Exactly. In the end it will be trivial to weed these guys out, or prevent them altogether. And the IRC network is brutal: I'm almost certain that the entire country of Norway has been banned from IRC altogether.
People choose to buy video games, like any other product. Why should we all be forced to adhere to (and possibly pay for) something that can be avoided by a simple choice? Of course you can't avoid your child doing things you wouldn't approve of, but that's life. Have respect for your child, and trust in their ability to make decisions, hopefully based on your parenting and influence on them. Your children aren't yours; they're human beings. They don't need to be protected from the world.
I don't really blame the concept of copyright violation here. I think what you have is a law that was founded on clear and arguably good motives, but is used by invisible people who wield an inordinate and inordained amount of power that allows them to influence and control both the government and the media at the same time.
Corporations aren't about management and executive wealth. They're about allowing the people with actual marketable skills to do things for trade.
I think we do have a problem in trying to maintain businesses indefinitely, and many times we blatantly reference the size and age of the businesses as arguments as to why they should be helped. If a business is ailing, let it die. Procuring money and maintaining failed business models creates a very perverse and greedy economy that is no longer based on trade.
San Andreas is unique, I believe, in that the violence isn't necessarily arbitrary. In fact, it may be true that all of the arbitrary violence in the game is in your control. GTA:SA bears you into a world where your character is exploited, and held under that exploitation not only because of his past, but -- arguably principally -- because of where he is in society; his caste. When I kill in SA -- really kill -- I honestly feel rage. About 1/3 into the game -- long enough that I felt very comfortable and involved in the world -- I was spirited away to a small town. Walking the streets of this town, trying to figure out what to do next, I was genuinely upset to hear one of the townspeople yell a racial slur at me. The funny thing I realize now is that I didn't kill that person. I just kept walking and couldn't believe he said what he did.
The game's characters are crooked, living in a crooked world. The main character and his friends live in a microcosm separated by a societal membrane. All they can do is be proud of and protect what they have -- their neighborhoods and families. The game doesn't start out violent; it's not as though you start the game with a gun in your hand and you go around killing people for no reason. One of the first kills in the game is a drug dealer who is selling crack -- a drug that has ruined your friends' lives and caused many people to die, directly and indirectly. And I was glad to kill him.
While it could be argued that GTA:SA taps an animal "force" in its players, I'd suggest that possibly for the first time, the expression of that force has also been emotional for me.
As in life, the choice between nonviolent and violent response is up to you, but in a game, for the first time you can experience those choices and their effects; you may even understand something about humanity, and at that point, perhaps your decision will be different or at least more considered.
It seems as though the business model for MMORPGs is such that since there is an incentive to get people on the come-back, the gameplay is required to be both consistently gratifying and as time-consuming as possible. Other types of games played online seem to be similar in this regard (e.g. some shooters). I don't dig drugs: they bore me and they're not real. These games are similarly boring.
Though, given the choice I think I'd prefer to play a game -- especially an RPG -- by myself. I enjoy the seclusion, and I'd argue that these games do much better to suspend disbelief and create a world, since they don't involve people you know damn well to be living in the "real world." In that way, and especially with PKing, MMORPGs resemble giant arguments with pretty graphics rather than games.
If you want an immersive world; a game you can lose yourself in, get GTA: San Andreas. I've been impressed with it, and I've found myself playing all night, and didn't look back on it with disdain the way I look at an RPG that I know is taking advantage of my desire to gain levels. Just one way GTA:SA sucks you in is through the territory feature: you take over and maintain parts of the neighborhood, which drives you to develop a good knowledge of the streets and keeps you noticing the incredible detail packed into this game. GTA:SA also paces its features and missions in a way that honestly I did not expect, which is a welcome and frankly incredible departure from formulaic platformers and RPGs -- even the unique ones! The desire to "do your own thing" only intensifies the "reality" of this game. Last night I found myself saying "hey! Nobody fucks with CJ!" and my friend pointed out that yes, several people fuck with me. And I threw back, "yeah, but they don't usually live to tell about it."
Another good RPG out now is Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door. I watched a friend play it for an hour and was sold. I went out and bought a copy yesterday. The game mechanics reflect a rethinking and back-to-basics mentality -- the features may be familiar, but they're unique in such a way that they don't just have new features tacked on; they have been reworked and reconsidered from the core assumptions. For instance, you don't really seem to have a party -- you just have Mario to focus on, and others add what they have to give, without being fully-fledged party members. This focus on Mario shows also in the items and upgrades you get. This game is also steeped in Mario history. Elements of all the Mario games (even the ones you thought only you knew about) are present in PM:TYD in very fresh and uniquely charming ways. And I'd be committing a crime if I didn't lavish praise on the wonderful writing. The humor is incredibly sharp and unexpected, and the dialogue is very sparse in exactly the right places.
