It's the "deception" that is the problem though. It's too easy to just call it all entertainment and pretend that we should all stop being naive.. that doesn't make these ads OK.
The general mass of people are expecting home-videos on YouTube, not subtle advertising. Part of YouTube's charm was that these were real-people (IE not professionals) making home videos. Even if it results in the the exact same product, it makes a difference if it was a professional advertisement or an amateur home-video. It's the difference between being truly entertained because you can relate on a personal level versus being emotionally manipulated by a slick sales-pitch.
Take for instance these new StarTrek episodes being created by amateurs in the vein of the original series. Part of their appeal is nostalgia for the old series, but also the fact that it's an amateur production without big studio money behind it that makes them so amazing. Imagine now if it were revealed that it really was Time-Warner or Fox that was producing them. Now the exact same product is just low-budget crap, made even more crappy because we were misled.
I'm a hacker in the geek sense but I also refer to the illicit type as hackers too. Like you say, words are defined by how they're used by the majority AND they can have more than meaning.
In fact, the ONLY time I ever hear the term cracker being used to refer to in the "illicit computer activity" sense is here on slashdot when some old school pedantist gets his panties in a knot. In any other context is just a bread-like product eaten with soup.
There is one solution to this. Ignore the law. If your government wants to make you a criminal then embrace your criminality. Put the financial burden of enforcement and prosecution on them and their corporate sponsors. I used to believe that way to protest things like this was to exercise your vote but... that just doesn't work, at least not by itself. No.. I think if you don't like the way you're governed, you have to refuse to be governed.
Case in point: In Canada we had a retarded gun registry that made criminals overnight out of the better part of the rural west including most of my family. Needless to say, the law was ignored and amongst the members of my family alone we've probably got enough firepower for a small army - all "illegal". We were not the only ones by a long shot.
And the governments attempts to "bring people on board" gradually went from pathetic to laughable. It was a well known fact that the majority of gun-owners refused to register their firearms and the government spent millions on ad-campaigns trying to encourage registration, almost begging actually. Their credibility pretty much hanged on compliance. Then the deadlines kept getting extended....
Well, billions of wasted dollars later the long-arm portion of the registry is finally being scrapped by the new conservative governement. There's not a lot of fanfare approving of the dismantlement because quite frankly it was never a big issue out west. We just ignored it and as a consequence it didn't impact our lives in any way.
Granted...there's a difference in a law requiring active participation to do something versus a law that makes it illegal to do something, but the point is this: Western democratic governments may sometimes pass inane legislation, but most (I hope?) are faily loathe to actually criminalize any substantial part of their constituency. So really... if you find a law objectionable and not obeying it doesn't actually harm anyone... then just refuse to let it affect your life in any way.
And don't forget to vote. Probably won't change anything by itself but you'll feel better knowing the bastards didn't get *your* vote.
From my reading of the article, the software does not enforce laws, it enforces standardized sentencing. My understanding is that the software only plays a role once guilt has already been determined. Its meant to prevent the local judges (who, as the article stated often haven't even been to law school) from imposing arbitrary prison sentences. The details of the crime are submitted and the program returns the sentence according to the established standards rather than according to a possibly corrupt judge's discretion.
Amazon is a bad example though. If Amazon went down...so what. All that would happen is you wouldn't be able to buy a book online from Amazon.
The question is more pertinent to web "services" that one would presumably rely on day-to-day. IE. online banking (more specifically - banks like ING that don't have brick-and-mortar presence), online photo albums, or better yet: online word processors and spreadsheets. If any of these suddenly become unavailable whether due to problems with connectivity or sudden unforeseen bankruptcy, then it hits much closer to home because it's "your stuff" that you're locked out of even if it is just bits on a server somewhere.
Sure there's alternatives. But that's the point. Are people ready to trust online services given that we're familiar with the alternatives that we know won't fail us?
Weird how two people reading the same sentence can have such differing interpretations of it. I thought the "parenthesis" ("") were simply to add "emphasis" to the "fact" that the "article" was about banned {{AND}} "challenged" books and that the "definition" of !!!banned!!! was ***RATHER**** L_O_O_S_E.
