Everybody, deep down, knows what is right. Even my three year olds do, because when they are doing bad things, they stop as soon as I come in the room.
You know, you could also explain this behaviour by the fact they know they will be punished if caught doing something they are not supposed to be. Since the punishment is something they probably don't enjoy, they are learning to avoid it.
You can train animals like that too, it doesn't prove thy know deep down what is 'right'. Given how different human cultures have arrived at very different ideas of what is right over history, I'm afraid you assertion that deep down everybody knows what is right looks pretty shaky. Whose definition of right?
Not that I disagree at all about holding people accountable for their actions, right there with you.
They 'own' web searching (and therefore in the current state of affairs the web itself), they 'own' image searching and Usenet.
Google certainly don't own web or image searching. They may be the most popular currently, but web search is just a URL, it's easy to switch and there is plenty of competition.
Now when it comes to Usenet, AFAIK they are the only people with such an extensive archive you can search, so that point is more valid.
In all their other areas though, desktop search, the new maps, Froogle, Gmail, there is plenty of health competition, and no sign of it vanishing. Indeed, when Google moves into an area it seems to encourage it. Desktop search is a hot area now, web mail companies all offering more storage space.
Even if Google offers even more services, it is only a problem if they are the only people offering it. If Google is down it would take seconds to switch to another search, mapping or similar web site. Only the web mail would be a real inconvenience.
Right now species are dying out at a much faster rate than they are coming into existence. Part of the risk is, we don't fully understand what the impact may be of a species going extinct. From a human perspective it may do nothing, or may have all sorts of knock on effect that we could find unpleasant.
Some scientists think the current exctinction rates caused by humans rival the mass exctintions of the past, which remember happened over long periods of time from a human perspective. Do a quick Google on rate of extiction and there are some interseting, and worrying, results.
It's pretty clear man can have a very big impact on local environments and the species in them.
Monitoring children in school is normal. Indeed, it is usually a legal requirement for the school to be able to know where the child is. That's why they see who is present at the begining of the day.
At my work I have an ID badge I swipe to get in in the morning, when I leave at night, and to get through some door in the building, to get into and out of the car park.
That doesn't mean I would accept monitoring outside of work. It is appropriate for some environments without being a slippery slop or conditioning people.
Kids have always been monitored more than adults at school, and by their parents (hopefully). That doesn't mean they will grow up to be people who don't mind being monitored.
Computers are at risk if they run an unpatched version of a Symantec product that scans files to detect malicious code and if they use the Microsoft Windows, Mac OS X, Linux, Solaris and AIX operating systems, Symantec said.
This isn't an OS problem, this is an application problem.
Of course hackers are less likely to write something that runs on a non-Windows OS, but the flaw isn't fixed by moving from Windows.
Science Fiction is usually about asking "what ifs?" and trying to set interesting stories in the resulting world. Normally the "what if" part is base d, loosely, on science. What if a person or society (maybe ours, maybe another) developed VR/robots/FTL/time travel/mind reading devices/etc.
Since most societies and people are religious, it seems quite likely that religion will crop up in any speculation. It has a huge impact on how people see things, including science and technology.
Indeed, it has been all over mainstream TV and movie Sci-Fi. Star Wars with the Jedi and the Force, DS9 had a lot of religion with those Prophets, it was quite important in B5 and Farscape. That's before even getting to novels.
Science fiction isn't fiction about science, it's fiction about people, and religion matters to people.
Console games still outsell PC games, so lots of people clearly don't care about getting hold of player created content.
For some games types it isn't that relevant anyway. New maps or models work well for multiplayer FPS, but don't make much sense for fighting games for example.
Now I own both, and I've really enjoyed Mods for UT/UT2003, Freedom Force, FreeSpace and others. It hasn't stopped me enjoying the console games as well though.
How the parent got modded as Insightful is beyond me. OK, the proprietary software = bad idea is popular on/. but that post is just daft.
