Heh, I used to know a nice Baptist lady who homeschooled her kids to keep them from the evil influences of the American public school systems. Her son loved to play Doom and she had no problem with it. Of course, her son was college age (and ROTC, I think), maybe it would've been different if he were twelve.
I think that the attacks on Doom by people identifying themselves at the Christian Right were really, really dumb. Honestly, I heard Senator Orrin Hatch, saying that if we can regulate guns we should be able to regulate these "realistic simulators" that train kids to use them. I thought the Republican party was against gun control? Sigh... How can people keep electing these people when they babble when they talk?
Hmm, I consider it odd that this game is considered to be the first "Christian Action Game." Doom, (as it was originally conceived before the modded levels came out) had a Christian theme. I.e. Arrogant men meddle with things Man was not meant to know and open a gate to Hell. Through this gate come various sorts of demons, and lost souls. The main character's goal is to shoot and otherwise blow up all the horrible things that came through the gate.
While I'll admit that there probably wasn't the same kind of overt religious evangelism in Doom as in this game, I do happen to know that one of the designers is a genuine Mormon (Sandy Peterson).
I have no problem with people trying to use a game for evangelism. My problem is when people try to run/destroy other peoples lives and use religion as an excuse. I have the exact same problem when atheist humanists who don't believe in God try to run my life using social engineering as an excuse. Tyranny is tyranny, it doesn't matter what the person claims as their basis, ultimately its an attempt of them to impose their own tastes and view of the world on others for their own personal glorification. If I'm not harming other people, then keep out of my life, for all you know my interpretation of Scripture is more correct than yours. (I think people who are really, really sure that they know the will of God are committing the sin of pride. In the New Testament, Jesus called these types of people "whited sepulchres," i.e. beautiful tombs full of decaying corpses.) I've been pretty shocked by some of the things people have done in the name of Christianity, I don't think just calling yourself a Christian exempts you from courtesy or simple decent behaviour, but some Christians seem to think it does.
This may be the first evangelical action game, but if it's designers don't think they are going to get grief if some kid who plays it decides to turn a gun on his schoolmates, they've got another thing coming. They'll be surprised at how fast glory-seeking televangelist types will jump on them.
My Dad once bought an issue of WWN which sported this headline(see subject) not because he believed it, mind, but because it was such a cool headline. This should tell you the audience that WWN is hoping to attract.. i.e. the anti-geek. Anti-geeks are semi literate people in sub-blue collar jobs (if they can get work at all). They live in wretched, impoverished conditions and are often high school drop-outs with many children. These people have a desire to feel superior to those who are more successful than themselves, especially those who they don't take as role models (aka non-athletic/movie/music stars). I sincerely believe that this magazine is aimed at people who I have a hard time believing can afford Internet access, so I wonder why it was put on the Web. I have pity for people who take WWN seriously (well, pity mixed with a certain amount of contempt.) Of course, there is always the possibility that WWN writers are geeks, themselves, and that they wrote this as a self-parodying, tongue-in-cheek sort of thing. But then, I've always believed WWN works on two levels, interesting to those who are so ignorant they find it believable and to those who find it so outrageous it cracks them up. (I mean, didn't they have a picture of President Clinton and a space alien on one of their issues? I seem to remember seeing that in a grocery store once.)
I always thought that that was an anti-Space Program move. It happened right after Challenger exploded (Challenger, incidentally, is my first memory of a Columbine-like media horror show, I remember my Dad started to get so mad when they would show the shocked and horrified people in the stands. "And now here's Jimmy Pearson one of Ms. McCullahs' students as he hears the news that the Challenger exploded," and so on, ad infinitum.)
I'm not sure why MTV chose the moon flag logo in their early days, but I think maybe it was because they thought of themselves as pioneering spirits, like the first astronauts. But after Challenger, they decided it wasn't cool any more (sort of like similar moves by networks after Columbine, they didn't care about those kids, they just cared about presenting a homogonized message while attempting to appear hip and rebellious), the channel never really got a new symbol, except for their initials (MTV).
As in Elmer FUD? Actually, it must be a really good article, because Micros~1 put up snippets from it on their Linux Myths page. Their new, streamlined, Linux Myths page, I might add.
Of course the only real reason why Micros~1 will continue to dominate the home market is games, which will hopefully end soon. (Why no System Shock 2 for Linux, Why?;_;) I wonder if Gartner bothered with games in there report (which I haven't had time to read yet). I'll never understand why these suits who are paid to help companies like M$ make more money feel examining gaming is some how beneath them...
... according to one of the newspapers I read, I think it was The Weekly Planet (which I admit, is a little out there at times... but I'm not refering to one of those grocery store tabloids but rather to one of those "strange politics" free papers you find on college campuses.)
I think that this is probably true (the aphrodisiac part... why else give chocolate to your sweetie instead of, say, skittles? Or hard candy? What makes chocolate the candy of romance?)... so the big question is, is it the caffein in chocolate that acts as the aphrodisiac or one of the other ingredients. In that case, does it mean that your testicles are getting smaller due to over hormone production. (of course, I only believe things that improve the reputation of cocoa... so I don't believe the part about it decreasing testicle size. Chocolate, my one true God... did you know that the Aztecs only let their priests drink it... at least, I think that's what I remember from the Hershey park tour...)
As a hardcore Nestle Quick addict (now called, ugh, NesQuick... I guess to make the name sound more Soylent Greenish) I'm curoius. I'm not planning to stop drinking the rabbit bedecked powder though... either way. (Like I said, I'm an addict... I've tried to quit already just for the weight loss benefits...)
Of course, the DoJ, last I heard, were just like those parasitic lawyers you were complaining about and are going after the bright, shining company in Redmond.
Gee, I wonder if I sent a letter to the DoJ people saying they ought to put up another kid's page explaining about the evils of Micros~1 and how, when they grow up they shouldn't engage in predatory, monopolistic practices if they'd do it? After all, the DoJ has been working hard to demonize Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates (who, in this case, is the lesser evil when compared to the DoJ...)
