In the long wrong, DRM cannot win. As Bruce Schneier said, "Trying to make bits uncopyable is like trying to make water not wet." DRM is fighting a losing battle, the best they can do is delay things. Ultimately they want to sell me the media player (my CD player, my DVD player), and media to play (CD and DVDs). Once I get them home I have the media and a device that knows how to play the media. It's just a matter of modifying the device to remove blocks. Instead of playing the movie for my eyes, I'd like it to play it for my VCR. Or if I'm desperate enough, my camcorder. But I won't generally have to resort to a camcorder, the hardware can and will be hacked. Making the hardware harder to hack will slow me down, but there are entire industries dedicated to reverse engineering hardware. Maybe I personally won't figure out how to reverse engineer it, but an enterprising black market hacker in Taiwan will. All it takes is a single break to make the original copy and copies will flow. Places like the AllofMP3 have incentive to break the protections so they can sell copies of questionable legality.
The only world in which you can practically DRM everything is one where the government puts cameras in all of your room so they can watch what you're doing. Then they can watch me setting up my camcorder to tape my television. I'm pretty cynical about the state of the world and even I see that as unlikely.
How do you punish a school? Apparently you fine the school district. That's more than a little broken. In this case the school (or those acting on the school's behalf) was clearly wrong. The kid did nothing illegal. He did nothing during school hours or on school computers. But fining the school district will just hurt the students. Programs will be cut or perhaps taxes will go up. Perhaps it will irritate the school board enough to fire those who made the decision, but that's a pretty indirect solution. Directly punishing those who made the decision seems to make sense, but in general ones employer should share responsibility for the employees decisions.
Many Christian denominations, including Catholics, hold to belief in transubstantiation. They believe that the bread and wine become in a literal and non-metaphorical way the body and blood of Jesus. It's certainly official Catholic doctrine.
Obviously this is a major point of disagreement for many other Christian denominations.
Like it or not (personally I think it's goofy and completely misses the point of Jesus's act), it's there. However, the person you replied to who railed about "cannibalism" isn't helping his cause. EnderWiggnz, you're not doing your argument much good. You'll get some, "Heck yeahs!" from those who already share your viewpoint, but not do much to convince others. First, as the above poster mentioned, for many denominations it's a symbolic action, symbolizing being one with Jesus. It was symbolic when Jesus did it and symbolic ever since. A little metaphor and symbolism are hardly worth making a fuss over.
For those people in denominations which do insist on a more literal interpretation, sadly, many don't really know about it, or at least don't really appreciate it. I didn't really appreciate the literalness of transubstantiation until I was into my twenties, and I was raised Catholic. A despressingly large number of Catholics don't really understand what their religion preaches. Instead of harping about cannibalism, just point out what their own faith demands. When the priest says, "This is the Body and Blood of Christ," he means it in a literal sense. It may look (taste, feel, and smell) like flatbread, but you've witnessed a miracle and Jesus is literally there. That's by papal decree and not up for debate. Officially you must accept it or you are not a Catholic. (Although given the pervasive US Catholic acceptance of birth control, it may not matter. US Catholicism verges on a protestant splinter, a fact that irritates the hell out of the Vatican.)
Wow. Did you even read the article you linked? "...it's... a danger to vulnerable folk such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly." "I agree ETS is harmful, broadly speaking..." Cecil hardly said second hand smoke isn't harmful. Indeed, he specifically said that the science suggests real risks. However, for the specific risk of second hand smoke, Cecil says there is disagreement and it's not clear.
Re:Cause or Risk Factor? (warning pro-smoking)
on
Safe Cigarettes?
·
· Score: 1
You're suggesting a pretty libertarian point of view. And I can respect that. But I'm curious where you draw the line.
Perhaps a business still has asbestos in the walls. And worse, it knows that it's seeping into the ventilation system Anyone visiting the business is getting a dose of asbestos. Should it still be the business owner's choice to leave things as they are?
Similarlly, a business owner has a big machine that makes widgets. The machine is really old and wicked dangerous. Employees are regularlly injured and occasionally killed. The town is in a deep recession so people are desperate enough to accept the jobs. Some investment would dramatically reduce the risk, but it would cost more than the payouts to injured and slain workers. Should it be the business owner's choice to not make it safer?
If you would put these in the hands of the business owners, realize that much of America would disagree. As a society we've decided that some risks are not acceptable.
If you'd allow those cases to be regulated, why not smoking?