People, educated and otherwise, play games primarily to play the game. A very small subset like tinkering with them, hence the mod community for games, which is big, but very small compared to the total number of people playing games.
I'm a coder, I write software for a living, but when I come home a play a game to unwind, I want to play a game. Generally I don't want to hack and tinker.
I followed the WorldForge link, the status of the games listed was In Development, Deprecated, Planned, Future, Status is unknown. None actually listed as finished.
Also, giving the quality of proprietary games vs free (as in speech) ones, I'm amazed at them being called "proprietary crap". Sure, some are crap, but all the really good games are proprietary too (although some have been copied by free versions). Not just good because of graphics either, but game play.
If your principles really don't let you run any proprietary software, fair enough. But don't pretend that for the main purpose of games, playing them, free software offers much yet, and it certainly isn't close to the proprietary stuff.
I find it's the cumulative effects of lots of XPI extensions that really make browsing with FireFox enjoyable.
I use adblock, the Sage RSS reader, Spellbound spell checker, GMail notifier and FoxyTunes.
If all it did was what you suggest, may as well go back to Mosaic. I really enjoy the customisations I can do to get the browser I want.
I also develop web sites for a living. The reason we have ActiveX, Java, Flash, Javascript, DHTML it because it needs to do more than render HTML.
The fact is that for some things successful and useful website use this stuff, and need to use this stuff to give a good user experience. They are, of course, also horribly abused no doubt about it. Trade off for a more useful web. If you don't think it's worth it, you can run FireFox without any plugins, or a text only browser.
I'll be off enjoying the web, and being careful what I install.
People still asks these questions because there isn't a good consensus about what, exactly is art.
Now, there may be a consensus amongst art critics, but that is something else. Lots of people shown Duchamp's would not consider it art. I've seen some of it, and I'm not sure I consider it art (although I'm more inclined to think it is if he turned out to have made the supposedly found objects himself).
In areas like science it doesn't matter what people in general believe, you can usually prove something. You can't "prove" something is art, so all you are really left with is a consensus on what art is, or perhaps a lack of one.
It is one reasons why things like the Turner prize are so heavily mocked. There is a loose art community (for want of a better term) who regard anything as art in the right context, but most people when confronted with unmade beds, piles of bricks and the like seem not to regard it as art.
Do they do regard it as art because they are the type of people who don't go and see art in museums? Or do they not go and see things in museums because they think a lot of the stuff there isn't art?
So what if I make a web service written with GPL software available to the public? It only sits on my servers, but anyone can make a SOAP request and get a response.
I'm not distributing a binary, but people can use the service. Do I have to make the code available?
As things like web services become bigger this becomes a more important question.
First up, UPN make the shown, then sell it on. So they are looking at their own ratings, plus whatever profits they make selling it to other stations. These days they probably have an eye on what they think DVD sales will be, and syndication if it makes it.
IIRC 100 episodes is the magic number for synidication, it is unusual to get rerun there if you have less.
As for movies, I remember reading some stuff by JMS about the B5 TV movies. There are different rules when making a movie, even a TV, and everyone had to be paid at a higher rate. One reason no movie had all the main cast in it.
Firstly if by "pure evolution" you mean with no intervention from a non-natural outside force (God, aliens, fate etc), it certainly does not mean order from absolute randomness. It means the tenancy of passing on traits acquired through inheritance or mutation that increase a creatures chances of reproduction
Evolution doesn't have anything much to say about order and intelligence. Evolution says nothing about the basic physical laws of the universe (different area of science), or why the initial coniditions for life came about. Evolution is the offical poistion of the Catholic Church, it doesn't mean aetheism, or beleif in chaos or a bunch of things you seem to think it does.
It certainly doesn't mean we can design AI.
It sounds like you are mixing arguments about free will, perception and solophism into this, although the sentence "On an even higher level, there is no reason to believe that we are actually designing anything, we are merely exciting our neurons into believing we have perceived that we are performing an action that we call designing." makes little sense.
