Personally, I actually don't think this is a "major design accomplishment" of GTA3. See my post on the matter, last one on the first page of this thread, and subsequent discussion.
Sure, but TPM and AOTC are continuations of series that revolutionized the industry. What are the chances that the Matrix or Spider-Man sequels are each going to create new revolutions? Are revolutions really the important thing, here? When it comes to successful series, don't we want them to maintain a consistency of tone and narrative, to large extent? Would we have wanted the Godfather sequels to each have radically different approaches? e.g. would it have been better to do Godfather Part II in the style of Pulp Fiction, if that meant it would "revolutionize" movies in such a fashion before Tarantino made his breakthrough film?
I just don't see why we're suddenly lambasting Attack of the Clones merely because it might not do something markedly different from the SW movies before it.
For the love of god (again), just because Spider-Man is successful, just because hot new franchises are *capable* of being created, does NOT atuomatically invalidate Star Wars. Revolutionary my ass. I'm in it for the saga, and there sure as hell isn't any saga like Star Wars. It's an ongoing revolution, with more staying power than any of these so-called contenders.
Does every movie need to revolutionize the special effects industry in order to be validated?
And while The Matrix is very nice (but certainly not an "easy-to-digest" story), it's universe is nevertheless not a very imaginative one visually. Typical post-apocalyptic imagery, typical modern day urban settings. It has a sense of style, but that's it. Star Wars conveys the hustle and bustle of an intergalactic melting-pot. The Matrix can't inspire the flood of books that flesh out the Star Wars universe. Star Wars stands as a work of creative genius (not necessarily confined to one man).
For the love of god, STFU. How many times do I have to hear about "the power of myth"? Why are we making god-stupid comparisons between Spider-Man and Star Wars? Yes, Spider-Man is simpler than Star Wars. Why the hell does that matter? Different stories, different complexities. STFU.
Shit, come ten years from now, which movies do you think I'll still be watching quite frequently?
Sheesh. Someone comes up with something GOOD, and CmdrTaco can't do anything but find some negative angle on it. How did this post get bumped up to a score of 3? Or do the editor's posts start off at 3?
And why is Slashdot a congregation point for libertarian communists?
Did anyone ever play Ground Control? IMO that's the definitive 3-D RTS game right there. Features:
1) Tactical advantage for operating in shadows 2) Tactical advantage for being situated at higher elevations 3) Damage bonus for flanking 4) Intuitive waypoint system with no limit on # of waypoints (GREATLY reduced the amount of multitasking you had to do) 5) Stable formations. Units remain in same position relative to other units even if you move the formation. 5) No building or resource collecting (just how realistic is it to build war factories over the duration of a single battle, anyway?) 6) Surviving units gain experience, hence perform more better in subsequent battles (faster movement, improved accuracy, inflict greater damage, etc.) 7) Advanced squad AI. A range of tactics to choose from, as in Homeworld.
Quite honestly, I don't see what all the hubbub over the new C&C is about. I also think it's downright inappropriate to be able to play the terrorists. At a time when we really ought to be respecting our soldiers, we're going to be playing a game where we can just click on them and order them dead? Deriving enjoyment out of such a thing makes me sick.
Imagine if people could free themselves from this state of sentimentality and nostalgia.
Imagine if people could understand the futility of unprotected digital media in a dynamic economy.
Imagine if people didn't blow certain issues out of proportion, equating a minor set of laws on copyright protection to the destruction of all civil rights.
Do you get in an uproar because you can't pay $20 to watch a movie at a movie theater as many times as you want, or do you pay $5-8 every time you want to watch it? These kinds of transaction systems have been in place forever. There is no law that says certain goods must always be sold at a fixed price for unlimited viewings/listenings/whatever.
Sorry, but merely arguing/proving that he did not have any bad INTENTIONS does not equate to not having done anything illegal and/or harmful. I'm not saying that putting him in jail was the correct thing to do, but your argument is lacking in credibility. You'll have to dig deeper.
It IS too bad. However, the Ford/Firestone tragedy provides car and tire companies with a distinct lesson: if you neglect your consumer's safety in any way, you face the risk of running your company into the ground. The cost of performing recalls and settling legal disputes in situations like these far exceeds the benefits of having saved a bit of money in the manufacturing process. Such an incident can also spur increased regulation of tires and product testing. Without an incident, there can be no precedent for taking legal action.