Hey, anyone out there who was a kid in the 70's? Remember the Carter administration's "Energy Ant" cards? Well, I sort of remember them, it seems that there was an evil Queen Ant who liked to drive over 55 miles per hour and leave lights on when she wasn't in the room, and an energy ant who always did the right thing (i.e. lived in the lovely, quiet darkness.)
Of course, my Dad and Mom hated the energy ant cards (which I thought were kind of cool, I mean, how often do schools give out trading cards... I was a kid for cripes sake!) because they were convinced it was Jimmy Carter's fault that everyone was waiting in gas lines. My Dad would make comments about US Navy oil reserves and my Mom (& Dad) both believed that the government was suppressing alternative fuel sources.
Of course, it does seem, to me, that there were indeed enough fossil fuel reserves available to run cars. I still believe in alternative fuel source research, but mostly to improve emissions without sacrificing speed and performance.
In fact, my Dad is convinced of the following scenario: A government scientist develops an alternative energy source that works. He shows it to his masters at the Department of Energy, and, horrified, they make sure to suppress the finding. Actually, I think they made a movie about it called The Formula.
As to the hacker thing... the government hates all hackers that aren't working for it. Hackers (and crackers, let's not forget) working in the CIA, FBI, etc... are just fine, as long as they're hacking & cracking for the government. It's only when an independent person has this power, that they get nervous.
Actually, having the DoJ put up a site against hacking would sure make hacking uncool when I was a kid. I mean really, a bunch of out of touch, patronizing authority figures telling you stuff like this... it sure doesn't make you want to draw eyeglasses and a big mustache on their pictures, does it? If anyone out there collects Babylon Five comics, you might remember the one that was packaged as a fake government propaganda handout for the Psi Core. (If not, you missed one funny comic;) You know, everything about this Website, reminds me of that comic! The patronizing tone, the massively evil organization behind the comic, everything...
..it is actually over. Some people live there entire lives based on a fear of the future. After the great depression, many people took all their money and hid it around their houses. These people sometimes got ripped off by people who were robbing their houses, and their money would probably have been safer in the banks. I'm not going to drop out of USFs outdated, horribly taught computer science program because of this article. (Despite the fact that I have grown to truly hate the program, even though I'm getting average-to-good grades.) I think this is similar to people who figured Moore's law would eventually level out. Well, as far as I know it's still holding true. (Even if it isn't, it was still a truth for a lot longer than some people expected it to be.) Of course, anyone who is really scared about this (and currently working in the industry) there is a solution, unionize. Do it now while there is a shortage, and management can't crush the new unions. As to me, I'll wait and see. I already know enough to build connections and save money. (I'd be doing that no matter where I was working or what I was doing.) No one is safe, you know, no matter what industry they are in. If you work with computers, you should be doing it because you love it, or at least like it. I believe this about any career, money should be secondary (as long as you can make a living at it.) And don't spend your life living in fear, it isn't worth it. Doomsday predictions should only be uttered along with solutions. Hey, if I ever think that the world is going to come to an end in a few years, I will at least write letters to all my congressmen suggesting we build colonies on Mars. Hey, I went through college once, got my BA in English (at Rutgers) and ended up working in K-mart-type jobs for a long time before I decided to return to school. I'm doing better now than I was then (I still need my degree, unfortunately, so I can't say I'm doing great.) The reason why I didn't take computer science then was because it terrified me, I was used to being an A student (without no real effort) in High School, not struggling with the course material. So I took the "easy A" (for me) major, English, not because I liked Literature any better than computers but because I knew I would get great grades and keep my scholarship. (Incidentally, I think a lot of computer science professors at USF think that intimidating their students is the best way to make sure that only the best students actually stick with the program. They probably "break" a lot of good, enthusiastic kids who just can't take these professor's open hostility. I truly hate people with this philosophy of life, but it obviously drives a lot of people in positions of power.)
Oh, because some of us disabled adults are functional enough to fight back, either physically or with words. Or both, if need be.
Remember, his goal is to pick on people who can't fight back, but there is more to a human being than just his/her physical limitations. Some disabled people even hold positions of political power, or have discovered quasars or something.
Of course, someday the AI's will just decide that we are all weak, limited, handicapped beings and eliminate the human race... if they are programmed by people with Singer's mindset.
This was a great BBC series about the Roman Emperor Claudius. Claudius had numerous problems, including partial physical paralysis and a pronounced stutter. During the course of I, Claudius, his aunt, Livia, said, "In my day, a child like that would've been exposed at birth." (I.e. exposed to the elements and allowed to die.)
Of course, in I, Claudius Livia is portrayed as a ruthless murderess. On one level, she justifies her many murders (including that of her own husband, Augustus Caesar) by claiming she was trying to preserve the Roman Empire and prevent a destructive civil war. It seems clear to me, as an audience member, that her primary motivation is the increased glory and power of herself and her posterity. She doesn't like her "defective" nephew Claudius, because in being physically disabled, he reflects badly on the family and diminishes her personal glory.
People who are bigoted against disabled people probably don't really care about whether they are suffering or not. They only worry about the consequences to themselves. To give you an idea, just think about this question: Two families have disabled, infants. One of the infants is perfectly beautiful, an infant that appears as an ideal of what an infant should be, but has sub-normal intelligence (like Charlie from "Flowers for Algernon). The other infant has normal intelligence, but looks like the "elephant" man, which one is more likely to be put to death?
Because of this fact, I consider it immoral to even suggest something like this to people. Fortunately, most parents love their children, whether they are "defective" or not, and wouldn't consider such a drastic measure. But if this view became prevalent, I'm sure there would be government officials present at all births to convince parents to do the "humane" (read cost-effective) thing.