Solophism by it's nature isn't an argument for anything. It's intersecting to think about, but it's a dead end. There are philosophical arguments against it, but I've always been an a fan of the "fine, jump of a building if you think are perceptions are all illusion then" argument.
So, dismissing solophism and assuming what we collectively agree we perceive is more or less reality, what then? If we call an action "designing" then, by definition, when we do that action we are designing something. It doesn't matter if the process happens through neurons which we can understand, or souls that we don't. It doesn't matter if are a biological machine without free will or not.
The question is, are we smart enough to design AI? There are plenty of problems nature has solved through the trial and error of evolution, that we have arrived at through design (flight for example). AI seems like a much harder problem, and looks like it relies on emergent behaviour (which is linked to that order out of chaos thing). Maybe it is too hard for us?
That doesn't mean AI is out of our reach. Technologies like neural nets work by mimicking nature. You design the system, but then train it in the task. Perhaps AIs can be reached by mimicking evolution and training? We don't design the AI system, we design the system and process that will create the AI system. The problem here is we won't completely understand the resulting AI.
Evolution makes no claims about intelligence being an inevtiable product. It's a useful survial trait, but so is having hundreds of dumb offspring.
I don't really understand how the post was modded up, when it is so wrong on so many levels. Maybe Slashdot moderation is an example of absolute randomness;)
DNA is a molecule, ultimately it follows the same rules as everything else in the universe. There has to be a set of rules, or there wouldn't be a universe. If it wasn't this set, we wouldn't be here to wonder about it.
where did anything come from?
We don't really know. That doesn't make "God did it" any better an answer, than, say, "A Big Blue Invisible Hippo did it". God in the gaps is a very poor argument.
what except randomness governed the first combination of proteins?
The rules of physics and chemistry. Certain molecules under certain conditions do certain things. This isn't random, it's reproducible if you know the conditions.
what except randomness brought proteins about?
The rules and conditions. If you mean was it only chance the right conditions. happened here, then yes. It's a massive universe though, so chances may be good it was likely to happen somewhere, and here is as good as anywhere. It's like a lottery, chances of you winning may be very small, chances of someone winning are pretty good.
The whole point of evolution is that given sufficient time and sufficient randomness, everything has to happen at some point or another.
No, that isn't the point of evolution at all. Evolution just says that traits that increase your odds of reproducing are more likely to get passed on.
Some traits are existing traits reinforce, others happen because of mutation. However, just because mutation is possible doesn't mean every possible creature will evolve, even in an infinite time. Some things aren't viable, DNA may have limits on what it can express. No possible combination of DNA may allow time travel for example. Too much mutation in DNA would stop good traits being kept and passed on, evolution wouldn't work with too much randomness,
Analogy time, if I start at 1 and keep counting for an infinite amount of time, I will never reach Pi, or 1.5, or -1. Infinite time doesn't mean every possibility is covered.
I know the Infinite Improbability Drive was a joke, but let's be honest, it strikes a chord with evolutionary thinking doesn't it?)
No, it doesn't. You have some rather mixed up ideas about evolution, randomness and infinity.
I always thought the point of that was that the term PI wasn't really intelligent, it just acted a bit like it was (hence "illusion of sentience".
Meaning really the people in the setting had given up on actual AI that was genuinely attempting to duplicate human intelligence. The term AI is considered cheeky because it is imply you actually can build something with real intelligence or sentience.
So it's a term used by people who have given up trying to make actual AI. If the term Artificial can be a bit dismissive or demeaning, how much more is pseudo?
Warrants only apply to law enforcement agencies, what private citizens or companies can or cannot do is just determined by the law.
Sometimes warrants do put restrictions on law enforcement because of the greater powers they have. The point of requiring warrants is to prevent abuse of that power.