What goes unsaid about the Ford/Firestone incident is that CONSUMERS must be intelligent buyers, unwilling to buy potentially lethal products if their safety record has not been established. It is at the consumer's own risk that he buys a brand-new SUV equipped with shoddy tires. As a matter of fact, I find it absurd how much companies are taking the blame for not having delivered an impeccable product. Given the widespread reports on airline crashes, you would think that consumers would factor the risk of crashing into their use of the airline system. So too should consumers understand the risks involved in simply buying a car, and an unproven one at that. Given the increased probability that SUVs are involved in roll-over accidents (and I've been in one), should we outlaw SUVs altogether? Absolutely not. It must always be left to the consumer to decide whether or not he accepts the greater risk to his life imposed by his voluntary purchase and use of an SUV.
The exposure of the weaknesses in Adobe's encryption scheme ARTIFICIALLY creates a situation in which Adobe's product becomes _more_ shoddy. This makes it rather questionable as to whether or not the "service" performed constitutes a public service. Under your reasoning, I can seek out the tiniest flaw in much stronger and much more widespread encryption systems, expose it (wreaking havoc on a multi-billion dollar industry), and claim that I am merely doing a "public service". It wouldn't even matter if I'm the only person alive capable of detecting the flaw. Then the question becomes, how do you go about deciding that an encryption system is "weak enough" to justify its exposure? That's an unobvious, but highly important point that most people ignore by choice or by failure to regard the complexities of the particular situation, instead making fallacious comparisons with situations that are superficially similar and yet fundamentally distinct.
No one is saying that "speech" is dangerous, and I'd point out that it's a low tactic to accuse someone on such a general level. What I AM saying is that there is a distinct difference between exercising one's right to free speech and dissemminating the keys to one's private property. In this situation, the distinction is blurred. Lacking the proper expertise in law and the philosophy of law, I cannot at this time propose the correct solution to the matter. However, I can point out the inherent flaw in saying that this is merely a case of someone being imprisoned for exercising his right to speak.
"Besides, their program was perfectly legal under the laws of their country."
Acts of terrorism are considered legal by certain countries. Doesn't mean it's okay to let the terrorists go free.
"It even may have served to make an illegal program, eBook reader, legal by allowing backups."
This is silly. There is nothing preventing anyone from making a "backup" of the material contained within an eBook file, save the inconvenience. You are trying to argue that the inability to make use of a near-instantaneous method of backup necessarily prevents the creation of a backup at all. It might come across as preposterous to most people, but you always have the option of retyping the text contained within your eBook.
"That is exactly why it is a public service. Luckily, millions of authors didn't start using this format, only to find that it is easily broken."
It will only be more easily broken as a result of this so-called "public service".
"Those exceptions are few and far between and must withstand the utmost scrutiny from courts that hold the First Amendment in higher esteem than you."
Don't presume yourself to know in what esteem I hold the First Amendment.
Never said producing a product entitles you to make money from it. OBVIOUSLY people have to want to buy it.
Also, it doesn't matter if you think Adobe's products are crappy or not. The fact of the matter is that they make money from sales of their product. Demand is artificially reduced from the cracking of an encryption scheme and subsequent free distribution of the product.
Furthermore, you're making the mistake of identifying the encryption scheme as part of the actual product. Adobe's PRODUCT is the eBook. Their encryption scheme acts as security personnel hired to keep an eye out for shoplifters and thieves. It has nothing to do with the product. Encryption can only be considered a product when it is the encryption scheme itself that is being sold.
Better products (and not better encryption, since consumers don't care about Adobe's security) is what defines competition, and hence if another company produces a product better than the eBook, Adobe's profits should necessarily go down, not because some idiot thought he was doing the world a public service by showing people how to break Adobe's encryption.
As my original post says, there's a difference between breaking into a physical lock (that can be easily replaced) and a digital one which, once the lock's been broken, may just as well have resulted in every lock being broken. The no longer secure item is free for distribution, and it is impossible to lock it back up.
Also, didn't say anything about lassiez-fair capitalism.