Restaurants don't voluntarily go non-smoking because fundamentally restaurants are very risk adverse. Don't mess with what works. Keeping a restaurant profitable is hard enough without potentially alienating a portion of your customer base. Because "voting with your feet" means you end up with zero or very few restauarants means most people just suffer the smoke. Result: a fairly large number of people suffer the smoke to satisify a smaller number of people who want to smoke.
When my home town (Madison) instituted a smoking ban in restaurants there was an uproar. The restaurants insisted that their businesses would collapse. They fought and screamed and whined that the law must not pass (and once passed, must be repealed.) In practice within a few months things stabilized. There didn't appear to be a significant impact on the restaurants. Suddenly the restaurants stopped complaining and started encouraging it. Indeed, a city-wide ban benefitted them by providing a level playing field. If only a few restaurants voluntarily switched, mixed smoker/non-smoker groups might avoid them. Now that a large area is smoke free, the smokers are the ones forced to compromise (since the group as a whole is less willing to driving further for food). And contrary to claims, the restaurants on the edge of the city (next to suburbs were smoking in restaurants is still allowed) do just fine.
Capitalism doesn't just magically make everything better. Incomplete or faulty information leads to no end of errors of judgement. Intentional manipulation of information leads to abuse (see Enron). Irrational behavior by individuals leads to inefficiencies. The ability to externalize costs allows individuals or companies to benefit at the expense of society as a whole.
If capitalism Just Worked we'd have no need for labor laws, or laws prohibiting lead in paint or asbesthos insulation. Less "dragging government into it" would lead to people desperate enough for jobs to accept extremely dangerous working conditions. Indeed, for the best idea of a "pure capitalism", look to criminal enterprises. Sweatshops where workers are regularlly injured by machinery may be illegal, but they're efficient examples of capitalism.
Indeed, there are some key similarities. while I'd hardly call working in a bar a "sweatshop", for many people it's their only option for work. As a society we've generally decided it's unacceptable to subject employees to certain levels of risk. As a result, asbesthos removal crews have complex procedures for removing it to ensure the employees don't expose themselves. By that standard, is it really reasonable to ask wait staff to subject themselves to smoke? For many of those wait staff they cannot afford to seek a non-smoking job. Because they're not as well off, but they're trying to make ends meet, they should be exposed to this risk?
GTA is an example of good Craftsmanship, but not good Art. It doesn't really try to inspire you or challenge you mentally and emotionally.
My experience with Grand Theft Auto 3 and Grand Theft Auto: Vice City are too far back, but looking at GTA: San Andreas, I certainly felt challenged mentally and emotionally. Key themes in SA included community, loyalty, and maturity. That the protagonist, CJ, left SA to try and escape the problems is a big deal. His return (the start of the game) is similarlly important. CJ is called to return to his community, to support it. It's a calling that he is uncertain about; he tries to avoid making a decision. Several of his community prove to be betrayers, leading to a spread of drug addiction. As things get CJ, CJ is drawn to an easier life as a big name criminal. But ultimately the game comes full circle. CJ's brother points out that CJ can't run away forever and CJ returns to his home neighborhood to try and set things right. While ultimately the community in question focused on a gang, the gang placed a great deal of importance on their neighbors and their neighborhood.
Was it perfect? No. Did having a built-in dating simulator (with hidden sex simulator) really help with the emotion and introspection? Heck, no. But when CJ observed his friend betraying him, it was an emotionally powerful moment. I certainly considered how fragments our society has become, that community is a no longer held as important. Add in the obvious skill in creating the beauty of the game and you've got a very solid example of art by your definition.
Art, as most people would definite it, must:
1) Show great skill at creating beauty.
2) Inspire a deep emotion and introspection.
That's a harsh definition. You might get people to agree to it because on the surface it seems reasonable, but in practice it will exclude lots of things people would certainly call art. So if you are just pretty good, not great, you can't create art? Similarlly, if I have, say, a painting that I find exceptionally beautiful and skillfully created, but it fails to inspire deep emotion (I suppose it makes me happy, but that's hardly deep emotion) or any sort of introspection, it's not art.
I think most of us live in a world were Art includes a six year old's crayon drawing on the fridge is art (if not particularlly skilled art), a teenager's angst filled poem on how hard their life is. Our Art includes the Mona Lisa (which is skilled, but pretty dull), Thomas Kinkade (*sigh*), and even those kitten-hanging-from-a-branch posters. Scott McCloud's definition that art is anything not directly related to survival or reproduction is flawed, but seems more on the mark than your proposal.
4) You have camera control, if the view sucks it's your own fault.
No.