Check out these two games. I highly recommend them.
It seems as though, apart from the benefits of open source and free software in the contexts of the "old world" of propietary lock-in and ease of communication, there is a separate value in free services like Google. A pay version of Google would most likely doom it, as free alternatives take its place. So, rather than a business, services provided on the internet seem to be demanded almost as public services, with the companies ostensibly relying on revenue from largely superfluous advertising to survive. Is this observation accurate? If so, is this a long-term trend? Will that trend shape the demand for communication and computing services in the future? Will it change the economy? If so, will that change reflect a emphasis on services and goods rather than wealth?
Also, it seems to me that China should be of the attitude that they could eventually be the preeminent power in the world in half a century. I doubt they will be cowing to threats.
I was wondering the same thing, and it concerned me that a company that usually runs so lean, mean and without apologies (e.g. flashy graphics) would provide such an ostensibly superfluous service. If they can tie it into a service to provide directions, that might be useful. I hope they're not just worried about Micros~1.
Google Scholar seems very promising, though. Is this finally a "web" that school instructors can love?
If you click on the link to the pathogen (something that causes disease) Mycobacterium, you can learn about what diseases may form as a result of contact or ingestion, including Tuberculosis.
Once they can make a translator that works, I'm thinking that they could make an NL compiler fairly easily. It would probably require proper grammar, but I think that you could easily rearrange words, split infinitives, etc. It seems to me that the Japanese language would be the easiest to process for tokens: it seems to be a pretty rigidly-structured language.
I don't know that an NL compiler would be necessarily useful, though. Programming languages are meant to bridge the gap between the human and the computer. I'd imagine that there would be plenty of errors that either resemble classical programming errors, or are completely new; I don't think using NL would necessarily make programming easier. After all, we all misspeak, and unless the compiler is staggeringly intelligent, it won't be able to correct errors for you. NL libraries would be useful though, I imagine, for end-user applications such as speech interpretation. NL for searches may be useful, but I have a very high success rate with Google as it is.
I'd rather see "Error: undefined symbol near 'fuck you gcc.'" than "I'm doing my best:'(" Poor gcc.
I'm actually scared to click on the story link. I feel like once I do, my computer will grind to a halt immediately, I'll start crying, and then we'll both be stuck in hyperspace a la 2001.
When I was a kid, our library rented out PC games. I mean new games, like the latest in the Police Quest or Kings Quest series, and they just gave you the disks for free. What a time to be alive..
Keep in mind that this trust in the free market is not the first or only step in most LP plans and literature. I do not believe that companies are solely to blame for the ills discussed here; I believe that our government and society is set up in such a way that the market is warped not in favor of what is truly the free market -- individual people with services and objects to trade -- but in favor of growing companies to ridiculous sizes and then attempting to maintain their existence indefinitely, in order to maintain a huge GDP. It shows in how we measure our economy these days: regular updates of "consumer confidence" -- how much money people are willing to give away. The economy should be based on (and the concept of a market was founded on) people enjoying providing things for other people. Money is a placeholder for services and objects that one party does not want (e.g. I can provide you with chairs, but I don't need your ladders, so you give me money).
The economy is also set up in such a way that, rather than individuals seeking groups that can provide them with an environment in which they can best provide their skills, individuals seek companies that will "take care of them" the best: insurance of all types; tax breaks and retirement investment; guaranteed employment; etc. This makes you dependent on the company, and is an almost invisible, yet very substantial, step in giving up your rights as a participant in the market and becoming a total consumer in the most vulgar sense.
This has been a process that has metastasized over centuries, but mostly since the industrial revolution. It happens in front of us and we're blind to it. We subconsciouly accept that it's "the way things are," and we consciously fight against the wrong targets. We want the government to protect us form off-shoring. Let the market do what it naturally will do. If we don't, we'll be stuck in a long-term trend of economic degradation or retardation, for even when other countries raise their standards of living, some will have truly freer markets.
The government is complicit in this distortion as well. After all, who literally controls money? Far too often, representatives of the government do things that are in the interests of companies or those in power in government rather than things that are necessary to protect the citizens of the home nation. I think right now we are seeing a concerning conflation and example of this in the actions of the US in the middle east region. Government agencies are effectively neutered (SEC) or erratic and irresponsible (EPA), and many times are involved in the violations they were established to prevent or punish for. Remember that if the government is involved, they're usually exempt from prosecution. Consider our recent elections: offshoring protection and re-importation (RE-importation) of prescription drugs were dangled before our faces like carrots so that the candidates could brush more votes into their anonymous dustbins.