After all, I remember how irritated my school was for having to give me occupational therapy (hey, I didn't make the law! I'd just as soon been treated as a "normal" student. I didn't have any choice and neither did they.) and let me out of the oh so essential gym classes that all students "had!" to take, handicapped or not. If only I had never been born, or put to death soon after, think how much simpler it would have been for their beautiful, bureacratic machine....
I want to see what happens. I think this might be a good thing, if it is known in advance that the series is coming to an end, they can plot out the last season properly. I'd rather have some kind of ending than be stuck the way I was at the end of Twin Peaks...
In the old blue book Basic Set, Dwarves and Elves were classes if I remember right. (It's at my parents house so I don't have it handy.) I actually regret that I didn't get into TSRs alternate Basic, Advanced... Immortal D&D series that existed concurrently with AD&D. Of course, by then I was busily collecting all the supplements to Chaosiums Call of Cthuhlu, as well as AD&D modules, books, etc.. (and later Cyberpunk, Shadowrun, and on and on...), so I didn't have the money to spare.
I think the rational for making Dwarves and Elves classes in the blue book was to simplify things. Dwarves and Elves, I guess, just had the same basic abilities all the time, rather than being a factor which would work into modifying character classes abilities. I don't know how they worked in the upper level D&D books because I only got the blue book (and later the red book sets after my brother wrote all over my blue book) and then moved straight into the AD&D books with the cool, demonic looking covers (that was before TSR became PC). I remember being infuriated when people would say that it was a devil on the cover of the Dungeon Masters guide, and I would exasperatedly try to explain to them it was an Efreet ("Look, see, there's the City of Brass on the back cover.") but no one would ever listen....
Actually, I think the girl the Efreet was holding was wearing one of those and +5(AC 0) Chainmail Bikini's of Cleavage you were talking about...
I think they could make a movie out of one of the Dragonlance novels, but I think people ought to make note of the Dragonlance novels, the authors didn't follow the "rules" of D&D. A signifigant number of the rules were changed for Dragonlance, and the entire halfling race was eliminated and replaced by the kender, gnomes were changed, etc. This was done so that the stories in the novels would be unique and original compared to other offerings in other fantasy novels. If they had gone "straight D&D" with the Dragonlance novels, I think people would've been irritated by the fact that there was so much Tolkien influence in the stories. Now, the fact that they are making a Lord of the Rings movie (a new one) means that any D&D movie will run into problems if it tries to follow straight D&D. i.e. Humans, dwarves, elves, "halflings" (hobbits) all hanging out together fighting orcs, goblins, ogres, and the like. (I don't think D&D tried to rip off Tolkien, btw. I think D&D was intended to be a game where you could recreate the character types and locales from your favorite fantasy stories or come up with something completely original. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with the derivative nature of much that is in D&D.)
I think that the movie should be based on one of the Dragonlance novels, not on the game, it would make a lot more sense. Of course, for all I know, that's what they are actually doing.
Of course, for me, the best D&D movie will always be Army of Darkness. There's a movie that captures the spirit of actually playing D&D, I think. Though I like the serious, dramatic stuff in the Dragonlance novels, it's not like playing real D&D and having your party-mates try to feed you to a gelatonous cube because you're the weakest character (and thus can fight back the least) and they hope it'll distract the cube long enough for them to escape. Sigh... I miss those good times....
Hmm... if their making a movie like that, that could be cool, too. I don't have high hopes for the movie though.
Corporations believe in censorship, as long as they have the power to control what is censored. For a good, solid example of corporate sponsored censorship, look at the regional coding lock-out chips in DVD-decoder cards, Sony Playstations, set-top DVD players, etc. It's actually a very effective form of censorship, compared to the way governments do it. Governments tend to pass a law that says, "Let it be so," without putting a realistic mechanism to make it so, whereas corporations put their R&D divisions to work on making effective lock-out technologies.
For example, I recently got Dino Crisis for my Playstation. My Playstation had been modified to allow me to play Japanese games, but when I put Dino Crisis in, it detected the chip. I got a bunch of Japanese text and one of those red cirles with a slash through it like you see on no-smoking signs. Now, I'm sure, a lot of new Playstation games won't work in my Playstation, because of this technology, so I had to go back to the drawing board to try to thwart Sony's latest attempt impose their content controls on me.
I am a bit surprised by the way that Lotus came out so heavily in favor of government sponsored censorship, I'm guessing their is something in it for them, either in regards to control or financial gain.
I wonder how long the citizens of Australia will put up with this nonsense.
The thing about Thailand is that the government is pretty much allowed to do whatever they want and the people don't have constitutional rights like they do here. So, instead of pedophilia being less common than it is here, it is more so. Just one of the many reasons why I'm against a government which isn't accountable to its people. If you want more, and more horrible crime, let the government be of men and not of laws. Naughton was an executive at a big company. If he were director of the FBI, he could pretty much do whatever he wanted along these lines right here in the USA and "none could call his power to account" (to quote Macbeth), right? At least it seems that way to me, and that's why I've been complaining about the way they've handled this case in my other posts.
Please read my posts about this man. I trust law enforcement about as much as you do. I consider prison rape one of the most disgusting abuses of power allowed and accepted by the people of this country. (Citizen Redneck says, "Let's make sure that that car thief gets sexually abused in the most degrading ways possible." Why? So that when he gets out of prison he'll be a murderer or other violent criminal? I don't understand people.) Remember, Republicans who claim to be (note the small l) libertarians because they like some Libertarian ideas are not Libertarians. They just want to get the Libertarian vote. I doubt real, registered Libertarians can stomach this kind of abuse by the FBI. I certainly can't. Of course the true beauty of the kind of public accusation levelled against Naughton is that if you oppose it for any reason you are apt to get labelled as a pedophile yourself. Salem-style witch hunt's have been back in a big way for a while in this country, you may see Libertarians who are afraid to point out just what a huge abuse of the legal system the FBI is guilty of here, for fear Naughton will be convicted and they'll find they have been defending the rights of a pedophile. Incidentally, I've noticed a number of fist time posters with this post, I wonder who they are and why this story brought them here.