Demanding that the player to do camera control is a cop-out. For the majority of players the camera should Just Work. When I'm running around, trying to avoid getting stomped by the colossus, I have better things to do that fiddle with the camera. When I'm trying to line up an arrow shot quickly after running away from the colossus, I need it to Just Work. And cameras should never clip into objects. That's just sloppy.
SotC is still a great game, but the camera work could be better. To be fair, the particular style of gameplay is pretty unique, there isn't much prior art to examine to figure out how to do the camera. Automatic cameras are hard. Lots of games in well explored genres still get bad cameras (Super Mario 64 managed to get the camera almost perfect, why do so many platformers get it wrong?). I have sympathy for SotC's developers.
Google hold copies of original works. They use these entire copies to serve up snippets to individual users. By serving up snippets they are able to make sales of advertising. Therefore Google are using entire copies of copyrighted material for commercial benefit.
Indeed, I trust you'll support me in calling for legislation banning all search engines (at least those that return snippets of the original web page)? I certainly didn't give Google permission to make a copy of my web site, then serve snippets to individual users and make advertising money off it. If I want to have my content removed, I need to opt-out; what a bad idea.
Unless of course you'd like to have different standards for the web and print media. I seem to have missed the part of copyright law that says, "unless it's on the web".
Libraries have always had a tenuous relationship with publishers, because borrowed books are only sold once.
Indeed. And the correct answer is a giant middle finger to the publishers. I suppose it's a free country, and they're free to whine like babies, but there is zero legal or ethical grounds for publishers to ask for libraries to be closed. Once I (or a library) purchases a copy of a book, I (and the library) am free to loan it to whoever I want. The copyright based industries have gotten too comfortable, to used to getting their way with stupid laws like the DMCA and repeated copyright extensions. They need to be smacked down and reminded that copyright is a two way agreement; not a unilateral grant.
Indexing actually increases the value of a work because it allows people to find it - and therefore increases the pool of potential purchasers by an enormous factor.
But in the process indexing may reduce the value of other works. The publishing industry doesn't want to support a long tail of books with niche appeal. They want books that they sell by the truckload. They want the newest books to not have to compete against books that went out of print ten years ago.
Google's index will benefit humanity as a whole, but may harm publishers. Of course, the publishers can suck it; they're perverting copyright into the opposite of its intended goal (to spread information).
To say that the author is "a developer" is an understatement. This is Mark Fucking Russovich! He has spent his life dissecting Windows and making it dance for him. He knows more about the internals of Windows than many of Microsoft's Windows team. If Mark says something on Windows is hard, it is. Take it as you might a comment by Alan Cox on Linux.
His complaint that he feels a duty to post is like the many people who complain that they loathe cell phones because they "have" to answer whenever someone calls. The answer to both is easy: If you don't want to, don't. If you don't want to be interrupted, just ignore your cell phone. Heck, turn if off for a few hours. Sure, some people will complain, "You didn't answer." (If it's your boss and you're being paid to be on call, perhaps he has a point.) Tell them you were otherwise occupied, that this will frequently happen, and they should accept it. If they continue complaining, tell them off; they're the one being rude.
The same goes for your blog. If you don't have something to say, don't. Many of my favorite blogs post irregularly at best. But when the person writes, they've got something interesting to say. I'll happily take two months between posts if those posts are great. I'd prefer it to something pointless daily. If someone politely requests you post more often, again, just explain that you don't have anything to say. Many complain they hate visiting daily waiting for something new; suggest that they try an RSS reader which will alert them to new content. If they're rude, tell them off; you don't owe them anything. (Again, if blogging is somehow your job, the requirements change. But that's not really the point. Lots of people have to do their job when they don't want to.)
The market for huge numbers of intermittent cycles is weak to nonexistent. The basic problem is that there just aren't many companies with giant number-crunching jobs for which they are willing to pay.
There is no question that massive amounts of compute power are needed. The question is: is it actually cheaper to rent the CPU time instead of just buying and managing the machines themselves? I'm less certain on that. While someone else has to worry about buying and maintaining the machines, you need to modify your workload to work on machines you don't control. The remote site may upgrade to an incompatible system to serve other customers. They could configure themselves to run whatever OS loadout you want, but that will cost more to setup and maintain. You typically need to send your workload across the public internet; putting gigabit ethernet between your cluster nodes so you can toss 2 gigabyte data sets around is relatievly ship. Getting a big enough network connection to set those datasets across the country is more expensive. Running over the internet is also more fragile. Oops, a backhoe just took out the connection. When something goes wrong, why does the provider care? Doing it in house means you have local staff you can lean on. A provider can be made to care, to provide guaranteed response times, but it'll cost you even more.