Katz's argument is flawed. He tries to equate the dissemination of information that breaches the security of a company's product to reporters packing toy guns in suitcases running through airport security terminals. There's a primary difference, here. Detailing weaknesses of an encryption method already put to use by a private company can wreak havoc on their profitability. There's a good chance that many of you are anti-corporation, anti-profitability. I might remind you, however, that it's the lure of being able to turn a profit that has motivated the advancement of the computer industry, and the economy as a whole. And that, in turn, is responsible for our high standard of living (assuming you live in America).
Software, MP3's, and eBooks in non-encrypted unprotected form are all nonrival nonexclusive goods, thanks to the fact that they aren't composed of matter and can be easily copied and distributed. Nonrival nonexclusive goods are what economists call pure public goods, which are typically provided by the government (assuming there is enough public support for them) because in most cases, it is impossible for a private company to recoupe its operating costs providing a pure public good. Perhaps the only significant examples of pure public goods provided by private firms is broadcast television and radio, as they're able to sell airtime to advertisers.
Private companies typically sell pure private goods, which are both rival and excludable. This means that it is possible to withhold the product from people who do not pay, and that consumption of the product means that the product is no longer available. A cheeseburger is a pure private good because McDonald's doesn't have to give you a cheeseburger unless you pay for it, and when you eat the cheeseburger, no one else can eat the same cheeseburger.
The Digital/Information/Whatever Age introduces a new problem. We now have products, which, when left unprotected/unencrypted, are pure public goods, free for the looting, and will run any digital business venture into the ground. The solution, then, is to encrypt (or do the annoying thing and splatter advertisement all over the place).
Say what you will about documents that detail methods of cracking physical security systems. When you provide information that cracks a security system protecting a digital good, you are effectively providing access to every instance of that good, and, in addition, allowing more instances of the good to be created. Anyone can understand the implications this has for a business providing a digital good.
This is why lectures and papers that provide the information to destroy a business's financial security are so dangerous. At the very least, jailed Russian boy should have informed Adobe of the weaknesses inherent in their encryption scheme before attempting to give this information to the public domain. Furthermore, arguments that revealing the weaknesses of encryption schemes is a public service is bunk in this case, because Adobe's encryption scheme isn't in widespread use.
Some may criticize Adobe for choosing such a weak encryption scheme in the first place, saying they had it coming to them. I say, if there's someone out there capable of breaking the encryption and is willing to use that ability to break the law and ruin Adobe's financial security, then let Adobe suffer the consequences. Offering information that illustrates how to bypass Adobe's encryption creates an unnecessary catalyst for illegal activity.
Think before you cry foul, people. For the record, there's not much of a legal precedent for putting the guy in jail, and thus I think that was the wrong course of action. But getting all riled up over the First Amendment (perhaps the easiest thing in America to get riled up over) is silly. You might want to consider the fact that there _are_ exceptions to the First Amendment already, and that making provisions for a new one might be the best course of action with regards to the future of the digital marketplace.
I've gotta agree with MagPulse. It's especially grating to see high-profile actors in war movies, because it's impossible to get past the fact that you're seeing Tom Hanks (Private Ryan) or John Travolta (Thin Red Line) in a war movie. Rather than seeing a well-tempered school teacher thrown into the worst battle of WWII, I see Tom Hanks acting the part of a well-temepered school teacher thrown into the worst battle of WWII. Filmmakers have to know when the use of a high-profile actor, even a very good one, becomes detrimental to the believability and immersiveness of the story.
I've got to wonder, though, if a CG character will ever become so popular that it will end up in other CG movies completely unrelated to the first one it appeared in. This doesn't seem too far-fetched, given the popularity of artificial pop stars....
Also:
Personally, I don't understand what's up with all the griping over the believability of the FF characters. Even if you're not particularly impressed with the animation (at which point you're some rendering geek who holds screwed-up, elitist standards), you have to remember that FF is the first of its kind. Does the first Star Wars look as good to us today as it did when it came out? I don't think so. This is a ground-breaking movie, and will pave the way for more and better all-CG cinematic experiences. And I think what the creator of the FF series said is true: certain movies are and will be better suited as all-CG, everything else is better suited for real actors & real locales, or a mix of the real and CG. There is definitely a suitable application (aside from Pixar-ish flicks) for all-CG actors and environments.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I actually don't think this is a "major design accomplishment" of GTA3. See my post on the matter, last one on the first page of this thread, and subsequent discussion.
