels, etc. It's up to the team to get all these to work together. Also, some items can be significantly modified and customized.
Second, some robots are, very unfortunately, designed, constructed, and programmed mostly by the professional engineers on a team instead of the students. This is contrary to the ideas and purposes behind FIRST. (See above response to "What They Really Learn")
That's my perspective, as a former FIRST Team member and a current senior in high school. The only reason I'm not involved now is the fact that I don't have enough free time to devote myself to extracurricular activities. I'd jump without hesitation at the chance to become involved again.
--LightForce3
Comments/Replies appreciated
...John Williams??? Even if the movie is made, it will be in no way complete unless the music is composed and musicians directed by the great John Williams. He created the music for the first three Indy movies. The scores for all four Star Wars films, Jaws, Superman, Saving Private Ryan, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and many, many others have all been composed by Williams. I will be sorely disappointed if Lucas and Spielberg leave him out.