Review: Great for fans, so-so for everyone else
on
Serenity Opens Today
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
As a fan of the series, it's a great movie. Whedon did a great job of taking what I assume was several seasons of plot lines and collapsing them into a two hour movie. The result flowed well and didn't feel too rushed. I do suspect that spreading many of the developments over the course of many episodes would have made the important revelations all the more significant. As closure for the series, I'm very satisfied.
However, I'm pessimistic for people who haven't seen the series. Whedon does an admirable job providing a Cliff's Notes of the series. He even does so in a way that doesn't bug me as a fan; indeed several minor details that were never expounded upon in the series were cleared up. However much of power of the series was the attachment you formed to the characters. That's something that takes hours. You can't do it in a movie.
So I suspect the movie will do well in the short term as the fans flock to it, then it will quietly fade away. This will be the end of the series; it will remain with a cult fandom, but nothing more. (That said, I'm surprised at the positive reviews it's getting from people I doubt are fans.)
The Ajax apps all look extremely impressive, but I do believe inconsistent UI will eventually plateau the adoption.
I'd be more prone to believe you if media players (like WinAmp or iTunes) and instant messaging system wasn't simultaneously deeply inconsistant and popular, if Apple wasn't schizophrenic in its own interface (Everyone uses the white pinstripe look. Well, except for media apps which get brushed metal. Oh, and Safari's now a media app. Kinda). Microsoft itself frequently reinvents the GUI wheel. Windows Media Player rolls its own skin. Microsoft Office has repeatedly rolled their own interface, to the extend of writing their own code to display the title bar just so they can do wacky things like displaying the Microsoft logo in the middle of the title. Like the standard menu and toolbar interface of the last ten years of Micro Office? Welcome to a brand new vision.
The reality is that as long as your interface isn't too wacky, users will suffer it. By and large the Ajax applications aren't inventing entirely new and scary interfaces, they're just putting a variety of superficial skins on top of them. By and large users are coping. They
Once and for all, somebody needs to drive this into their heads: it is MY phone, and you may not use it (i.e. call me) without my consent.
Oh, hey, Paul, long time no see. I was meaning to call you, see about hanging out. but I wasn't sure I had your consent. And since I couldn't call you, how could I get consent to call you? Good thing I caught you here! Can I call you?
That seems like an issue with the ability of litigants to go forum shopping in the first place (a problem with the judicial system), rather than the fault of information and processing tools.
Indeed, if you had enough money you paid expensive experts to track down this information for you. By making the information cheaper and easier to get you get several benefits. First the advantage that the rich already had become available to normal people. It's an unethical advantage, but at least it helps level the playing field. Second, it becomes easier for the Good Guys to track down flaws in the judicial system and try to fix the flaws. Does a particular judge tend to bias in a particular and (in your eyes) wrong way? Encourage your legislature to make the law clearer to the judge doesn't have the freedom he's using. If the judge is elected, use the information to harm his campaign (heck, just email a copy to his opponent).
Information about public officials is exactly the sort of information that really needs to as easy to get as possible. More information (like judicial bias) helps keep government accountable.
Restrict politicians to their minimum Constitutional powers, so that money has no effect since they're virtually prevented from helping their donators.
You really should have opened with this. It's so imporant that everything else you suggest hinges upon it. All of your opponents are focusing on "But you're essentially allowing people to bribe politicians" without realizing that it's (sorta) okay because you've dramatically limited the damage they can do.
(Don't take this as support for anarcho-capitalism. I just don't think your opponents are are fairly considering your case. They're arguing against a strawman.)
And logged in user (which you obviously are) can select from a wide variety of date formats, including many which include the year. I agree it's dumb that it's not the default, but at least you can fix it.
When you mail someone a DVD you don't want any more, it's like walking into Best Buy, shoplifting a DVD, and shooting the cashier on the way out.
It's unfortunate, but pirates are using this "postal system" to destroy the value created by hard working movie creators. If the postal system is allowed to go on unchecked it will destroy the movie industry. No movies will ever be made again.
We question the use of this so called postal "service". The creators should have known that it would be abused this way. However, some people claim that there are legal and valid uses for the postal system. Fortunately there is a very reasonable compromise, Digital Rights Management in the postal system. This will close the analog hole. When you mail something, a postal employee will open up your mail and carefully examine what is inside. If it's a copyright protected movie on DVD, or copyright protected music on CD, or a copyright protected page torn out of a magazine, the employee will refuse to deliver the message. Your average US Postal Service customer won't notice any change. Only pirates will be inconvienced.