Sure, but TPM and AOTC are continuations of series that revolutionized the industry. What are the chances that the Matrix or Spider-Man sequels are each going to create new revolutions? Are revolutions really the important thing, here? When it comes to successful series, don't we want them to maintain a consistency of tone and narrative, to large extent? Would we have wanted the Godfather sequels to each have radically different approaches? e.g. would it have been better to do Godfather Part II in the style of Pulp Fiction, if that meant it would "revolutionize" movies in such a fashion before Tarantino made his breakthrough film?
I just don't see why we're suddenly lambasting Attack of the Clones merely because it might not do something markedly different from the SW movies before it.
For the love of god (again), just because Spider-Man is successful, just because hot new franchises are *capable* of being created, does NOT atuomatically invalidate Star Wars. Revolutionary my ass. I'm in it for the saga, and there sure as hell isn't any saga like Star Wars. It's an ongoing revolution, with more staying power than any of these so-called contenders.
Does every movie need to revolutionize the special effects industry in order to be validated?
And while The Matrix is very nice (but certainly not an "easy-to-digest" story), it's universe is nevertheless not a very imaginative one visually. Typical post-apocalyptic imagery, typical modern day urban settings. It has a sense of style, but that's it. Star Wars conveys the hustle and bustle of an intergalactic melting-pot. The Matrix can't inspire the flood of books that flesh out the Star Wars universe. Star Wars stands as a work of creative genius (not necessarily confined to one man).
For the love of god, STFU. How many times do I have to hear about "the power of myth"? Why are we making god-stupid comparisons between Spider-Man and Star Wars? Yes, Spider-Man is simpler than Star Wars. Why the hell does that matter? Different stories, different complexities. STFU.
Shit, come ten years from now, which movies do you think I'll still be watching quite frequently?
Even if it was guaranteed? That's retarded.
Sheesh. Someone comes up with something GOOD, and CmdrTaco can't do anything but find some negative angle on it. How did this post get bumped up to a score of 3? Or do the editor's posts start off at 3?
And why is Slashdot a congregation point for libertarian communists?
Did anyone ever play Ground Control? IMO that's the definitive 3-D RTS game right there. Features:
1) Tactical advantage for operating in shadows
2) Tactical advantage for being situated at higher elevations
3) Damage bonus for flanking
4) Intuitive waypoint system with no limit on # of waypoints (GREATLY reduced the amount of multitasking you had to do)
5) Stable formations. Units remain in same position relative to other units even if you move the formation.
5) No building or resource collecting (just how realistic is it to build war factories over the duration of a single battle, anyway?)
6) Surviving units gain experience, hence perform more better in subsequent battles (faster movement, improved accuracy, inflict greater damage, etc.)
7) Advanced squad AI. A range of tactics to choose from, as in Homeworld.
Quite honestly, I don't see what all the hubbub over the new C&C is about. I also think it's downright inappropriate to be able to play the terrorists. At a time when we really ought to be respecting our soldiers, we're going to be playing a game where we can just click on them and order them dead? Deriving enjoyment out of such a thing makes me sick.
Imagine if people could free themselves from this state of sentimentality and nostalgia.
Imagine if people could understand the futility of unprotected digital media in a dynamic economy.
Imagine if people didn't blow certain issues out of proportion, equating a minor set of laws on copyright protection to the destruction of all civil rights.
Do you get in an uproar because you can't pay $20 to watch a movie at a movie theater as many times as you want, or do you pay $5-8 every time you want to watch it? These kinds of transaction systems have been in place forever. There is no law that says certain goods must always be sold at a fixed price for unlimited viewings/listenings/whatever.
"Chilling environment" my ass. Grow up.
Does terrorism count?
Sorry, but merely arguing/proving that he did not have any bad INTENTIONS does not equate to not having done anything illegal and/or harmful. I'm not saying that putting him in jail was the correct thing to do, but your argument is lacking in credibility. You'll have to dig deeper.
It IS too bad. However, the Ford/Firestone tragedy provides car and tire companies with a distinct lesson: if you neglect your consumer's safety in any way, you face the risk of running your company into the ground. The cost of performing recalls and settling legal disputes in situations like these far exceeds the benefits of having saved a bit of money in the manufacturing process. Such an incident can also spur increased regulation of tires and product testing. Without an incident, there can be no precedent for taking legal action.