Warrants are also about what is advisable in court. I can record any conversation I like on a tape recorder in my pocket, but for the police to admit a record conversation there are all sorts of restrictions.
When they are no longer copyrighted. Since if you go back copyright gets shorter, it soon becomes apparent that the rate at which things get into the public domain slows down a lot, from periods like 7 years, to whatever it is now (life+70?)
So character likes Dracula, Frankenstein, Holmes, the Three Musketeers are all out of copyright, and can be used. It's ironic that Disney used out of copyright stories for so much of their animation, yet now push so hard to keep extending copyrights.
Of course, things can fall out of copyright, and also out of the public view and just be forgotten. Also things end up in the public consciousness before they fall out of copyright. People feel it is public domain, even though it isn't. So Disney threatens schools who paint Mickey Mouse on their playground (IIRC they let them in the end).
It's like people getting upset about people not calling large comics "graphic novels".
If you don't like the way people think of cartoons, don't start saying anime aren't cartoons becuase they cover different ground, start pointing out how much ground cartoons can cover.
I doubt the general public view of anime is much better than cartoon. One is seen kiddie stuff vs perverted/violent Japanese stuff. I'm not sure that is a better stereotype.
I never though Monopoly was much good. The fun that does come is from the human interactions and baragin, but halfway though many people start to get board. The endgame is very bad, players get caught in a downward spiral, know they can't win, but it can take ages to resolve. Almost every monoply game I have have played never made it to the end, most people quit.
Slashdot Mirror
Everybody, deep down, knows what is right. Even my three year olds do, because when they are doing bad things, they stop as soon as I come in the room.
You know, you could also explain this behaviour by the fact they know they will be punished if caught doing something they are not supposed to be. Since the punishment is something they probably don't enjoy, they are learning to avoid it.
You can train animals like that too, it doesn't prove thy know deep down what is 'right'. Given how different human cultures have arrived at very different ideas of what is right over history, I'm afraid you assertion that deep down everybody knows what is right looks pretty shaky. Whose definition of right?
Not that I disagree at all about holding people accountable for their actions, right there with you.
Google are experts on hosting web apps and large bandwidth. They can probably do a lot for Wikipedia for a relatively small cost for them.
If they gave them as much cash as the hosting would cost, Wikipedia probably couldn't get such a good solution with it.
They 'own' web searching (and therefore in the current state of affairs the web itself), they 'own' image searching and Usenet.
Google certainly don't own web or image searching. They may be the most popular currently, but web search is just a URL, it's easy to switch and there is plenty of competition.
Now when it comes to Usenet, AFAIK they are the only people with such an extensive archive you can search, so that point is more valid.
In all their other areas though, desktop search, the new maps, Froogle, Gmail, there is plenty of health competition, and no sign of it vanishing. Indeed, when Google moves into an area it seems to encourage it. Desktop search is a hot area now, web mail companies all offering more storage space.
Even if Google offers even more services, it is only a problem if they are the only people offering it. If Google is down it would take seconds to switch to another search, mapping or similar web site. Only the web mail would be a real inconvenience.
If you read it correctly, the page say quite clearly advertising in inevitable, unless someone can think of an alternative.
Right now species are dying out at a much faster rate than they are coming into existence. Part of the risk is, we don't fully understand what the impact may be of a species going extinct. From a human perspective it may do nothing, or may have all sorts of knock on effect that we could find unpleasant.
Some scientists think the current exctinction rates caused by humans rival the mass exctintions of the past, which remember happened over long periods of time from a human perspective. Do a quick Google on rate of extiction and there are some interseting, and worrying, results.
It's pretty clear man can have a very big impact on local environments and the species in them.
Monitoring children in school is normal. Indeed, it is usually a legal requirement for the school to be able to know where the child is. That's why they see who is present at the begining of the day.
At my work I have an ID badge I swipe to get in in the morning, when I leave at night, and to get through some door in the building, to get into and out of the car park.