We here at the MPAA trust that all law abiding, moral citizens will support this perfect plan. We also look forward to your support for our future plan to monitor all physical human contact to eliminate the "handing a DVD to your friend" loophole.
Sincerely, the perfectly reasonable MPAA who is doing this for your own good.
What's important isn't the whining of copyright holders that this makes it "too easy" to infringe copyright. What's important is that this is a stunning reminder that for all of human history humankind has worked to make it easier and easier to reproduce and circulate information. Spoken language, written language, block printing, movable type, typewriters, telegraphs, telephones, radio, television, laser printers, file sharing, the internet. It's not about to stop. This should be a wake up call (much like the previous 10 wake-up calls) that copyright based industries need to start thinking about new models. Expecting humanity to stop advancing technology is stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
In the long wrong, DRM cannot win. As Bruce Schneier said, "Trying to make bits uncopyable is like trying to make water not wet." DRM is fighting a losing battle, the best they can do is delay things. Ultimately they want to sell me the media player (my CD player, my DVD player), and media to play (CD and DVDs). Once I get them home I have the media and a device that knows how to play the media. It's just a matter of modifying the device to remove blocks. Instead of playing the movie for my eyes, I'd like it to play it for my VCR. Or if I'm desperate enough, my camcorder. But I won't generally have to resort to a camcorder, the hardware can and will be hacked. Making the hardware harder to hack will slow me down, but there are entire industries dedicated to reverse engineering hardware. Maybe I personally won't figure out how to reverse engineer it, but an enterprising black market hacker in Taiwan will. All it takes is a single break to make the original copy and copies will flow. Places like the AllofMP3 have incentive to break the protections so they can sell copies of questionable legality.
The only world in which you can practically DRM everything is one where the government puts cameras in all of your room so they can watch what you're doing. Then they can watch me setting up my camcorder to tape my television. I'm pretty cynical about the state of the world and even I see that as unlikely.
How do you punish a school? Apparently you fine the school district. That's more than a little broken. In this case the school (or those acting on the school's behalf) was clearly wrong. The kid did nothing illegal. He did nothing during school hours or on school computers. But fining the school district will just hurt the students. Programs will be cut or perhaps taxes will go up. Perhaps it will irritate the school board enough to fire those who made the decision, but that's a pretty indirect solution. Directly punishing those who made the decision seems to make sense, but in general ones employer should share responsibility for the employees decisions.
Gah.
Many Christian denominations, including Catholics, hold to belief in transubstantiation. They believe that the bread and wine become in a literal and non-metaphorical way the body and blood of Jesus. It's certainly official Catholic doctrine.
Obviously this is a major point of disagreement for many other Christian denominations.
Like it or not (personally I think it's goofy and completely misses the point of Jesus's act), it's there. However, the person you replied to who railed about "cannibalism" isn't helping his cause. EnderWiggnz, you're not doing your argument much good. You'll get some, "Heck yeahs!" from those who already share your viewpoint, but not do much to convince others. First, as the above poster mentioned, for many denominations it's a symbolic action, symbolizing being one with Jesus. It was symbolic when Jesus did it and symbolic ever since. A little metaphor and symbolism are hardly worth making a fuss over.
For those people in denominations which do insist on a more literal interpretation, sadly, many don't really know about it, or at least don't really appreciate it. I didn't really appreciate the literalness of transubstantiation until I was into my twenties, and I was raised Catholic. A despressingly large number of Catholics don't really understand what their religion preaches. Instead of harping about cannibalism, just point out what their own faith demands. When the priest says, "This is the Body and Blood of Christ," he means it in a literal sense. It may look (taste, feel, and smell) like flatbread, but you've witnessed a miracle and Jesus is literally there. That's by papal decree and not up for debate. Officially you must accept it or you are not a Catholic. (Although given the pervasive US Catholic acceptance of birth control, it may not matter. US Catholicism verges on a protestant splinter, a fact that irritates the hell out of the Vatican.)
Wow. Did you even read the article you linked? "...it's ... a danger to vulnerable folk such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly." "I agree ETS is harmful, broadly speaking..." Cecil hardly said second hand smoke isn't harmful. Indeed, he specifically said that the science suggests real risks. However, for the specific risk of second hand smoke, Cecil says there is disagreement and it's not clear.
Perhaps a business still has asbestos in the walls. And worse, it knows that it's seeping into the ventilation system Anyone visiting the business is getting a dose of asbestos. Should it still be the business owner's choice to leave things as they are?