My mother tried to ban me from playing D&D because it was the "work of Satan" and when that didn't work I would catch her praying over my RPG materials. Well, I didn't grow up to be a serial killer so I guess she figures her prayers must have worked. About a month ago I had to intervene when she started scolding my niece about her "Satanic Pokemon cards". Nothing drives me up the wall more than hearing religious parents extoll the virtues of this kind of zero-tolerance approach to anything "imaginative" and as evidence of the effectiveness they point to their quiet and well-behaved children. Quiet? I mean sullen and afraid to express themselves lest they invoke the wrath of one of God's earthly overseers.
Now that I'm a father I read to my six-year old daughter EVERY night. We play CRPG games like Morrowind and Diablo together and I hope that when she's old enough we'll be able to enjoy some classic table-top D&D too.
So yeah... the world needs more parents like you: ones that get involved with their children and nurture their imaginations. Keep up the good work.
You know, speaking as a Canadian... I've NEVER heard anyone say "aboot" other than in the context of mocking Canadian speech. I've heard people use the other cliche 'eh', but even then it was more prevalent in the 80's due to the popularity of "Bob and Doug" on SCTV. "Aboot" sounds like it may be something that someone from Newfoundland of Nova Scotia might say.. but then it would hardly be representative of the general Canadian public.. or am I just missing some great Trend-setting Canadian Television again.
Since when did "having done something" become a requirement for criticizing something that many view with suspicion? Am I "not" allowed to complain about a landfill being built in my neighbourhood because I never built one myself?
Microsoft is a publicly trade company and as such is driven by shareholder value. They are not a charitable organization. Furthermore they have a track record of unethical and illegal behaviour. Around the world!
Why would you NOT be suspicious of their motives? And even if their intentions are noble... I concede, it may genuinely be a reflection of their desire to turn over a new leaf now that their master has stepped down... still it raises a concern: do we "really" want the education of our children in the hands of a corporation? They're aren't just donating textbooks or laptops.. they are spreading a corporate methodology and it's quite reasonable to ask if this is really appropriate whether you have personally contributed to public education or not!
No publisher is going to publish their media on an OS nobody uses and no user is going to migrate to another OS just to get said DRM'ed media if that's all that its good for. If the publishers stopped publishing on Windows we'd simply be right back to where we were, oh, say, a year ago? You know.. with all the media you ever wanted for "free" via P2P. Simple fact is DRM has not stopped anyone from getting something they really wanted. People are using the pay-services for either a) convenience or b) the desire to be legal. If the MS DRM thing doesn't fly then the only choice the publishers will have is to either a) ignore the problem and cross their fingers or b) offer reasonable DRM-free alternatives. Or they can simply close shop... which given the quality of the entertainment producet lately isn't such a bad idea.
So...the natural response to a stupid line of reasoning is another stupid line of reasoning? I don't get how someone else saying something "stupid" (which is subjective) forces anyone else to say something stupid. Maybe I'm just stupid though.
Mines have become rather sophisticated (as the article demonstrates). Some mines detonate only under specific pressure ranges (to specifically target light vehicles versus heavy vehicles versus personnel), others only have they've been hit once or twice (to prevent being detonated by mine removal equipment like bowling balls). Some detonate only in response to changes in air pressure or the presence of magnetic fields. Others quite frankly are left in the ground long enough that natural deterioration makes them rather unpredictable.
Point is, without going into an area and doing a thorough survey of the ground and dealing with them on a case by case basis you can't really tell what you're dealing with. Thus adhoc methods like throwing bowling balls aren't very effective in the general case. You're certainly not going to be able to deal with anything but the most primitive mines and oddly enough sophisticated methods of clearing an area won't deal with many of the less-than-sophisticated mines.
But then people like yourself hop all over it and stomp down anything that might be construed as an olive branch.
And why not... only an idiot would accept an olive branch after having been handed one time and time again only to find a buzzer prank hidden under one of the leaves, or a wad of vaseline, or even the exploding bag of s**t. Microsoft has lost credibility. Period. If they're ever genuinely interested in restoring that trust they will have to prove themselves on their own without expecting accolades or pats on the back. You don't send a serial rapist for treatment then give him a big hug because he goes a single day without raping again.
The Sims may not have a winner... but when your sim is pulling his hair out and throwing temper tantrums because he can't find a bathroom (because you spent all your simoleons on the plasma television) causing him to miss work and get fired compounding the lack of funds siutation... well. I hesitate to say there is no loser.