That doesn't mean I would accept monitoring outside of work. It is appropriate for some environments without being a slippery slop or conditioning people.
Kids have always been monitored more than adults at school, and by their parents (hopefully). That doesn't mean they will grow up to be people who don't mind being monitored.
If you would RTFA:
Computers are at risk if they run an unpatched version of a Symantec product that scans files to detect malicious code and if they use the Microsoft Windows, Mac OS X, Linux, Solaris and AIX operating systems, Symantec said.
This isn't an OS problem, this is an application problem.
Of course hackers are less likely to write something that runs on a non-Windows OS, but the flaw isn't fixed by moving from Windows.
Yeah, but France and UK got them way back, and before they were 'illegal', or at least before the anti-proliferation treaties.
Why do you think they are on the permanent security council? It used to be the countries with nukes club.
Because people with nukes don't do stupid things
You hope people with nukes don't do stupid things, beucase the consequence can be far worse.
The more countries with nukes, and the more extremist those who rule them, the greater the risk somebody will do something stupid.
The story where they are fleeing for their lives and get distracted by a casino?
I loved BSG as a kid, but come on, it had a lot flaws. Plus, that story has been told, why not tell a new one?
Science Fiction is usually about asking "what ifs?" and trying to set interesting stories in the resulting world. Normally the "what if" part is base d, loosely, on science. What if a person or society (maybe ours, maybe another) developed VR/robots/FTL/time travel/mind reading devices/etc.
Since most societies and people are religious, it seems quite likely that religion will crop up in any speculation. It has a huge impact on how people see things, including science and technology.
Indeed, it has been all over mainstream TV and movie Sci-Fi. Star Wars with the Jedi and the Force, DS9 had a lot of religion with those Prophets, it was quite important in B5 and Farscape. That's before even getting to novels.
Science fiction isn't fiction about science, it's fiction about people, and religion matters to people.
Console games still outsell PC games, so lots of people clearly don't care about getting hold of player created content.
For some games types it isn't that relevant anyway. New maps or models work well for multiplayer FPS, but don't make much sense for fighting games for example.
Now I own both, and I've really enjoyed Mods for UT/UT2003, Freedom Force, FreeSpace and others. It hasn't stopped me enjoying the console games as well though.
How the parent got modded as Insightful is beyond me. OK, the proprietary software = bad idea is popular on /. but that post is just daft.
People, educated and otherwise, play games primarily to play the game. A very small subset like tinkering with them, hence the mod community for games, which is big, but very small compared to the total number of people playing games.
I'm a coder, I write software for a living, but when I come home a play a game to unwind, I want to play a game. Generally I don't want to hack and tinker.
I followed the WorldForge link, the status of the games listed was In Development, Deprecated, Planned, Future, Status is unknown. None actually listed as finished.
Also, giving the quality of proprietary games vs free (as in speech) ones, I'm amazed at them being called "proprietary crap". Sure, some are crap, but all the really good games are proprietary too (although some have been copied by free versions). Not just good because of graphics either, but game play.
If your principles really don't let you run any proprietary software, fair enough. But don't pretend that for the main purpose of games, playing them, free software offers much yet, and it certainly isn't close to the proprietary stuff.
I find it's the cumulative effects of lots of XPI extensions that really make browsing with FireFox enjoyable.
I use adblock, the Sage RSS reader, Spellbound spell checker, GMail notifier and FoxyTunes.
If all it did was what you suggest, may as well go back to Mosaic. I really enjoy the customisations I can do to get the browser I want.
I also develop web sites for a living. The reason we have ActiveX, Java, Flash, Javascript, DHTML it because it needs to do more than render HTML.
The fact is that for some things successful and useful website use this stuff, and need to use this stuff to give a good user experience. They are, of course, also horribly abused no doubt about it. Trade off for a more useful web. If you don't think it's worth it, you can run FireFox without any plugins, or a text only browser.