Similarlly, a business owner has a big machine that makes widgets. The machine is really old and wicked dangerous. Employees are regularlly injured and occasionally killed. The town is in a deep recession so people are desperate enough to accept the jobs. Some investment would dramatically reduce the risk, but it would cost more than the payouts to injured and slain workers. Should it be the business owner's choice to not make it safer?
If you would put these in the hands of the business owners, realize that much of America would disagree. As a society we've decided that some risks are not acceptable.
If you'd allow those cases to be regulated, why not smoking?
When my home town (Madison) instituted a smoking ban in restaurants there was an uproar. The restaurants insisted that their businesses would collapse. They fought and screamed and whined that the law must not pass (and once passed, must be repealed.) In practice within a few months things stabilized. There didn't appear to be a significant impact on the restaurants. Suddenly the restaurants stopped complaining and started encouraging it. Indeed, a city-wide ban benefitted them by providing a level playing field. If only a few restaurants voluntarily switched, mixed smoker/non-smoker groups might avoid them. Now that a large area is smoke free, the smokers are the ones forced to compromise (since the group as a whole is less willing to driving further for food). And contrary to claims, the restaurants on the edge of the city (next to suburbs were smoking in restaurants is still allowed) do just fine.
Capitalism doesn't just magically make everything better. Incomplete or faulty information leads to no end of errors of judgement. Intentional manipulation of information leads to abuse (see Enron). Irrational behavior by individuals leads to inefficiencies. The ability to externalize costs allows individuals or companies to benefit at the expense of society as a whole.
If capitalism Just Worked we'd have no need for labor laws, or laws prohibiting lead in paint or asbesthos insulation. Less "dragging government into it" would lead to people desperate enough for jobs to accept extremely dangerous working conditions. Indeed, for the best idea of a "pure capitalism", look to criminal enterprises. Sweatshops where workers are regularlly injured by machinery may be illegal, but they're efficient examples of capitalism.
Indeed, there are some key similarities. while I'd hardly call working in a bar a "sweatshop", for many people it's their only option for work. As a society we've generally decided it's unacceptable to subject employees to certain levels of risk. As a result, asbesthos removal crews have complex procedures for removing it to ensure the employees don't expose themselves. By that standard, is it really reasonable to ask wait staff to subject themselves to smoke? For many of those wait staff they cannot afford to seek a non-smoking job. Because they're not as well off, but they're trying to make ends meet, they should be exposed to this risk?
Was it perfect? No. Did having a built-in dating simulator (with hidden sex simulator) really help with the emotion and introspection? Heck, no. But when CJ observed his friend betraying him, it was an emotionally powerful moment. I certainly considered how fragments our society has become, that community is a no longer held as important. Add in the obvious skill in creating the beauty of the game and you've got a very solid example of art by your definition.
(My apologies for two replies.)
That's a harsh definition. You might get people to agree to it because on the surface it seems reasonable, but in practice it will exclude lots of things people would certainly call art. So if you are just pretty good, not great, you can't create art? Similarlly, if I have, say, a painting that I find exceptionally beautiful and skillfully created, but it fails to inspire deep emotion (I suppose it makes me happy, but that's hardly deep emotion) or any sort of introspection, it's not art.
I think most of us live in a world were Art includes a six year old's crayon drawing on the fridge is art (if not particularlly skilled art), a teenager's angst filled poem on how hard their life is. Our Art includes the Mona Lisa (which is skilled, but pretty dull), Thomas Kinkade (*sigh*), and even those kitten-hanging-from-a-branch posters. Scott McCloud's definition that art is anything not directly related to survival or reproduction is flawed, but seems more on the mark than your proposal.
No.
Demanding that the player to do camera control is a cop-out. For the majority of players the camera should Just Work. When I'm running around, trying to avoid getting stomped by the colossus, I have better things to do that fiddle with the camera. When I'm trying to line up an arrow shot quickly after running away from the colossus, I need it to Just Work. And cameras should never clip into objects. That's just sloppy.
SotC is still a great game, but the camera work could be better. To be fair, the particular style of gameplay is pretty unique, there isn't much prior art to examine to figure out how to do the camera. Automatic cameras are hard. Lots of games in well explored genres still get bad cameras (Super Mario 64 managed to get the camera almost perfect, why do so many platformers get it wrong?). I have sympathy for SotC's developers.
Indeed, I trust you'll support me in calling for legislation banning all search engines (at least those that return snippets of the original web page)? I certainly didn't give Google permission to make a copy of my web site, then serve snippets to individual users and make advertising money off it. If I want to have my content removed, I need to opt-out; what a bad idea.