What goes unsaid about the Ford/Firestone incident is that CONSUMERS must be intelligent buyers, unwilling to buy potentially lethal products if their safety record has not been established. It is at the consumer's own risk that he buys a brand-new SUV equipped with shoddy tires. As a matter of fact, I find it absurd how much companies are taking the blame for not having delivered an impeccable product. Given the widespread reports on airline crashes, you would think that consumers would factor the risk of crashing into their use of the airline system. So too should consumers understand the risks involved in simply buying a car, and an unproven one at that. Given the increased probability that SUVs are involved in roll-over accidents (and I've been in one), should we outlaw SUVs altogether? Absolutely not. It must always be left to the consumer to decide whether or not he accepts the greater risk to his life imposed by his voluntary purchase and use of an SUV.
The exposure of the weaknesses in Adobe's encryption scheme ARTIFICIALLY creates a situation in which Adobe's product becomes _more_ shoddy. This makes it rather questionable as to whether or not the "service" performed constitutes a public service. Under your reasoning, I can seek out the tiniest flaw in much stronger and much more widespread encryption systems, expose it (wreaking havoc on a multi-billion dollar industry), and claim that I am merely doing a "public service". It wouldn't even matter if I'm the only person alive capable of detecting the flaw. Then the question becomes, how do you go about deciding that an encryption system is "weak enough" to justify its exposure? That's an unobvious, but highly important point that most people ignore by choice or by failure to regard the complexities of the particular situation, instead making fallacious comparisons with situations that are superficially similar and yet fundamentally distinct.
No one is saying that "speech" is dangerous, and I'd point out that it's a low tactic to accuse someone on such a general level. What I AM saying is that there is a distinct difference between exercising one's right to free speech and dissemminating the keys to one's private property. In this situation, the distinction is blurred. Lacking the proper expertise in law and the philosophy of law, I cannot at this time propose the correct solution to the matter. However, I can point out the inherent flaw in saying that this is merely a case of someone being imprisoned for exercising his right to speak.
"Besides, their program was perfectly legal under the laws of their country."
Acts of terrorism are considered legal by certain countries. Doesn't mean it's okay to let the terrorists go free.
"It even may have served to make an illegal program, eBook reader, legal by allowing backups."
This is silly. There is nothing preventing anyone from making a "backup" of the material contained within an eBook file, save the inconvenience. You are trying to argue that the inability to make use of a near-instantaneous method of backup necessarily prevents the creation of a backup at all. It might come across as preposterous to most people, but you always have the option of retyping the text contained within your eBook.
"That is exactly why it is a public service. Luckily, millions of authors didn't start using this format, only to find that it is easily broken."
It will only be more easily broken as a result of this so-called "public service".
"Those exceptions are few and far between and must withstand the utmost scrutiny from courts that hold the First Amendment in higher esteem than you."
Don't presume yourself to know in what esteem I hold the First Amendment.
Is this a joke?
Never said producing a product entitles you to make money from it. OBVIOUSLY people have to want to buy it. Also, it doesn't matter if you think Adobe's products are crappy or not. The fact of the matter is that they make money from sales of their product. Demand is artificially reduced from the cracking of an encryption scheme and subsequent free distribution of the product. Furthermore, you're making the mistake of identifying the encryption scheme as part of the actual product. Adobe's PRODUCT is the eBook. Their encryption scheme acts as security personnel hired to keep an eye out for shoplifters and thieves. It has nothing to do with the product. Encryption can only be considered a product when it is the encryption scheme itself that is being sold. Better products (and not better encryption, since consumers don't care about Adobe's security) is what defines competition, and hence if another company produces a product better than the eBook, Adobe's profits should necessarily go down, not because some idiot thought he was doing the world a public service by showing people how to break Adobe's encryption.
As my original post says, there's a difference between breaking into a physical lock (that can be easily replaced) and a digital one which, once the lock's been broken, may just as well have resulted in every lock being broken. The no longer secure item is free for distribution, and it is impossible to lock it back up. Also, didn't say anything about lassiez-fair capitalism.
