The type of popular uprising you're talking about could never happen in the current era of mass media which is closely linked, if not directly controlled, by the government or the powerful interests standing behind the government.
If there was a 'majority or near majority' who understood the need for radical change then elections would resolve the issue in any event.
> for those of you who were not in high school and college during Reagan's years
In my experience 'high school and college' is not exactly an arbitrary cross-section of society when it comes to politics. To misquote the Simpsons, making teenagers outraged is like shooting fish in a barrel. So you and the GP both rely on a perception of the 70s and early 80s which seems to focus on a period in your lives when you were particularly aware of such things. In reality, anyone politically aware will remember their own high school or college days as somewhat turbulent and in terms of the major controversies of time time.
I acknowledge I probably over-stated the original point in terms of how the USA was viewed in the early 1980s. I accept that Reagan wasn't univerally loved by any stretch of the imagination (to compare him to Bush Jnr and that administration to the present setup is laughable though, Reagan may have been a puppet but at least he was controlled by relatively sane and competent puppet-masters in comparison to the current ones).
My original point, however, was that global perceptions of the US are in decline, and I stand by that assertion. Do some research, there are plenty of statistics about gloabal perceptions which back this up. I note that neither you or the GP addressed the last point of my post, which was about the current US approach to arrest, detention, interrogation and punishment of non-US citizens in connection with the so-called 'war on terror.'
And as others have pointed out, the prevailing view of the US is what I was talking about, and I still strongly disagree with anyone who thinks that the prevailing view of the US is as good now as it was during the Reagan era, Soviet bloc countries excluded.
This thing would be great for multiplayer gaming on consoles. The days of sitting 4 inches from the TV so you can make out what's happening in your quarter of the split-screen would be well and truly over. This seems like the most useful application to me (now maybe we can convince Rare to finally do a decent sequel to Goldeneye)
> All propaganda to the contrary, the dislike and distrust of the US is not markedly different now than it was 23 years ago.
This is modded insightful? What nonsense.
23 years ago the Soviet Bloc was extremely distrustful of the US - the possibility of imminent nuclear annihilation has a way of doing that, especially when you're already living in a ruthless totalitarian machine - but much of the rest of the world regarded the United States as a democratic bastion protecting them from the Soviet empire. Western Europe, in particular, was totally reliant on the US for protection from the massive Russian ground army. Furthermore, the US was genuinely viewed as a (relative) beacon of democracy and human rights in comparison to the ruthless and inhumane Soviet countries.
Today Western Europe views the United States as the biggest threat to world peace, as does much of the rest of the world. There are stats about this, I can find them if I have to. The US has also lost its role as the leader of the democratic and human rights-aware world, and continues to decline on those fronts at an alarming rate (especially the latter).
I think I speak for a lot of non-US citizens when I say that it is a tragedy that America cannot be relied upon to do the right thing, even on paper. In my opinion a hell of a lot of anti-American sentiment stems from people who depserately want the US to truly lead, and are appalled at the way it is actually behaving.
Put it another way - 23 years ago citizens of Britan, Australia, and Western Europe would never have seriously felt that they might be 'disappeared' by US intelligence agencies from a third-party country, tortured, detained for years without any recourse to the law, and eventually tried in an extra-judicial process with the possibility of the death penalty. Today that has in fact happened, and continues to happen if President Bush is to be believed.
I have this problem - I work long hours and have a pretty busy life outside of that, so I struggle to find time to play games even though I love them. I tend to pick up a game for a few hours but then have to leave it for weeks at a time. It's especially hard in games like Civilization IV and Deus Ex (or System Shock II and Freespace 2, which I'm trying to play through at the moment), in other words, games which either present an extremely high level of complexity or a very detailed storyline.