I doubt it. The first thing the people over at the 700 Club are going to do when they hear about this case is say, "See? What we told you about Disney is true!" Then they'll trumpet it to all their faithful. Naughton will become a symbol to the anti-Internet, pro-censorware crowd. Soon, he'll be a household name, at least among people who listen to Ollie North and Nora Schlesinger. Of course, things might not play out this way. But I don't think many companies are going to hire an alleged pedophile, it's the best way to "get" someone these days, remember The X-Files movie?
Reading this site makes me think that the not guilty verdict reached in this famous case was probably correct. Too bad for Arbuckle, though, he was branded a rapist for life. One of the interesting quotes on this Website is:
Used as a scapegoat by Will Hays for the ills of Hollywood, Roscoe found himself unemployable as actor. -- Roscoe Arbuckles Biography on this page
Of course the FBI loves silicon valley, the Internet, and all this wonderful technology that is making it harder and harder for them to keep tabs on all of us and what we are doing. They'd never decide to "make an example" out of someone prominent in order to make other prominent people think twice about criticizing them or their methods. Just like they never used incendiaries at WACO. We should all trust that the FBI is releasing all this info to the press, to ruin this person in the court of public opinion, because they have a really strong case against him and will be able to put him away for many years, not because they are covering themselves in case he gets off. You trust the FBI, don't you? You'd better, I'd hate to think what will happen to you otherwise...
I think what people are reacting to with OJ is the belief that there was "jury nullification" there. I don't like the term "jury nullification" because it is a term usually applied when the jury is black, and it could just as easily refer to the old KKK run South, where a racist murderer couldn't get convicted (see the movie, Ghosts of Mississipi for an example.) In other words, the idea of a jury doing something deliberately unjust in order to "get even" with a group of people they hate.
Open and shut case? Why not have a French Revolutionary 'Reign of Terror' or Salem Witch Trial system of justice then? Innocent until proven guilty, but the FBI has put an end to that right in this case.
And this is an age when the FBI (post-WACO lies about using incendiaries) is looking particularly corrupt.
The Java Handbook, it's ok, I use it a lot but I have better Java books. But I like the Java development history Naughton gives in the epilogue. It's about something which has been fairly important in software (not as important as the hype, but important) by a guy who was there from the beginning. As to the details of the case: Naughton is legally innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, but he's been ruined, probably, no matter what the court outcome is. The publicity surrounding the case has turned it into a "guilty even if proven innocent" situation. This is a case where I wish someone would prevent the FBI from spilling all this stuff to the press before there has been a trial. I mean, it undermines the whole concept of a fair trial for someone to be tried in the press. Of course, Naughton may be guilty of the crimes he has been accused of, but the FBI ought not to be allowed to use the press as a weapon in this way. Trial by public accusation is a violation of due process, anyone think Naughton will have a career at Disney even if this turns out to be a frame job? How about any other prominent place in Silicon Valley? On a personal note, I do think that parents need to be careful about letting their kids do any of the various forms of chat on the Internet unsupervised. As a veteran former MUCKer, I know the majority of what people tell you online (at least the people I used to hang out with) is lies. I loaned over 700 bucks to a woman I met online and had felt close too for over a year (she was desperate about her rent, she told me) and soon after that she lost interest in me. Needless to say, I never got the money back, but I learned a valuable lesson about the kind of people you can meet on-line. I hope people will at least wait to see the kind of evidence that is presented to the defense before pre-judging this thing, though. I get suspiscious when prosecutors or police decide to release huge amounts of damaging information to the press. It makes me think they are covering themselves in case it turns out that there was massive impropriety in their case. Remember, this FBI hasn't been looking too good, lately, because of some of the crooked stuff it has pulled. Maybe Naughton looked crosseyed at the wrong politician. I'm not saying it is a case like this, only that it seems odd that they've presented such a heavy case to the press before it has even gone to trial.
Is it just me, or are the assumptions here a little conservative? I mean small 'c' conservative. First of all, radical change in governance does not come from the two major political parties learning to manipulate a new form of media. It comes from people with new, interesting ideas getting a voice in the political system. People (not just Libertarians) who have been kept out of the political oligarchy until now. I don't think that as long as the current country club of two cozy political parties (who's main goals are keeping their jobs and increasing their political power) is running things, thing are going to change for anything but the worse. I don't resist labels. I've officially labeled myself a Libertarian, both on my voter registration card and through my Libertarian party membership card. Why does he assume the two major parties will continue to dominate the political system? Are "unlabelled" voters people who swing pendulum like between the two parties? Or are they people who don't believe either of the two parties represent their interests? I think it must be the latter, I think many people are embarrassed to be called Republican or Democrat, or have rejected both parties. I think these people continue to vote for the two parties because they feel they are stuck with no credible alternative. Like many people, I believe that he has the superstitious belief that the two party system we currently have is the only way this country will ever work, and that the two major parties will continue to absorb people who don't really hold Republican party or Democratic party beliefs, but want to "go with a winner." It's the "don't blame me, I voted for Kodoss," school of American politics. (From the Simpsons episodes in which the two major presidential candidates are both evil aliens, but everyone decides to vote Republican or Democratic anyway, ensuring the takeover of the Earth by the aliens, either way. Homer says to Marge, when she complains about the Earth's enslavement to the aliens, "don't blame me, I voted for Kodoss!") Even more important than this, though, is his interest in who the president is going to be, above every other political position in the country. The president is important, but not compared to all the congressmen, Senators, judges, school boards and other political positions in this country en masse. The President's primary ability, in the domestic sphere, is to act as an obstacle to the congress when it opposes him, and to suggest legislation and an agenda when they are "his people." The President is important symbolically, but there is a lot more to government than who is president. I'm more worried about the next Senate and House, frankly, than I am who the next president is. Oh, and I also should note that the transforming effects of the Internet on politics are perhaps a bit more noticeable in places like East Timor and China. Places where the political oppression is significantly nastier than it is in the United States will be the first places that the Internet can be used to bring down corrupt and evil governments. (Though I must admit, I am disappointed that all the pro-independence stuff the East Timor Independence Movement had on the Web, it hasn't stopped massacres or oppression in that unfortunate part of the world.)