So, rather than a truly free market that is "owned" or controlled or driven by individuals, we have a market that is deceptively free, but in actuality is controlled by those in power positions in companies (who are nothing more than other individuals who have seen their positions change from someone who wisely puts real workers to good and happy use, to positions only of money and power, with the prior tasks being shifted downward and forgotten), facilitated by our government. I believe that while we're used to powerful-sounding one-liners in politics (i.e. minimal reading; bite-size beliefs given to you by others rather than you coming to conclusions on your own), much LP literature does not take this approach: though their conclusions may sound powerful, they're based on clear wisdom and reason -- something that seems shocking in such a watered-down, anxious culture. The driving ambition of the LP is that the power belongs in our hands; each of us as individuals.
If a journalist is to report only facts, then perhaps they should stay away from reporting science, or at least not report on studies, hypotheses or other kinds of brand new (even if peer-reviewed) information or conclusions. There are already journals for practically every kind of science; people who are truly interested in these sorts of things should read those. I'm not necessarily against reporting about, for instance, climate change; I just don't appreciate the implied dread that communicates a conclusion even if the data does not.
Journalism is good at reporting breaking news; facts, and it's in the interest of a journalist to do this as quickly as possible. The myriad sciences often cannot be approached this way; it's irresponsible, and there's usually nothing shocking -- or, many times, relatable -- about good science. In fact, I'd argue that journalists have done more for popularizing the doomsaying "global warming" arguments than even the entirety climatologists and their data over the past century could ever do.
It's no problem to only display popups that a user wants: just have a rule to only display popups as a result of the user clicking on something. Firefox and Safari do this already (if I recall correctly), and I don't really think it's necessarily to display popups in other situations.
So the government will control the "fSTARSTARTAPOSTROPHEn space lasers" and the education system? I don't like that idea. I guess I'll just hope that my government-approved symbiot and I don't get injured by one!
Slashdot Mirror
Once conception has taken place, it is inevitable that birth will take place.
Exactly. In the end it will be trivial to weed these guys out, or prevent them altogether. And the IRC network is brutal: I'm almost certain that the entire country of Norway has been banned from IRC altogether.
People choose to buy video games, like any other product. Why should we all be forced to adhere to (and possibly pay for) something that can be avoided by a simple choice? Of course you can't avoid your child doing things you wouldn't approve of, but that's life. Have respect for your child, and trust in their ability to make decisions, hopefully based on your parenting and influence on them. Your children aren't yours; they're human beings. They don't need to be protected from the world.
I don't really blame the concept of copyright violation here. I think what you have is a law that was founded on clear and arguably good motives, but is used by invisible people who wield an inordinate and inordained amount of power that allows them to influence and control both the government and the media at the same time.
Corporations aren't about management and executive wealth. They're about allowing the people with actual marketable skills to do things for trade.
I think we do have a problem in trying to maintain businesses indefinitely, and many times we blatantly reference the size and age of the businesses as arguments as to why they should be helped. If a business is ailing, let it die. Procuring money and maintaining failed business models creates a very perverse and greedy economy that is no longer based on trade.
The government controls money.
The government controls the military.
The government controls the law.
The government controls the prisons.
I dunno.. somehow, I don't feel comfortable with the government also controlling the schools.
Whoever offers them money?
There are definitely operating costs, which will leverage the bargaining, and if the operating costs are zero, they forfeit the spectrum.
San Andreas is unique, I believe, in that the violence isn't necessarily arbitrary. In fact, it may be true that all of the arbitrary violence in the game is in your control. GTA:SA bears you into a world where your character is exploited, and held under that exploitation not only because of his past, but -- arguably principally -- because of where he is in society; his caste. When I kill in SA -- really kill -- I honestly feel rage. About 1/3 into the game -- long enough that I felt very comfortable and involved in the world -- I was spirited away to a small town. Walking the streets of this town, trying to figure out what to do next, I was genuinely upset to hear one of the townspeople yell a racial slur at me. The funny thing I realize now is that I didn't kill that person. I just kept walking and couldn't believe he said what he did.
The game's characters are crooked, living in a crooked world. The main character and his friends live in a microcosm separated by a societal membrane. All they can do is be proud of and protect what they have -- their neighborhoods and families. The game doesn't start out violent; it's not as though you start the game with a gun in your hand and you go around killing people for no reason. One of the first kills in the game is a drug dealer who is selling crack -- a drug that has ruined your friends' lives and caused many people to die, directly and indirectly. And I was glad to kill him. While it could be argued that GTA:SA taps an animal "force" in its players, I'd suggest that possibly for the first time, the expression of that force has also been emotional for me.