I have always thought it would be super-cool if such games provided a sort of "last week, in Civilization IV" recap option when you load your game. For instance, Civ could give you a little potted history of the last hundred years or so - "After the Greek attack on the Germans, Japan and Russia entered into a mutual protection pact, while the Americans began stockpiling arms..." and so on. It could even be presented as a history lecture or news bulletin to fit into the game world. A game like Deus Ex could give you a more story-driven update - "You've just returned to Hell's Kitchen, and your brother Paul is nowhere to be found..."
IAAL too, and I tend to agree that despite common perceptions, it would be unusual for any serious law firm to advise its client to file a totally frivolous claim just as a stunt - apart from anything else the lawyers themselves would be exposed to a follow up suit from their clients. Looking at the circumstances, it's obvious that this will be high profile, the RIAA will come down on it as hard as possible, and the potential costs are huge, all of which suggest that it wouldn't happen without careful consideration of the consequences.
As such I wouldn't be surprised if there was some merit in it too.
In addition, I tend to regard the question of 'frivolity' as somewhat irrelevant for all but the most obviously stupid claims. It is an unfortunate consequence of the adversarial legal system that once you get over a certain fairly low bar in terms of merit, money, quality of representation, luck, and tactics all have a great deal to do with your prospects of success (as the RIAA know very well). As such it would be pretty surprising if Limewire didn't at least get over that minimum bar.
See, by having the freedom to choose which charities to give money to you can give to causes that you support. You are not forced to give to causes that the government forces you to give to under threat of imprisonment.
Precisely, and I know it's initially a confronting idea but that is precisely WHY the government SHOULD be the one distributing money. Those in most need are frequently the most marginalised and least popular or appealing groups. One function of government is to extend support and protection to such people (for example, the unemployed come to mind) specifically because individuals do not. Whereas an individual will play favourites one way or another, a government should not.
I can't remember who said it, but a society should be judged by how it treats its most vulnerable. Under your system, it is the most appealing who will be supported and protected, and many of the most vulnerable will be ignored.
Treating need as a competitive market is only something that could happen in the current era of rampant laissez-faire capitalism, where 'choice' in the sense of economic liberty is the only criterion for 'good.'
...this development, along with the Bill and Melinda foundation, means we now have extremely large, extremely rich companies doing what our governments should be doing.
If they're promoting cleaner vehicles or saving kittens it's all fine and dandy. But what about accountability? What if Google, with its billions, starts doing things that some of us strongly disagree with? Would Christian conservatives be happy if Google started a campaign to push condoms in schools and third world countries to help stop AIDS? Would progressives be happy if Google started a campaign to restore family values through aggressively marketing church youth groups?
Let's remember that this is the same Google which is arguably supporting the tyrannical Chinese government's censorship. Fundamentally, we should be asking, what is Google's agenda? What if we disagree with it?
I expect many people will be inclined to give me responses about it being an example of a company doing what it wants in a free market, and that it is still bound by the law. However, I say, TANSTAAFL, and I prefer my social engineering to be done by the government because in principle at least the government represents me and my interests, whatever my financial involvement.* Are we looking at a future where democracy is contingent on share ownership?
* yeah yeah, spare me
Google seems a bit like Apple around here at times, perhaps a little too far above reasonable criticism. A great many people seem to ignore the fact that it is a self-interested entity in a competitive market, and at the end of the day what it values is what's good for Google and not the good of all mankind. Even if you think this is great, I urge you to think about whether it's really a positive thing to have one company exerting so much influence over the information we receive (google.com), knowing so much about what we are interested in (google.com), what we talk about (gmail), where we go (google maps/earth), what we buy (Adwords, froogle), what we are creating (the emerging word processing software and related tools, Picasa), and apparently now, how we operate as a society.
Put it this way - if Google's board turned rabid tomorrow, how much damage could it do?
Ramses II lived to see his 90th birthday and his heir was in his 60s when he took the throne, ruling for about another 20 years
Wow, this nanotechnology stuff is amazing! Not only did rubbing lead directly onto his head not shorten his lifespan, it actually meant that his hair got younger and lived longer than he did!
Eat your heart out, Rogaine!