Well, 1984 helped to point out the ultimate evolution of the Stalinist way of doing things with some pretty graphic imagery. This is just one example but there are others, like King Lear which pointed out the problems a person in power has with people who flatter them on one hand and stab them in the back later, or MacBeth which was about the dangers of ambition. (Decapitations and eye gouging figures prominently in them. King Lear is almost 100% fiction, in case you want to continue that tired old argument, because it deals with a rather sketchy period of British History.) Still, most people put Shakespeare and even Orwell out of the realm of censorship, it is only the Orwell's and Shakespeare's of today who will have their work trampled while such sensational fare as Unsolved Mysteries will continue to exist, if fascists have their way. I don't personally like the "true crime" genre you speak of, it has been responsible for glorifying people like Charles Manson in its worst excesses. (I wouldn't want to see it censored, but I personally wouldn't let my kids watch it.) But it doesn't matter because except for COPS it is all fiction anyway, just based on real facts, which are presented according to the shows agenda. I just hope that whichever party you belong to, and whatever beliefs you hold dear, that the people in the other party, with opposing beliefs and ideas will be the ones in power when your censorship laws go through and the Bill of Rights is dust. You can live without the First Amendment under their gentle care. Actually, I hope the Bill of Rights survives people like you, but there is little hope. Oh incidentally, fictionalized violence in this country isn't a problem, the loss of Constitutional protection from arbitrary, ignorant men is. (But being arbitrary and ignorant yourself, I somehow doubt you can understand this, until you end up on the wrong side of the power structure.)
Slashdot Mirror
I think that the attacks on Doom by people identifying themselves at the Christian Right were really, really dumb. Honestly, I heard Senator Orrin Hatch, saying that if we can regulate guns we should be able to regulate these "realistic simulators" that train kids to use them. I thought the Republican party was against gun control? Sigh... How can people keep electing these people when they babble when they talk?
While I'll admit that there probably wasn't the same kind of overt religious evangelism in Doom as in this game, I do happen to know that one of the designers is a genuine Mormon (Sandy Peterson).
I have no problem with people trying to use a game for evangelism. My problem is when people try to run/destroy other peoples lives and use religion as an excuse. I have the exact same problem when atheist humanists who don't believe in God try to run my life using social engineering as an excuse. Tyranny is tyranny, it doesn't matter what the person claims as their basis, ultimately its an attempt of them to impose their own tastes and view of the world on others for their own personal glorification. If I'm not harming other people, then keep out of my life, for all you know my interpretation of Scripture is more correct than yours. (I think people who are really, really sure that they know the will of God are committing the sin of pride. In the New Testament, Jesus called these types of people "whited sepulchres," i.e. beautiful tombs full of decaying corpses.) I've been pretty shocked by some of the things people have done in the name of Christianity, I don't think just calling yourself a Christian exempts you from courtesy or simple decent behaviour, but some Christians seem to think it does.
This may be the first evangelical action game, but if it's designers don't think they are going to get grief if some kid who plays it decides to turn a gun on his schoolmates, they've got another thing coming. They'll be surprised at how fast glory-seeking televangelist types will jump on them.
My Dad once bought an issue of WWN which sported this headline(see subject) not because he believed it, mind, but because it was such a cool headline.
This should tell you the audience that WWN is hoping to attract.. i.e. the anti-geek. Anti-geeks are semi literate people in sub-blue collar jobs (if they can get work at all). They live in wretched, impoverished conditions and are often high school drop-outs with many children. These people have a desire to feel superior to those who are more successful than themselves, especially those who they don't take as role models (aka non-athletic/movie/music stars). I sincerely believe that this magazine is aimed at people who I have a hard time believing can afford Internet access, so I wonder why it was put on the Web. I have pity for people who take WWN seriously (well, pity mixed with a certain amount of contempt.)
Of course, there is always the possibility that WWN writers are geeks, themselves, and that they wrote this as a self-parodying, tongue-in-cheek sort of thing. But then, I've always believed WWN works on two levels, interesting to those who are so ignorant they find it believable and to those who find it so outrageous it cracks them up. (I mean, didn't they have a picture of President Clinton and a space alien on one of their issues? I seem to remember seeing that in a grocery store once.)
I'm not sure why MTV chose the moon flag logo in their early days, but I think maybe it was because they thought of themselves as pioneering spirits, like the first astronauts. But after Challenger, they decided it wasn't cool any more (sort of like similar moves by networks after Columbine, they didn't care about those kids, they just cared about presenting a homogonized message while attempting to appear hip and rebellious), the channel never really got a new symbol, except for their initials (MTV).
Of course the only real reason why Micros~1 will continue to dominate the home market is games, which will hopefully end soon. (Why no System Shock 2 for Linux, Why? ;_;) I wonder if Gartner bothered with games in there report (which I haven't had time to read yet). I'll never understand why these suits who are paid to help companies like M$ make more money feel examining gaming is some how beneath them...
I think that this is probably true (the aphrodisiac part... why else give chocolate to your sweetie instead of, say, skittles? Or hard candy? What makes chocolate the candy of romance?)... so the big question is, is it the caffein in chocolate that acts as the aphrodisiac or one of the other ingredients. In that case, does it mean that your testicles are getting smaller due to over hormone production. (of course, I only believe things that improve the reputation of cocoa... so I don't believe the part about it decreasing testicle size. Chocolate, my one true God... did you know that the Aztecs only let their priests drink it... at least, I think that's what I remember from the Hershey park tour...)