Unless of course you'd like to have different standards for the web and print media. I seem to have missed the part of copyright law that says, "unless it's on the web".
Indeed. And the correct answer is a giant middle finger to the publishers. I suppose it's a free country, and they're free to whine like babies, but there is zero legal or ethical grounds for publishers to ask for libraries to be closed. Once I (or a library) purchases a copy of a book, I (and the library) am free to loan it to whoever I want. The copyright based industries have gotten too comfortable, to used to getting their way with stupid laws like the DMCA and repeated copyright extensions. They need to be smacked down and reminded that copyright is a two way agreement; not a unilateral grant.
But in the process indexing may reduce the value of other works. The publishing industry doesn't want to support a long tail of books with niche appeal. They want books that they sell by the truckload. They want the newest books to not have to compete against books that went out of print ten years ago.
Google's index will benefit humanity as a whole, but may harm publishers. Of course, the publishers can suck it; they're perverting copyright into the opposite of its intended goal (to spread information).
To say that the author is "a developer" is an understatement. This is Mark Fucking Russovich! He has spent his life dissecting Windows and making it dance for him. He knows more about the internals of Windows than many of Microsoft's Windows team. If Mark says something on Windows is hard, it is. Take it as you might a comment by Alan Cox on Linux.
His complaint that he feels a duty to post is like the many people who complain that they loathe cell phones because they "have" to answer whenever someone calls. The answer to both is easy: If you don't want to, don't. If you don't want to be interrupted, just ignore your cell phone. Heck, turn if off for a few hours. Sure, some people will complain, "You didn't answer." (If it's your boss and you're being paid to be on call, perhaps he has a point.) Tell them you were otherwise occupied, that this will frequently happen, and they should accept it. If they continue complaining, tell them off; they're the one being rude.
The same goes for your blog. If you don't have something to say, don't. Many of my favorite blogs post irregularly at best. But when the person writes, they've got something interesting to say. I'll happily take two months between posts if those posts are great. I'd prefer it to something pointless daily. If someone politely requests you post more often, again, just explain that you don't have anything to say. Many complain they hate visiting daily waiting for something new; suggest that they try an RSS reader which will alert them to new content. If they're rude, tell them off; you don't owe them anything. (Again, if blogging is somehow your job, the requirements change. But that's not really the point. Lots of people have to do their job when they don't want to.)
It's a small market, but not nonexistant. Anyone doing high-energy physics needs as much processing power as they can get. Companies doing genetics research (say, researching gene therapy) tend to need lots of compute time doing massive searches and comparisions of genetic databases. Insurance companies doing simulations and analysis need massive computing power. Special effects companies chew through computer time.
There is no question that massive amounts of compute power are needed. The question is: is it actually cheaper to rent the CPU time instead of just buying and managing the machines themselves? I'm less certain on that. While someone else has to worry about buying and maintaining the machines, you need to modify your workload to work on machines you don't control. The remote site may upgrade to an incompatible system to serve other customers. They could configure themselves to run whatever OS loadout you want, but that will cost more to setup and maintain. You typically need to send your workload across the public internet; putting gigabit ethernet between your cluster nodes so you can toss 2 gigabyte data sets around is relatievly ship. Getting a big enough network connection to set those datasets across the country is more expensive. Running over the internet is also more fragile. Oops, a backhoe just took out the connection. When something goes wrong, why does the provider care? Doing it in house means you have local staff you can lean on. A provider can be made to care, to provide guaranteed response times, but it'll cost you even more.
As a fan of the series, it's a great movie. Whedon did a great job of taking what I assume was several seasons of plot lines and collapsing them into a two hour movie. The result flowed well and didn't feel too rushed. I do suspect that spreading many of the developments over the course of many episodes would have made the important revelations all the more significant. As closure for the series, I'm very satisfied.
However, I'm pessimistic for people who haven't seen the series. Whedon does an admirable job providing a Cliff's Notes of the series. He even does so in a way that doesn't bug me as a fan; indeed several minor details that were never expounded upon in the series were cleared up. However much of power of the series was the attachment you formed to the characters. That's something that takes hours. You can't do it in a movie.
So I suspect the movie will do well in the short term as the fans flock to it, then it will quietly fade away. This will be the end of the series; it will remain with a cult fandom, but nothing more. (That said, I'm surprised at the positive reviews it's getting from people I doubt are fans.)