More like a creative way to get work for free...
on
Google Image Labeler
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
I presume Google has no intention of paying anyone for the time they put into this system.
As such all that this really represents is a way for a large, profit driven corporation to make money by using the time and efforts of a large collection of individuals.
Seems kinda sinister to me. Personally I would like to gather the rewards for my own efforts, not allow some megacorp to do so. But unarguably a very 'creative' way to go about it, to be sure.
I don't want to sound to misanthropic, but if MySpace is inane, it's because people are inane. MySpace is merely a microcosm. Go out and listen to people talking. At work, at a bar, whatever. You're going to hear pointless rambling.
Oh, I agree. That was really my point, made in a roundabout way. People, including me, mainly spew forth garbage. The blog craze has created an environment where there seems to be a belief that if you electronically record and publish this garbage, it somehow becomes worthwhile.
At the same time, there are a few people with interesting things to say. What I was trying to suggest is that the current trend really doesn't reward quality, and it is becoming an increasingly frustrating chore to find anything worthwhile but current to read amongst the morass of grammatically incorrect navel-gazing.
I may be alone in this, but I find MySpace for the most part intensely narcissistic and inane.
People are presented with a tool for publishing absolutely anything, about any topic they choose. Instead of presenting thoughtful, creative or otherwise valuable content, the vast majority elect to pointlessly ramble about themselves in minute detail or engage in endless back and forth with other users about nothing in particular. Which is fine, but it shouldn't have the legitimacy of other web content.
In many ways, the whole blog concept has perhaps lowered the barrier to entry for on-line publishing a little *too* far. When anyone can publish anything you want with virtually no effort, then it no longer requires that you be inspired or motivated before your inane ramblings are out there in cyberspace. The media has adopted the trend too, with 'blog' in the context of a news site all too often meaning 'poorly researched and largely content-free "reporting" on sensationalist subject matter.'
Perhaps it's time to move past the blog hype and to consider some method for differentiating personal diaries (i.e., what used to be a personal homepage), social chit chat (i.e., what used to be a bulletin board, IRC, or IM activity), and publications with actual content. Right now the net is awash with an ever-expanding tide of rubbish and there is very little to assist in finding the few really interesting and high quality publications amongst the garbage.
Ultimately it's depressing that, given the ability to communicate our ideas to anyone on earth, most of us can't come up with anything better than pictures of ourselves drinking too much and mass-produced but ineffectual rebelliousness.
Have you explicity and voluntarily agreed to an Acceptable Use Policy with your power company stating that you will not make available for downloading any copyrighted material that you do not have the right to make available using a computer powered by their electicity?
Sigh.
Do you really have any choice as to whether you accept an AUP from your ISP? Where I live, the options are few and my choice would almost certainly be to accept this kind of AUP or have no Internet access, or at least no broadband access.
Likewise, if the 3 power companies in my area did decide to implement that kind of policy, what choices would I have? 1. Accept it. 2. Have no power. This is the problem with arguments about a 'free' market and 'free' choice - really, these companies have the power. For example, I cannot approach my ISP and present them with a policy that I will only use their service on the condition that they never reveal my IP address to a third party. Why? Because I have no bargaining position. I am one of millions of customers. They are one of a relatively very few service providers, all of whom have similar policies.
It's worth noting that the users may not be intentionally violating the (civil) law, it may just be open proxies or misconfigured P2P clients
Which, as the innocent denizens of Slashdot often remind us, are no doubt being used for purely non-infringing purposes, such as downloading home made movies and Linux distros...
Or perhaps you meant 'misconfigured' in the sense of 'not running PeerGuardian'.
Realistically, it is quite likely that the individuals being targeted are uploading copyright material. The more significant question is whether this type of 'denial of service' justice is appropriate, especially when the apparent 'victim' is not the same company that is denying you access to their services.
Personally I find it very disturbing - take it far enough and we could have the power company switching off power to your home if the RIAA or non-US equivalent declares you a 'likely copyright thief'. Cue 'free market' rants, but in the end, if you are blacklisted by telcos you will not have Internet access, free market or not.