As a hardcore Nestle Quick addict (now called, ugh, NesQuick... I guess to make the name sound more Soylent Greenish) I'm curoius. I'm not planning to stop drinking the rabbit bedecked powder though... either way. (Like I said, I'm an addict... I've tried to quit already just for the weight loss benefits...)
Hrmm... I feel... thirsty.......@.@
Gee, I wonder if I sent a letter to the DoJ people saying they ought to put up another kid's page explaining about the evils of Micros~1 and how, when they grow up they shouldn't engage in predatory, monopolistic practices if they'd do it? After all, the DoJ has been working hard to demonize Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates (who, in this case, is the lesser evil when compared to the DoJ...)
Of course, my Dad and Mom hated the energy ant cards (which I thought were kind of cool, I mean, how often do schools give out trading cards... I was a kid for cripes sake!) because they were convinced it was Jimmy Carter's fault that everyone was waiting in gas lines. My Dad would make comments about US Navy oil reserves and my Mom (& Dad) both believed that the government was suppressing alternative fuel sources.
Of course, it does seem, to me, that there were indeed enough fossil fuel reserves available to run cars. I still believe in alternative fuel source research, but mostly to improve emissions without sacrificing speed and performance.
In fact, my Dad is convinced of the following scenario: A government scientist develops an alternative energy source that works. He shows it to his masters at the Department of Energy, and, horrified, they make sure to suppress the finding. Actually, I think they made a movie about it called The Formula.
As to the hacker thing... the government hates all hackers that aren't working for it. Hackers (and crackers, let's not forget) working in the CIA, FBI, etc... are just fine, as long as they're hacking & cracking for the government. It's only when an independent person has this power, that they get nervous.
Actually, having the DoJ put up a site against hacking would sure make hacking uncool when I was a kid. I mean really, a bunch of out of touch, patronizing authority figures telling you stuff like this... it sure doesn't make you want to draw eyeglasses and a big mustache on their pictures, does it? If anyone out there collects Babylon Five comics, you might remember the one that was packaged as a fake government propaganda handout for the Psi Core. (If not, you missed one funny comic ;) You know, everything about this Website, reminds me of that comic! The patronizing tone, the massively evil organization behind the comic, everything...
..it is actually over. Some people live there entire lives based on a fear of the future. After the great depression, many people took all their money and hid it around their houses. These people sometimes got ripped off by people who were robbing their houses, and their money would probably have been safer in the banks. I'm not going to drop out of USFs outdated, horribly taught computer science program because of this article. (Despite the fact that I have grown to truly hate the program, even though I'm getting average-to-good grades.) I think this is similar to people who figured Moore's law would eventually level out. Well, as far as I know it's still holding true. (Even if it isn't, it was still a truth for a lot longer than some people expected it to be.)
Of course, anyone who is really scared about this (and currently working in the industry) there is a solution, unionize. Do it now while there is a shortage, and management can't crush the new unions.
As to me, I'll wait and see. I already know enough to build connections and save money. (I'd be doing that no matter where I was working or what I was doing.) No one is safe, you know, no matter what industry they are in. If you work with computers, you should be doing it because you love it, or at least like it. I believe this about any career, money should be secondary (as long as you can make a living at it.) And don't spend your life living in fear, it isn't worth it.
Doomsday predictions should only be uttered along with solutions. Hey, if I ever think that the world is going to come to an end in a few years, I will at least write letters to all my congressmen suggesting we build colonies on Mars.
Hey, I went through college once, got my BA in English (at Rutgers) and ended up working in K-mart-type jobs for a long time before I decided to return to school. I'm doing better now than I was then (I still need my degree, unfortunately, so I can't say I'm doing great.) The reason why I didn't take computer science then was because it terrified me, I was used to being an A student (without no real effort) in High School, not struggling with the course material. So I took the "easy A" (for me) major, English, not because I liked Literature any better than computers but because I knew I would get great grades and keep my scholarship. (Incidentally, I think a lot of computer science professors at USF think that intimidating their students is the best way to make sure that only the best students actually stick with the program. They probably "break" a lot of good, enthusiastic kids who just can't take these professor's open hostility. I truly hate people with this philosophy of life, but it obviously drives a lot of people in positions of power.)
Remember, his goal is to pick on people who can't fight back, but there is more to a human being than just his/her physical limitations. Some disabled people even hold positions of political power, or have discovered quasars or something.
Of course, someday the AI's will just decide that we are all weak, limited, handicapped beings and eliminate the human race... if they are programmed by people with Singer's mindset.
Of course, in I, Claudius Livia is portrayed as a ruthless murderess. On one level, she justifies her many murders (including that of her own husband, Augustus Caesar) by claiming she was trying to preserve the Roman Empire and prevent a destructive civil war. It seems clear to me, as an audience member, that her primary motivation is the increased glory and power of herself and her posterity. She doesn't like her "defective" nephew Claudius, because in being physically disabled, he reflects badly on the family and diminishes her personal glory.
People who are bigoted against disabled people probably don't really care about whether they are suffering or not. They only worry about the consequences to themselves. To give you an idea, just think about this question: Two families have disabled, infants. One of the infants is perfectly beautiful, an infant that appears as an ideal of what an infant should be, but has sub-normal intelligence (like Charlie from "Flowers for Algernon). The other infant has normal intelligence, but looks like the "elephant" man, which one is more likely to be put to death?
Because of this fact, I consider it immoral to even suggest something like this to people. Fortunately, most parents love their children, whether they are "defective" or not, and wouldn't consider such a drastic measure. But if this view became prevalent, I'm sure there would be government officials present at all births to convince parents to do the "humane" (read cost-effective) thing.