I'd be more prone to believe you if media players (like WinAmp or iTunes) and instant messaging system wasn't simultaneously deeply inconsistant and popular, if Apple wasn't schizophrenic in its own interface (Everyone uses the white pinstripe look. Well, except for media apps which get brushed metal. Oh, and Safari's now a media app. Kinda). Microsoft itself frequently reinvents the GUI wheel. Windows Media Player rolls its own skin. Microsoft Office has repeatedly rolled their own interface, to the extend of writing their own code to display the title bar just so they can do wacky things like displaying the Microsoft logo in the middle of the title. Like the standard menu and toolbar interface of the last ten years of Micro Office? Welcome to a brand new vision.
The reality is that as long as your interface isn't too wacky, users will suffer it. By and large the Ajax applications aren't inventing entirely new and scary interfaces, they're just putting a variety of superficial skins on top of them. By and large users are coping. They
Oh, hey, Paul, long time no see. I was meaning to call you, see about hanging out. but I wasn't sure I had your consent. And since I couldn't call you, how could I get consent to call you? Good thing I caught you here! Can I call you?
Indeed, if you had enough money you paid expensive experts to track down this information for you. By making the information cheaper and easier to get you get several benefits. First the advantage that the rich already had become available to normal people. It's an unethical advantage, but at least it helps level the playing field. Second, it becomes easier for the Good Guys to track down flaws in the judicial system and try to fix the flaws. Does a particular judge tend to bias in a particular and (in your eyes) wrong way? Encourage your legislature to make the law clearer to the judge doesn't have the freedom he's using. If the judge is elected, use the information to harm his campaign (heck, just email a copy to his opponent).
Information about public officials is exactly the sort of information that really needs to as easy to get as possible. More information (like judicial bias) helps keep government accountable.
You really should have opened with this. It's so imporant that everything else you suggest hinges upon it. All of your opponents are focusing on "But you're essentially allowing people to bribe politicians" without realizing that it's (sorta) okay because you've dramatically limited the damage they can do.
(Don't take this as support for anarcho-capitalism. I just don't think your opponents are are fairly considering your case. They're arguing against a strawman.)
And logged in user (which you obviously are) can select from a wide variety of date formats, including many which include the year. I agree it's dumb that it's not the default, but at least you can fix it.
When you mail someone a DVD you don't want any more, it's like walking into Best Buy, shoplifting a DVD, and shooting the cashier on the way out.
It's unfortunate, but pirates are using this "postal system" to destroy the value created by hard working movie creators. If the postal system is allowed to go on unchecked it will destroy the movie industry. No movies will ever be made again.
We question the use of this so called postal "service". The creators should have known that it would be abused this way. However, some people claim that there are legal and valid uses for the postal system. Fortunately there is a very reasonable compromise, Digital Rights Management in the postal system. This will close the analog hole. When you mail something, a postal employee will open up your mail and carefully examine what is inside. If it's a copyright protected movie on DVD, or copyright protected music on CD, or a copyright protected page torn out of a magazine, the employee will refuse to deliver the message. Your average US Postal Service customer won't notice any change. Only pirates will be inconvienced.
We here at the MPAA trust that all law abiding, moral citizens will support this perfect plan. We also look forward to your support for our future plan to monitor all physical human contact to eliminate the "handing a DVD to your friend" loophole.
Sincerely, the perfectly reasonable MPAA who is doing this for your own good.
What's important isn't the whining of copyright holders that this makes it "too easy" to infringe copyright. What's important is that this is a stunning reminder that for all of human history humankind has worked to make it easier and easier to reproduce and circulate information. Spoken language, written language, block printing, movable type, typewriters, telegraphs, telephones, radio, television, laser printers, file sharing, the internet. It's not about to stop. This should be a wake up call (much like the previous 10 wake-up calls) that copyright based industries need to start thinking about new models. Expecting humanity to stop advancing technology is stupid.
He tried to get parts of the most recent copyright extension declared unconstitutional, eventually personally arguing the case before the Supreme Court. He founded Creative Commons to make it easy for creators who want to make things more free to do so. That includes helping write a boilerplate license to make it easy to voluntarily put things into the public domain and another license to voluntarily limit ones own work to the "Founder's Copyright" of 28 years. What more do you want from him? The next major step will be convincing US citizens that things need to change. Once the citizenry believe that, it will be possible to convince congress to change the laws for the better. He's working on changing people's mind. You can hardly say that Lessig is a slacker.
Sure it is. Creative Commons even offers a boilerplate document to dedicate something to the public domain. You don't need CC's document ("I, the author of this work, hereby dedicate it to the public domain" is good enough), but it helps make your intentions extremely clear.