It was worth it for the head museum scene and Conan O'Brien.
COB: There's one thing I've got that you'll never have: a soul! Bender: Eh... COB: And freckles!!! Bender: [cries]
Plus without the heads-in-jars we'd never have had the pleasure of cyborg president Nixon.
Interesting side note: as a head in a jar, I envy the dead.
Dude, there's a whole universe in all of us...
on
Futurama Returns
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Stirring defence of Futurama and the Simpsons there. But I think you're pretty much wrong in everything you say. To respond to your three main points:
1. The characters in the Simpsons are surprisingly consistent; the clearly distinct characters and their traits are one of the shows great strengths. Lisa is BOTH intelligent AND a member of the archetypal working class family; these are not mutually exclusive, and the show is subtle enough to deal with this.
2. Futurama IS better than Dr Who whichever way you spin it (allowing for taste), and its PLOTS are amongst its great strengths. When you compare the Simpsons to Futurama, one thing that is very apparent is that Futurama has much more comprehensive, less formulaic, better written storylines. The episodes, and the series, feature an internal logic which is stronger than the Simpsons, or indeed almost any other comedy other than Seinfeld or Arrested Development.
In many cases the humour is directly derived from the strength of the plot. For example, Fry travels back in time and becomes his own grandfather. As a result, he is unique in the universe, and his uniqueness ties in to the whole Nibblonian vs Brains subplot. Similarly, Leela's origins story is tightly woven throughout the various episodes and across the series. I know for a fact that Groening, Cohen and co set out to write lengthy thematic arcs which in some cases spanned series 1-4 inclusive.
If you think it's a plot-less cartoon with jokes, you're not really watching it.
3. Well, this basically explains why you think what you think. I agree to the extent that each episode of Futurama is self-contained. However, they are also intricately linked with other episodes, and you miss a lot of important context and detail from some episodes if you treat them as a one-off 'adventure'.
Try watching Futurama, in order, from start to finish. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
in the amount of two decades worth of average adult earnings
$30 million is two decades worth of average adult earnings to you?
See, this is why the US has problems with offshoring. I'll do the same job for only $20 million! And we're off on the slippery slope to an average adult only earning $10 million or so in two decades... disgraceful.
The Register reports that British and Dutch scientists located a previously undetected word
May I recommend the present perfect simple tense? I think you'll find that nuanced grammar adds a delightful twist to the English language.
For instance:
Slashdot contributors and editors have discovered that applying simple grammatical principles can significantly enhance their audience's comprehension of stories posted on the site
Whilst I generally agree that it is indeed bullshit, it is possible to imagine the scenario in which, for some reason, there is a bug in Genuine Advantage which leads to a denial of access to the Windows Update service for legitimately registered users.
I have often wondered whether Steam has a similar feature - if Valve goes bankrupt, for instance, does it release you from the (ridiculous) copy protection/licensing arrangements put in place when you install Half Life 2 and other products?
The best way to do any of this would be to simply check if the parent company's server is still there and able to provide authentication/updating. If it is unavailable for some reason the local software should function autonomously, as it always should, but without the need for approval from the parent.
Of course the *real* best solution is to stop trying to monitor usage on a micro-level and just make good products at a reasonable price. As has been demonstrated over and over again, this is the way to stop piracy.
The DVD has actually been unavailable in Australia for a long time now. I tried to find a new copy to no avail, and ended up having to breach my MPAA programming and copy it from someone who bought it in its (extremely) limited first release here.
The quality is as bad as VHS - I suspect it might actually be from VHS. The sound is stereo. It is, at least, the 'director's' cut, although that version wasn't Scott's final vision for the film (it remains to be seen how the new 'definitive' cut pans out on that front).
My understanding is that the re-release has been blocked for a long time by some asshole with some of the IP rights to the film. I guess Time Warner finally had him 'retired' so they could go ahead with the release.