As in life, the choice between nonviolent and violent response is up to you, but in a game, for the first time you can experience those choices and their effects; you may even understand something about humanity, and at that point, perhaps your decision will be different or at least more considered.
It seems as though the business model for MMORPGs is such that since there is an incentive to get people on the come-back, the gameplay is required to be both consistently gratifying and as time-consuming as possible. Other types of games played online seem to be similar in this regard (e.g. some shooters). I don't dig drugs: they bore me and they're not real. These games are similarly boring.
Though, given the choice I think I'd prefer to play a game -- especially an RPG -- by myself. I enjoy the seclusion, and I'd argue that these games do much better to suspend disbelief and create a world, since they don't involve people you know damn well to be living in the "real world." In that way, and especially with PKing, MMORPGs resemble giant arguments with pretty graphics rather than games.
If you want an immersive world; a game you can lose yourself in, get GTA: San Andreas. I've been impressed with it, and I've found myself playing all night, and didn't look back on it with disdain the way I look at an RPG that I know is taking advantage of my desire to gain levels. Just one way GTA:SA sucks you in is through the territory feature: you take over and maintain parts of the neighborhood, which drives you to develop a good knowledge of the streets and keeps you noticing the incredible detail packed into this game. GTA:SA also paces its features and missions in a way that honestly I did not expect, which is a welcome and frankly incredible departure from formulaic platformers and RPGs -- even the unique ones! The desire to "do your own thing" only intensifies the "reality" of this game. Last night I found myself saying "hey! Nobody fucks with CJ!" and my friend pointed out that yes, several people fuck with me. And I threw back, "yeah, but they don't usually live to tell about it."
Another good RPG out now is Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door. I watched a friend play it for an hour and was sold. I went out and bought a copy yesterday. The game mechanics reflect a rethinking and back-to-basics mentality -- the features may be familiar, but they're unique in such a way that they don't just have new features tacked on; they have been reworked and reconsidered from the core assumptions. For instance, you don't really seem to have a party -- you just have Mario to focus on, and others add what they have to give, without being fully-fledged party members. This focus on Mario shows also in the items and upgrades you get. This game is also steeped in Mario history. Elements of all the Mario games (even the ones you thought only you knew about) are present in PM:TYD in very fresh and uniquely charming ways. And I'd be committing a crime if I didn't lavish praise on the wonderful writing. The humor is incredibly sharp and unexpected, and the dialogue is very sparse in exactly the right places.
Check out these two games. I highly recommend them.
It seems as though, apart from the benefits of open source and free software in the contexts of the "old world" of propietary lock-in and ease of communication, there is a separate value in free services like Google. A pay version of Google would most likely doom it, as free alternatives take its place. So, rather than a business, services provided on the internet seem to be demanded almost as public services, with the companies ostensibly relying on revenue from largely superfluous advertising to survive. Is this observation accurate? If so, is this a long-term trend? Will that trend shape the demand for communication and computing services in the future? Will it change the economy? If so, will that change reflect a emphasis on services and goods rather than wealth?
"You forgot Poland. No, seriously, don't fucking forget Poland."
Also, it seems to me that China should be of the attitude that they could eventually be the preeminent power in the world in half a century. I doubt they will be cowing to threats.
I was wondering the same thing, and it concerned me that a company that usually runs so lean, mean and without apologies (e.g. flashy graphics) would provide such an ostensibly superfluous service. If they can tie it into a service to provide directions, that might be useful. I hope they're not just worried about Micros~1.
Google Scholar seems very promising, though. Is this finally a "web" that school instructors can love?
If you click on the link to the pathogen (something that causes disease) Mycobacterium, you can learn about what diseases may form as a result of contact or ingestion, including Tuberculosis.
Once they can make a translator that works, I'm thinking that they could make an NL compiler fairly easily. It would probably require proper grammar, but I think that you could easily rearrange words, split infinitives, etc. It seems to me that the Japanese language would be the easiest to process for tokens: it seems to be a pretty rigidly-structured language.
:'(" Poor gcc.
I don't know that an NL compiler would be necessarily useful, though. Programming languages are meant to bridge the gap between the human and the computer. I'd imagine that there would be plenty of errors that either resemble classical programming errors, or are completely new; I don't think using NL would necessarily make programming easier. After all, we all misspeak, and unless the compiler is staggeringly intelligent, it won't be able to correct errors for you. NL libraries would be useful though, I imagine, for end-user applications such as speech interpretation. NL for searches may be useful, but I have a very high success rate with Google as it is.