Time limit? why? More specifically, why do you feel the need to be able to keep up with the time commitments of someone else? Even if the time allotments were equalized, how do you deal with the new players? What is the difference, game-wise, between someone who is 'lower-leveled' because they're new as opposed to someone who is lower-leveled because they haven't commited the time? Maybe you're just upset that you never get to see your name on the highscores list, which, if that is your goal, seems to be a poor reason to play a game. But more to the point, if that is where you have issues with fairness, then how is a time limit fair to new players who constrained by the time limit would 'never' see their names in the highscores.
Exactly. Or we go back to older methods. My grandfather's house has aluminum wiring. It's not considered safe anymore, but if copper supplies become an issue someone will find a way to make it safer. It is abundant after all.
I think you're reading too much into the original post - perhaps poorly stated in one line.
Quite frankly I'm more afraid of a pill that helps you forget trauma than the trauma itself. We've made a lot of social progress since the days of the casual Viking Sack and rape have probably. Somehow I feel a lot of this was due to the desire of the traumatized to no longer be victimized, themselves or others.
Painful or not - people being hurt leads to action to prevent it.
Why spend millions on education and crime prevention and social progress when you can just give anyone who feels victimized a pill.
Just because you live in a large flat province doesn't mean you drive across the width of it every day. And as large and flat as it is, it IS still dotted with small communities spaced conveniently apart, so there's no worry about running out of gas because you haven't seen a service station for SIX friggin hours.
That said, 300-350 might still not be enough range for those poor souls living in the Gobi desert.
Slashdot Mirror
It's the "deception" that is the problem though. It's too easy to just call it all entertainment and pretend that we should all stop being naive.. that doesn't make these ads OK.
The general mass of people are expecting home-videos on YouTube, not subtle advertising. Part of YouTube's charm was that these were real-people (IE not professionals) making home videos. Even if it results in the the exact same product, it makes a difference if it was a professional advertisement or an amateur home-video. It's the difference between being truly entertained because you can relate on a personal level versus being emotionally manipulated by a slick sales-pitch.
Take for instance these new StarTrek episodes being created by amateurs in the vein of the original series. Part of their appeal is nostalgia for the old series, but also the fact that it's an amateur production without big studio money behind it that makes them so amazing. Imagine now if it were revealed that it really was Time-Warner or Fox that was producing them. Now the exact same product is just low-budget crap, made even more crappy because we were misled.
Fact: Governments are, by far, the #1 polluter in the world.
Care to point us to any references that corroborate this?
Hear hear!
I'm a hacker in the geek sense but I also refer to the illicit type as hackers too. Like you say, words are defined by how they're used by the majority AND they can have more than meaning.
In fact, the ONLY time I ever hear the term cracker being used to refer to in the "illicit computer activity" sense is here on slashdot when some old school pedantist gets his panties in a knot. In any other context is just a bread-like product eaten with soup.
There is one solution to this. Ignore the law. If your government wants to make you a criminal then embrace your criminality. Put the financial burden of enforcement and prosecution on them and their corporate sponsors. I used to believe that way to protest things like this was to exercise your vote but... that just doesn't work, at least not by itself. No.. I think if you don't like the way you're governed, you have to refuse to be governed.
Case in point: In Canada we had a retarded gun registry that made criminals overnight out of the better part of the rural west including most of my family. Needless to say, the law was ignored and amongst the members of my family alone we've probably got enough firepower for a small army - all "illegal". We were not the only ones by a long shot.
And the governments attempts to "bring people on board" gradually went from pathetic to laughable. It was a well known fact that the majority of gun-owners refused to register their firearms and the government spent millions on ad-campaigns trying to encourage registration, almost begging actually. Their credibility pretty much hanged on compliance. Then the deadlines kept getting extended....
Well, billions of wasted dollars later the long-arm portion of the registry is finally being scrapped by the new conservative governement. There's not a lot of fanfare approving of the dismantlement because quite frankly it was never a big issue out west. We just ignored it and as a consequence it didn't impact our lives in any way.