Katz's argument is flawed. He tries to equate the dissemination of information that breaches the security of a company's product to reporters packing toy guns in suitcases running through airport security terminals. There's a primary difference, here. Detailing weaknesses of an encryption method already put to use by a private company can wreak havoc on their profitability. There's a good chance that many of you are anti-corporation, anti-profitability. I might remind you, however, that it's the lure of being able to turn a profit that has motivated the advancement of the computer industry, and the economy as a whole. And that, in turn, is responsible for our high standard of living (assuming you live in America).
Software, MP3's, and eBooks in non-encrypted unprotected form are all nonrival nonexclusive goods, thanks to the fact that they aren't composed of matter and can be easily copied and distributed. Nonrival nonexclusive goods are what economists call pure public goods, which are typically provided by the government (assuming there is enough public support for them) because in most cases, it is impossible for a private company to recoupe its operating costs providing a pure public good. Perhaps the only significant examples of pure public goods provided by private firms is broadcast television and radio, as they're able to sell airtime to advertisers.
Private companies typically sell pure private goods, which are both rival and excludable. This means that it is possible to withhold the product from people who do not pay, and that consumption of the product means that the product is no longer available. A cheeseburger is a pure private good because McDonald's doesn't have to give you a cheeseburger unless you pay for it, and when you eat the cheeseburger, no one else can eat the same cheeseburger.
The Digital/Information/Whatever Age introduces a new problem. We now have products, which, when left unprotected/unencrypted, are pure public goods, free for the looting, and will run any digital business venture into the ground. The solution, then, is to encrypt (or do the annoying thing and splatter advertisement all over the place).
Say what you will about documents that detail methods of cracking physical security systems. When you provide information that cracks a security system protecting a digital good, you are effectively providing access to every instance of that good, and, in addition, allowing more instances of the good to be created. Anyone can understand the implications this has for a business providing a digital good.
This is why lectures and papers that provide the information to destroy a business's financial security are so dangerous. At the very least, jailed Russian boy should have informed Adobe of the weaknesses inherent in their encryption scheme before attempting to give this information to the public domain. Furthermore, arguments that revealing the weaknesses of encryption schemes is a public service is bunk in this case, because Adobe's encryption scheme isn't in widespread use.
Some may criticize Adobe for choosing such a weak encryption scheme in the first place, saying they had it coming to them. I say, if there's someone out there capable of breaking the encryption and is willing to use that ability to break the law and ruin Adobe's financial security, then let Adobe suffer the consequences. Offering information that illustrates how to bypass Adobe's encryption creates an unnecessary catalyst for illegal activity.
Think before you cry foul, people. For the record, there's not much of a legal precedent for putting the guy in jail, and thus I think that was the wrong course of action. But getting all riled up over the First Amendment (perhaps the easiest thing in America to get riled up over) is silly. You might want to consider the fact that there _are_ exceptions to the First Amendment already, and that making provisions for a new one might be the best course of action with regards to the future of the digital marketplace.
Er, these analogies could not be more wrong. The issue here is a good deal more complicated than the struggle between Rearden and the looters.
I've gotta agree with MagPulse. It's especially grating to see high-profile actors in war movies, because it's impossible to get past the fact that you're seeing Tom Hanks (Private Ryan) or John Travolta (Thin Red Line) in a war movie. Rather than seeing a well-tempered school teacher thrown into the worst battle of WWII, I see Tom Hanks acting the part of a well-temepered school teacher thrown into the worst battle of WWII. Filmmakers have to know when the use of a high-profile actor, even a very good one, becomes detrimental to the believability and immersiveness of the story.
I've got to wonder, though, if a CG character will ever become so popular that it will end up in other CG movies completely unrelated to the first one it appeared in. This doesn't seem too far-fetched, given the popularity of artificial pop stars....
Also:
Personally, I don't understand what's up with all the griping over the believability of the FF characters. Even if you're not particularly impressed with the animation (at which point you're some rendering geek who holds screwed-up, elitist standards), you have to remember that FF is the first of its kind. Does the first Star Wars look as good to us today as it did when it came out? I don't think so. This is a ground-breaking movie, and will pave the way for more and better all-CG cinematic experiences. And I think what the creator of the FF series said is true: certain movies are and will be better suited as all-CG, everything else is better suited for real actors & real locales, or a mix of the real and CG. There is definitely a suitable application (aside from Pixar-ish flicks) for all-CG actors and environments.