I'd rather see "Error: undefined symbol near 'fuck you gcc.'" than "I'm doing my best
I'm actually scared to click on the story link. I feel like once I do, my computer will grind to a halt immediately, I'll start crying, and then we'll both be stuck in hyperspace a la 2001.
There's no need to read GameSpot's review: just take IGN's score and subtract 0.5.
Keep in mind that this trust in the free market is not the first or only step in most LP plans and literature. I do not believe that companies are solely to blame for the ills discussed here; I believe that our government and society is set up in such a way that the market is warped not in favor of what is truly the free market -- individual people with services and objects to trade -- but in favor of growing companies to ridiculous sizes and then attempting to maintain their existence indefinitely, in order to maintain a huge GDP. It shows in how we measure our economy these days: regular updates of "consumer confidence" -- how much money people are willing to give away. The economy should be based on (and the concept of a market was founded on) people enjoying providing things for other people. Money is a placeholder for services and objects that one party does not want (e.g. I can provide you with chairs, but I don't need your ladders, so you give me money).
The economy is also set up in such a way that, rather than individuals seeking groups that can provide them with an environment in which they can best provide their skills, individuals seek companies that will "take care of them" the best: insurance of all types; tax breaks and retirement investment; guaranteed employment; etc. This makes you dependent on the company, and is an almost invisible, yet very substantial, step in giving up your rights as a participant in the market and becoming a total consumer in the most vulgar sense.
This has been a process that has metastasized over centuries, but mostly since the industrial revolution. It happens in front of us and we're blind to it. We subconsciouly accept that it's "the way things are," and we consciously fight against the wrong targets. We want the government to protect us form off-shoring. Let the market do what it naturally will do. If we don't, we'll be stuck in a long-term trend of economic degradation or retardation, for even when other countries raise their standards of living, some will have truly freer markets.
The government is complicit in this distortion as well. After all, who literally controls money? Far too often, representatives of the government do things that are in the interests of companies or those in power in government rather than things that are necessary to protect the citizens of the home nation. I think right now we are seeing a concerning conflation and example of this in the actions of the US in the middle east region. Government agencies are effectively neutered (SEC) or erratic and irresponsible (EPA), and many times are involved in the violations they were established to prevent or punish for. Remember that if the government is involved, they're usually exempt from prosecution. Consider our recent elections: offshoring protection and re-importation (RE-importation) of prescription drugs were dangled before our faces like carrots so that the candidates could brush more votes into their anonymous dustbins.
So, rather than a truly free market that is "owned" or controlled or driven by individuals, we have a market that is deceptively free, but in actuality is controlled by those in power positions in companies (who are nothing more than other individuals who have seen their positions change from someone who wisely puts real workers to good and happy use, to positions only of money and power, with the prior tasks being shifted downward and forgotten), facilitated by our government. I believe that while we're used to powerful-sounding one-liners in politics (i.e. minimal reading; bite-size beliefs given to you by others rather than you coming to conclusions on your own), much LP literature does not take this approach: though their conclusions may sound powerful, they're based on clear wisdom and reason -- something that seems shocking in such a watered-down, anxious culture. The driving ambition of the LP is that the power belongs in our hands; each of us as individuals.
"The Matrix is a system, Neo. That sy
If a journalist is to report only facts, then perhaps they should stay away from reporting science, or at least not report on studies, hypotheses or other kinds of brand new (even if peer-reviewed) information or conclusions. There are already journals for practically every kind of science; people who are truly interested in these sorts of things should read those. I'm not necessarily against reporting about, for instance, climate change; I just don't appreciate the implied dread that communicates a conclusion even if the data does not.
Journalism is good at reporting breaking news; facts, and it's in the interest of a journalist to do this as quickly as possible. The myriad sciences often cannot be approached this way; it's irresponsible, and there's usually nothing shocking -- or, many times, relatable -- about good science. In fact, I'd argue that journalists have done more for popularizing the doomsaying "global warming" arguments than even the entirety climatologists and their data over the past century could ever do.
It's no problem to only display popups that a user wants: just have a rule to only display popups as a result of the user clicking on something. Firefox and Safari do this already (if I recall correctly), and I don't really think it's necessarily to display popups in other situations.
So the government will control the "fSTARSTARTAPOSTROPHEn space lasers" and the education system? I don't like that idea. I guess I'll just hope that my government-approved symbiot and I don't get injured by one!