Granted...there's a difference in a law requiring active participation to do something versus a law that makes it illegal to do something, but the point is this: Western democratic governments may sometimes pass inane legislation, but most (I hope?) are faily loathe to actually criminalize any substantial part of their constituency. So really... if you find a law objectionable and not obeying it doesn't actually harm anyone... then just refuse to let it affect your life in any way.
And don't forget to vote. Probably won't change anything by itself but you'll feel better knowing the bastards didn't get *your* vote.
I agree with you, yet...
I don't see how that applies here.
From my reading of the article, the software does not enforce laws, it enforces standardized sentencing.
My understanding is that the software only plays a role once guilt has already been determined. Its meant to prevent the local judges (who, as the article stated often haven't even been to law school) from imposing arbitrary prison sentences. The details of the crime are submitted and the program returns the sentence according to the established standards rather than according to a possibly corrupt judge's discretion.
Amazon is a bad example though. If Amazon went down...so what. All that would happen is you wouldn't be able to buy a book online from Amazon.
The question is more pertinent to web "services" that one would presumably rely on day-to-day. IE. online banking (more specifically - banks like ING that don't have brick-and-mortar presence), online photo albums, or better yet: online word processors and spreadsheets. If any of these suddenly become unavailable whether due to problems with connectivity or sudden unforeseen bankruptcy, then it hits much closer to home because it's "your stuff" that you're locked out of even if it is just bits on a server somewhere.
Sure there's alternatives. But that's the point. Are people ready to trust online services given that we're familiar with the alternatives that we know won't fail us?
Weird how two people reading the same sentence can have such differing interpretations of it. I thought the "parenthesis" ("") were simply to add "emphasis" to the "fact" that the "article" was about banned {{AND}} "challenged" books and that the "definition" of !!!banned!!! was ***RATHER**** L_O_O_S_E.
Why couldn't we all have parents like you.
My mother tried to ban me from playing D&D because it was the "work of Satan" and when that didn't work I would catch her praying over my RPG materials. Well, I didn't grow up to be a serial killer so I guess she figures her prayers must have worked. About a month ago I had to intervene when she started scolding my niece about her "Satanic Pokemon cards". Nothing drives me up the wall more than hearing religious parents extoll the virtues of this kind of zero-tolerance approach to anything "imaginative" and as evidence of the effectiveness they point to their quiet and well-behaved children. Quiet? I mean sullen and afraid to express themselves lest they invoke the wrath of one of God's earthly overseers.
Now that I'm a father I read to my six-year old daughter EVERY night. We play CRPG games like Morrowind and Diablo together and I hope that when she's old enough we'll be able to enjoy some classic table-top D&D too.
So yeah... the world needs more parents like you: ones that get involved with their children and nurture their imaginations. Keep up the good work.
You know, speaking as a Canadian... I've NEVER heard anyone say "aboot" other than in the context of mocking Canadian speech. I've heard people use the other cliche 'eh', but even then it was more prevalent in the 80's due to the popularity of "Bob and Doug" on SCTV. "Aboot" sounds like it may be something that someone from Newfoundland of Nova Scotia might say.. but then it would hardly be representative of the general Canadian public.. or am I just missing some great Trend-setting Canadian Television again.
Why is this rated "insightful"?
Since when did "having done something" become a requirement for criticizing something that many view with suspicion? Am I "not" allowed to complain about a landfill being built in my neighbourhood because I never built one myself?
Microsoft is a publicly trade company and as such is driven by shareholder value. They are not a charitable organization. Furthermore they have a track record of unethical and illegal behaviour. Around the world!
Why would you NOT be suspicious of their motives? And even if their intentions are noble... I concede, it may genuinely be a reflection of their desire to turn over a new leaf now that their master has stepped down... still it raises a concern: do we "really" want the education of our children in the hands of a corporation? They're aren't just donating textbooks or laptops.. they are spreading a corporate methodology and it's quite reasonable to ask if this is really appropriate whether you have personally contributed to public education or not!
This makes no sense.
Migrate to "what" other OS with better DRM?