I'll be off enjoying the web, and being careful what I install.
People still asks these questions because there isn't a good consensus about what, exactly is art.
Now, there may be a consensus amongst art critics, but that is something else. Lots of people shown Duchamp's would not consider it art. I've seen some of it, and I'm not sure I consider it art (although I'm more inclined to think it is if he turned out to have made the supposedly found objects himself).
In areas like science it doesn't matter what people in general believe, you can usually prove something. You can't "prove" something is art, so all you are really left with is a consensus on what art is, or perhaps a lack of one.
It is one reasons why things like the Turner prize are so heavily mocked. There is a loose art community (for want of a better term) who regard anything as art in the right context, but most people when confronted with unmade beds, piles of bricks and the like seem not to regard it as art.
Do they do regard it as art because they are the type of people who don't go and see art in museums? Or do they not go and see things in museums because they think a lot of the stuff there isn't art?
So what if I make a web service written with GPL software available to the public? It only sits on my servers, but anyone can make a SOAP request and get a response.
I'm not distributing a binary, but people can use the service. Do I have to make the code available?
As things like web services become bigger this becomes a more important question.
First up, UPN make the shown, then sell it on. So they are looking at their own ratings, plus whatever profits they make selling it to other stations. These days they probably have an eye on what they think DVD sales will be, and syndication if it makes it.
IIRC 100 episodes is the magic number for synidication, it is unusual to get rerun there if you have less.
As for movies, I remember reading some stuff by JMS about the B5 TV movies. There are different rules when making a movie, even a TV, and everyone had to be paid at a higher rate. One reason no movie had all the main cast in it.
Because most developers are male, nothing special about the open source ones (in this regard)
Firstly if by "pure evolution" you mean with no intervention from a non-natural outside force (God, aliens, fate etc), it certainly does not mean order from absolute randomness. It means the tenancy of passing on traits acquired through inheritance or mutation that increase a creatures chances of reproduction
Evolution doesn't have anything much to say about order and intelligence. Evolution says nothing about the basic physical laws of the universe (different area of science), or why the initial coniditions for life came about. Evolution is the offical poistion of the Catholic Church, it doesn't mean aetheism, or beleif in chaos or a bunch of things you seem to think it does.
It certainly doesn't mean we can design AI.
It sounds like you are mixing arguments about free will, perception and solophism into this, although the sentence "On an even higher level, there is no reason to believe that we are actually designing anything, we are merely exciting our neurons into believing we have perceived that we are performing an action that we call designing." makes little sense.
Solophism by it's nature isn't an argument for anything. It's intersecting to think about, but it's a dead end. There are philosophical arguments against it, but I've always been an a fan of the "fine, jump of a building if you think are perceptions are all illusion then" argument.
So, dismissing solophism and assuming what we collectively agree we perceive is more or less reality, what then? If we call an action "designing" then, by definition, when we do that action we are designing something. It doesn't matter if the process happens through neurons which we can understand, or souls that we don't. It doesn't matter if are a biological machine without free will or not.
The question is, are we smart enough to design AI? There are plenty of problems nature has solved through the trial and error of evolution, that we have arrived at through design (flight for example). AI seems like a much harder problem, and looks like it relies on emergent behaviour (which is linked to that order out of chaos thing). Maybe it is too hard for us?
That doesn't mean AI is out of our reach. Technologies like neural nets work by mimicking nature. You design the system, but then train it in the task. Perhaps AIs can be reached by mimicking evolution and training? We don't design the AI system, we design the system and process that will create the AI system. The problem here is we won't completely understand the resulting AI.
Evolution makes no claims about intelligence being an inevtiable product. It's a useful survial trait, but so is having hundreds of dumb offspring.
I don't really understand how the post was modded up, when it is so wrong on so many levels. Maybe Slashdot moderation is an example of absolute randomness ;)
where did those rules come from?