After all, I remember how irritated my school was for having to give me occupational therapy (hey, I didn't make the law! I'd just as soon been treated as a "normal" student. I didn't have any choice and neither did they.) and let me out of the oh so essential gym classes that all students "had!" to take, handicapped or not. If only I had never been born, or put to death soon after, think how much simpler it would have been for their beautiful, bureacratic machine....
I want to see what happens. I think this might be a good thing, if it is known in advance that the series is coming to an end, they can plot out the last season properly. I'd rather have some kind of ending than be stuck the way I was at the end of Twin Peaks...
I think the rational for making Dwarves and Elves classes in the blue book was to simplify things. Dwarves and Elves, I guess, just had the same basic abilities all the time, rather than being a factor which would work into modifying character classes abilities. I don't know how they worked in the upper level D&D books because I only got the blue book (and later the red book sets after my brother wrote all over my blue book) and then moved straight into the AD&D books with the cool, demonic looking covers (that was before TSR became PC). I remember being infuriated when people would say that it was a devil on the cover of the Dungeon Masters guide, and I would exasperatedly try to explain to them it was an Efreet ("Look, see, there's the City of Brass on the back cover.") but no one would ever listen....
Actually, I think the girl the Efreet was holding was wearing one of those and +5(AC 0) Chainmail Bikini's of Cleavage you were talking about...
I think that the movie should be based on one of the Dragonlance novels, not on the game, it would make a lot more sense. Of course, for all I know, that's what they are actually doing.
Of course, for me, the best D&D movie will always be Army of Darkness. There's a movie that captures the spirit of actually playing D&D, I think. Though I like the serious, dramatic stuff in the Dragonlance novels, it's not like playing real D&D and having your party-mates try to feed you to a gelatonous cube because you're the weakest character (and thus can fight back the least) and they hope it'll distract the cube long enough for them to escape. Sigh... I miss those good times....
Hmm... if their making a movie like that, that could be cool, too. I don't have high hopes for the movie though.
For example, I recently got Dino Crisis for my Playstation. My Playstation had been modified to allow me to play Japanese games, but when I put Dino Crisis in, it detected the chip. I got a bunch of Japanese text and one of those red cirles with a slash through it like you see on no-smoking signs. Now, I'm sure, a lot of new Playstation games won't work in my Playstation, because of this technology, so I had to go back to the drawing board to try to thwart Sony's latest attempt impose their content controls on me.
I am a bit surprised by the way that Lotus came out so heavily in favor of government sponsored censorship, I'm guessing their is something in it for them, either in regards to control or financial gain.
I wonder how long the citizens of Australia will put up with this nonsense.
Moderate this up. People need to read this.
The thing about Thailand is that the government is pretty much allowed to do whatever they want and the people don't have constitutional rights like they do here. So, instead of pedophilia being less common than it is here, it is more so.
Just one of the many reasons why I'm against a government which isn't accountable to its people. If you want more, and more horrible crime, let the government be of men and not of laws. Naughton was an executive at a big company. If he were director of the FBI, he could pretty much do whatever he wanted along these lines right here in the USA and "none could call his power to account" (to quote Macbeth), right? At least it seems that way to me, and that's why I've been complaining about the way they've handled this case in my other posts.
Someone who knows that they have kiddie porn on their laptop consents to a search of it by the FBI? That doesn't strike you as a little, well, odd?
Please read my posts about this man. I trust law enforcement about as much as you do. I consider prison rape one of the most disgusting abuses of power allowed and accepted by the people of this country. (Citizen Redneck says, "Let's make sure that that car thief gets sexually abused in the most degrading ways possible." Why? So that when he gets out of prison he'll be a murderer or other violent criminal? I don't understand people.)
Remember, Republicans who claim to be (note the small l) libertarians because they like some Libertarian ideas are not Libertarians. They just want to get the Libertarian vote. I doubt real, registered Libertarians can stomach this kind of abuse by the FBI. I certainly can't.
Of course the true beauty of the kind of public accusation levelled against Naughton is that if you oppose it for any reason you are apt to get labelled as a pedophile yourself. Salem-style witch hunt's have been back in a big way for a while in this country, you may see Libertarians who are afraid to point out just what a huge abuse of the legal system the FBI is guilty of here, for fear Naughton will be convicted and they'll find they have been defending the rights of a pedophile.
Incidentally, I've noticed a number of fist time posters with this post, I wonder who they are and why this story brought them here.
I doubt it. The first thing the people over at the 700 Club are going to do when they hear about this case is say, "See? What we told you about Disney is true!" Then they'll trumpet it to all their faithful. Naughton will become a symbol to the anti-Internet, pro-censorware crowd. Soon, he'll be a household name, at least among people who listen to Ollie North and Nora Schlesinger.
Of course, things might not play out this way. But I don't think many companies are going to hire an alleged pedophile, it's the best way to "get" someone these days, remember The X-Files movie?
Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle Website
Reading this site makes me think that the not guilty verdict reached in this famous case was probably correct. Too bad for Arbuckle, though, he was branded a rapist for life.
One of the interesting quotes on this Website is:
Used as a scapegoat by Will Hays for the ills of Hollywood, Roscoe found himself unemployable as actor. -- Roscoe Arbuckles Biography on this page
Of course the FBI loves silicon valley, the Internet, and all this wonderful technology that is making it harder and harder for them to keep tabs on all of us and what we are doing. They'd never decide to "make an example" out of someone prominent in order to make other prominent people think twice about criticizing them or their methods. Just like they never used incendiaries at WACO. We should all trust that the FBI is releasing all this info to the press, to ruin this person in the court of public opinion, because they have a really strong case against him and will be able to put him away for many years, not because they are covering themselves in case he gets off. You trust the FBI, don't you? You'd better, I'd hate to think what will happen to you otherwise...
A more apt comparison would be the old Fatty Arbuckle case A description of the famous silent film era scandal, in which a "not guilty" verdict didn't restore a man's life.
Open and shut case? Why not have a French Revolutionary 'Reign of Terror' or Salem Witch Trial system of justice then? Innocent until proven guilty, but the FBI has put an end to that right in this case.