No publisher is going to publish their media on an OS nobody uses and no user is going to migrate to another OS just to get said DRM'ed media if that's all that its good for. If the publishers stopped publishing on Windows we'd simply be right back to where we were, oh, say, a year ago? You know.. with all the media you ever wanted for "free" via P2P. Simple fact is DRM has not stopped anyone from getting something they really wanted. People are using the pay-services for either a) convenience or b) the desire to be legal. If the MS DRM thing doesn't fly then the only choice the publishers will have is to either a) ignore the problem and cross their fingers or b) offer reasonable DRM-free alternatives. Or they can simply close shop... which given the quality of the entertainment producet lately isn't such a bad idea.
Lara Crigger.
aka Jon Katz?
So...the natural response to a stupid line of reasoning is another stupid line of reasoning?
I don't get how someone else saying something "stupid" (which is subjective) forces anyone else to say something stupid.
Maybe I'm just stupid though.
Mines have become rather sophisticated (as the article demonstrates). Some mines detonate only under specific pressure ranges (to specifically target light vehicles versus heavy vehicles versus personnel), others only have they've been hit once or twice (to prevent being detonated by mine removal equipment like bowling balls). Some detonate only in response to changes in air pressure or the presence of magnetic fields. Others quite frankly are left in the ground long enough that natural deterioration makes them rather unpredictable.
Point is, without going into an area and doing a thorough survey of the ground and dealing with them on a case by case basis you can't really tell what you're dealing with. Thus adhoc methods like throwing bowling balls aren't very effective in the general case. You're certainly not going to be able to deal with anything but the most primitive mines and oddly enough sophisticated methods of clearing an area won't deal with many of the less-than-sophisticated mines.
But then people like yourself hop all over it and stomp down anything that might be construed as an olive branch.
And why not... only an idiot would accept an olive branch after having been handed one time and time again only to find a buzzer prank hidden under one of the leaves, or a wad of vaseline, or even the exploding bag of s**t. Microsoft has lost credibility. Period. If they're ever genuinely interested in restoring that trust they will have to prove themselves on their own without expecting accolades or pats on the back. You don't send a serial rapist for treatment then give him a big hug because he goes a single day without raping again.
The Sims may not have a winner... but when your sim is pulling his hair out and throwing temper tantrums because he can't find a bathroom (because you spent all your simoleons on the plasma television) causing him to miss work and get fired compounding the lack of funds siutation... well. I hesitate to say there is no loser.
Time limit? why? More specifically, why do you feel the need to be able to keep up with the time commitments of someone else? Even if the time allotments were equalized, how do you deal with the new players? What is the difference, game-wise, between someone who is 'lower-leveled' because they're new as opposed to someone who is lower-leveled because they haven't commited the time? Maybe you're just upset that you never get to see your name on the highscores list, which, if that is your goal, seems to be a poor reason to play a game. But more to the point, if that is where you have issues with fairness, then how is a time limit fair to new players who constrained by the time limit would 'never' see their names in the highscores.
Exactly. Or we go back to older methods. My grandfather's house has aluminum wiring. It's not considered safe anymore, but if copper supplies become an issue someone will find a way to make it safer. It is abundant after all.
I think you're reading too much into the original post - perhaps poorly stated in one line.
Quite frankly I'm more afraid of a pill that helps you forget trauma than the trauma itself. We've made a lot of social progress since the days of the casual Viking Sack and rape have probably. Somehow I feel a lot of this was due to the desire of the traumatized to no longer be victimized, themselves or others.
Painful or not - people being hurt leads to action to prevent it.
Why spend millions on education and crime prevention and social progress when you can just give anyone who feels victimized a pill.
On that note... I nominate Bruce Campbell for the lead role.
It means you're getting laid...
Whoohoo!!!
Just because you live in a large flat province doesn't mean you drive across the width of it every day. And as large and flat as it is, it IS still dotted with small communities spaced conveniently apart, so there's no worry about running out of gas because you haven't seen a service station for SIX friggin hours.
That said, 300-350 might still not be enough range for those poor souls living in the Gobi desert.
I guess in this version Jango Fett was the space traveling alter-ego of Fred Astaire.
I'm not sure all that feel-good music will work with Storm Troopers, and rebel star systems trying to escape Imperial rule.
Unless its the sight and sound of storm troopers tap-dancing to showtunes that is fueling the rebellion.
Nooooooo! Make the stop!!!! DIE DIE DIE!
I think he must have meant the "facial contortions" were actually fairly complex when listening to the Brittney Spears song.