DNA is a molecule, ultimately it follows the same rules as everything else in the universe. There has to be a set of rules, or there wouldn't be a universe. If it wasn't this set, we wouldn't be here to wonder about it.
where did anything come from?
We don't really know. That doesn't make "God did it" any better an answer, than, say, "A Big Blue Invisible Hippo did it". God in the gaps is a very poor argument.
what except randomness governed the first combination of proteins?
The rules of physics and chemistry. Certain molecules under certain conditions do certain things. This isn't random, it's reproducible if you know the conditions.
what except randomness brought proteins about?
The rules and conditions. If you mean was it only chance the right conditions. happened here, then yes. It's a massive universe though, so chances may be good it was likely to happen somewhere, and here is as good as anywhere. It's like a lottery, chances of you winning may be very small, chances of someone winning are pretty good.
The whole point of evolution is that given sufficient time and sufficient randomness, everything has to happen at some point or another.
No, that isn't the point of evolution at all. Evolution just says that traits that increase your odds of reproducing are more likely to get passed on.
Some traits are existing traits reinforce, others happen because of mutation. However, just because mutation is possible doesn't mean every possible creature will evolve, even in an infinite time. Some things aren't viable, DNA may have limits on what it can express. No possible combination of DNA may allow time travel for example. Too much mutation in DNA would stop good traits being kept and passed on, evolution wouldn't work with too much randomness,
Analogy time, if I start at 1 and keep counting for an infinite amount of time, I will never reach Pi, or 1.5, or -1. Infinite time doesn't mean every possibility is covered.
I know the Infinite Improbability Drive was a joke, but let's be honest, it strikes a chord with evolutionary thinking doesn't it?)
No, it doesn't. You have some rather mixed up ideas about evolution, randomness and infinity.
I always thought the point of that was that the term PI wasn't really intelligent, it just acted a bit like it was (hence "illusion of sentience".
Meaning really the people in the setting had given up on actual AI that was genuinely attempting to duplicate human intelligence. The term AI is considered cheeky because it is imply you actually can build something with real intelligence or sentience.
So it's a term used by people who have given up trying to make actual AI. If the term Artificial can be a bit dismissive or demeaning, how much more is pseudo?
Warrants only apply to law enforcement agencies, what private citizens or companies can or cannot do is just determined by the law.
Sometimes warrants do put restrictions on law enforcement because of the greater powers they have. The point of requiring warrants is to prevent abuse of that power.
Warrants are also about what is advisable in court. I can record any conversation I like on a tape recorder in my pocket, but for the police to admit a record conversation there are all sorts of restrictions.
When they are no longer copyrighted. Since if you go back copyright gets shorter, it soon becomes apparent that the rate at which things get into the public domain slows down a lot, from periods like 7 years, to whatever it is now (life+70?)
So character likes Dracula, Frankenstein, Holmes, the Three Musketeers are all out of copyright, and can be used. It's ironic that Disney used out of copyright stories for so much of their animation, yet now push so hard to keep extending copyrights.
Of course, things can fall out of copyright, and also out of the public view and just be forgotten. Also things end up in the public consciousness before they fall out of copyright. People feel it is public domain, even though it isn't. So Disney threatens schools who paint Mickey Mouse on their playground (IIRC they let them in the end).
It is a cartoon.
It's like people getting upset about people not calling large comics "graphic novels".
If you don't like the way people think of cartoons, don't start saying anime aren't cartoons becuase they cover different ground, start pointing out how much ground cartoons can cover.
I doubt the general public view of anime is much better than cartoon. One is seen kiddie stuff vs perverted/violent Japanese stuff. I'm not sure that is a better stereotype.
I never though Monopoly was much good. The fun that does come is from the human interactions and baragin, but halfway though many people start to get board. The endgame is very bad, players get caught in a downward spiral, know they can't win, but it can take ages to resolve. Almost every monoply game I have have played never made it to the end, most people quit.