And this is an age when the FBI (post-WACO lies about using incendiaries) is looking particularly corrupt.
The Java Handbook, it's ok, I use it a lot but I have better Java books. But I like the Java development history Naughton gives in the epilogue. It's about something which has been fairly important in software (not as important as the hype, but important) by a guy who was there from the beginning.
As to the details of the case: Naughton is legally innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, but he's been ruined, probably, no matter what the court outcome is. The publicity surrounding the case has turned it into a "guilty even if proven innocent" situation. This is a case where I wish someone would prevent the FBI from spilling all this stuff to the press before there has been a trial. I mean, it undermines the whole concept of a fair trial for someone to be tried in the press. Of course, Naughton may be guilty of the crimes he has been accused of, but the FBI ought not to be allowed to use the press as a weapon in this way. Trial by public accusation is a violation of due process, anyone think Naughton will have a career at Disney even if this turns out to be a frame job? How about any other prominent place in Silicon Valley?
On a personal note, I do think that parents need to be careful about letting their kids do any of the various forms of chat on the Internet unsupervised. As a veteran former MUCKer, I know the majority of what people tell you online (at least the people I used to hang out with) is lies. I loaned over 700 bucks to a woman I met online and had felt close too for over a year (she was desperate about her rent, she told me) and soon after that she lost interest in me. Needless to say, I never got the money back, but I learned a valuable lesson about the kind of people you can meet on-line.
I hope people will at least wait to see the kind of evidence that is presented to the defense before pre-judging this thing, though. I get suspiscious when prosecutors or police decide to release huge amounts of damaging information to the press. It makes me think they are covering themselves in case it turns out that there was massive impropriety in their case. Remember, this FBI hasn't been looking too good, lately, because of some of the crooked stuff it has pulled. Maybe Naughton looked crosseyed at the wrong politician. I'm not saying it is a case like this, only that it seems odd that they've presented such a heavy case to the press before it has even gone to trial.
Is it just me, or are the assumptions here a little conservative? I mean small 'c' conservative. First of all, radical change in governance does not come from the two major political parties learning to manipulate a new form of media. It comes from people with new, interesting ideas getting a voice in the political system. People (not just Libertarians) who have been kept out of the political oligarchy until now. I don't think that as long as the current country club of two cozy political parties (who's main goals are keeping their jobs and increasing their political power) is running things, thing are going to change for anything but the worse.
I don't resist labels. I've officially labeled myself a Libertarian, both on my voter registration card and through my Libertarian party membership card. Why does he assume the two major parties will continue to dominate the political system? Are "unlabelled" voters people who swing pendulum like between the two parties? Or are they people who don't believe either of the two parties represent their interests? I think it must be the latter, I think many people are embarrassed to be called Republican or Democrat, or have rejected both parties. I think these people continue to vote for the two parties because they feel they are stuck with no credible alternative. Like many people, I believe that he has the superstitious belief that the two party system we currently have is the only way this country will ever work, and that the two major parties will continue to absorb people who don't really hold Republican party or Democratic party beliefs, but want to "go with a winner." It's the "don't blame me, I voted for Kodoss," school of American politics. (From the Simpsons episodes in which the two major presidential candidates are both evil aliens, but everyone decides to vote Republican or Democratic anyway, ensuring the takeover of the Earth by the aliens, either way. Homer says to Marge, when she complains about the Earth's enslavement to the aliens, "don't blame me, I voted for Kodoss!")
Even more important than this, though, is his interest in who the president is going to be, above every other political position in the country. The president is important, but not compared to all the congressmen, Senators, judges, school boards and other political positions in this country en masse. The President's primary ability, in the domestic sphere, is to act as an obstacle to the congress when it opposes him, and to suggest legislation and an agenda when they are "his people." The President is important symbolically, but there is a lot more to government than who is president. I'm more worried about the next Senate and House, frankly, than I am who the next president is.
Oh, and I also should note that the transforming effects of the Internet on politics are perhaps a bit more noticeable in places like East Timor and China. Places where the political oppression is significantly nastier than it is in the United States will be the first places that the Internet can be used to bring down corrupt and evil governments. (Though I must admit, I am disappointed that all the pro-independence stuff the East Timor Independence Movement had on the Web, it hasn't stopped massacres or oppression in that unfortunate part of the world.)
Well, 1984 helped to point out the ultimate evolution of the Stalinist way of doing things with some pretty graphic imagery. This is just one example but there are others, like King Lear which pointed out the problems a person in power has with people who flatter them on one hand and stab them in the back later, or MacBeth which was about the dangers of ambition. (Decapitations and eye gouging figures prominently in them. King Lear is almost 100% fiction, in case you want to continue that tired old argument, because it deals with a rather sketchy period of British History.) Still, most people put Shakespeare and even Orwell out of the realm of censorship, it is only the Orwell's and Shakespeare's of today who will have their work trampled while such sensational fare as Unsolved Mysteries will continue to exist, if fascists have their way.
I don't personally like the "true crime" genre you speak of, it has been responsible for glorifying people like Charles Manson in its worst excesses. (I wouldn't want to see it censored, but I personally wouldn't let my kids watch it.) But it doesn't matter because except for COPS it is all fiction anyway, just based on real facts, which are presented according to the shows agenda.
I just hope that whichever party you belong to, and whatever beliefs you hold dear, that the people in the other party, with opposing beliefs and ideas will be the ones in power when your censorship laws go through and the Bill of Rights is dust. You can live without the First Amendment under their gentle care. Actually, I hope the Bill of Rights survives people like you, but there is little hope.
Oh incidentally, fictionalized violence in this country isn't a problem, the loss of Constitutional protection from arbitrary, ignorant men is. (But being arbitrary and ignorant yourself, I somehow doubt you can understand this, until you end up on the wrong side of the power structure.)