I really, really hope it has properly remastered footage (memo Time Warner: look at the remastered version of Twin Peaks season 1 as a guide to how good remastered vision and sound can be) and cinematic sound - I assume it was in more than stereo when it came out, though this may not be the case.
I also hope they don't mess with the essential plot elements a la Star Wars and ET... that would be a crime against art beyond any mutilation of a kids space fantasy...
Am I alone in finding this kind of topic - "The state of X in the year 2050" - really, incredibly pointless?
Given that no-one has been able to make accurate predictions about computer technology over a 5-year horizon, what possible basis is there for thinking that anyone can predict what the state of technology will be in 50 years time? By then we may be keeping our data secure by storing it in a hidden pocket of space-time in a parallel universe 10,000,000 years back in time and retrieving it through a wormhole when required. Or civilization may have collapsed, leaving us with the 'pointy rock tied to a stick' device as our best form of security.
My point is: no-one knows. It's pointless to predict this far into the future.
I would prefer people stick to making these kinds of predictions about large, relatively predictable fields (e.g.: the climate; oil supplies; population; tectonic plate movement) and leave their prognostications about ridiculous things like 'computer security' to something like a 2-10 year window.
Or we could, you know, read some *news* instead of some random predictions.
Slashdot Mirror
The type of popular uprising you're talking about could never happen in the current era of mass media which is closely linked, if not directly controlled, by the government or the powerful interests standing behind the government.
If there was a 'majority or near majority' who understood the need for radical change then elections would resolve the issue in any event.
Wow, it's hard to Google things.
> for those of you who were not in high school and college during Reagan's years
In my experience 'high school and college' is not exactly an arbitrary cross-section of society when it comes to politics. To misquote the Simpsons, making teenagers outraged is like shooting fish in a barrel. So you and the GP both rely on a perception of the 70s and early 80s which seems to focus on a period in your lives when you were particularly aware of such things. In reality, anyone politically aware will remember their own high school or college days as somewhat turbulent and in terms of the major controversies of time time.
I acknowledge I probably over-stated the original point in terms of how the USA was viewed in the early 1980s. I accept that Reagan wasn't univerally loved by any stretch of the imagination (to compare him to Bush Jnr and that administration to the present setup is laughable though, Reagan may have been a puppet but at least he was controlled by relatively sane and competent puppet-masters in comparison to the current ones).
My original point, however, was that global perceptions of the US are in decline, and I stand by that assertion. Do some research, there are plenty of statistics about gloabal perceptions which back this up. I note that neither you or the GP addressed the last point of my post, which was about the current US approach to arrest, detention, interrogation and punishment of non-US citizens in connection with the so-called 'war on terror.'
And as others have pointed out, the prevailing view of the US is what I was talking about, and I still strongly disagree with anyone who thinks that the prevailing view of the US is as good now as it was during the Reagan era, Soviet bloc countries excluded.
This thing would be great for multiplayer gaming on consoles. The days of sitting 4 inches from the TV so you can make out what's happening in your quarter of the split-screen would be well and truly over. This seems like the most useful application to me (now maybe we can convince Rare to finally do a decent sequel to Goldeneye)
> All propaganda to the contrary, the dislike and distrust of the US is not markedly different now than it was 23 years ago.
This is modded insightful? What nonsense.
23 years ago the Soviet Bloc was extremely distrustful of the US - the possibility of imminent nuclear annihilation has a way of doing that, especially when you're already living in a ruthless totalitarian machine - but much of the rest of the world regarded the United States as a democratic bastion protecting them from the Soviet empire. Western Europe, in particular, was totally reliant on the US for protection from the massive Russian ground army. Furthermore, the US was genuinely viewed as a (relative) beacon of democracy and human rights in comparison to the ruthless and inhumane Soviet countries.
Today Western Europe views the United States as the biggest threat to world peace, as does much of the rest of the world. There are stats about this, I can find them if I have to. The US has also lost its role as the leader of the democratic and human rights-aware world, and continues to decline on those fronts at an alarming rate (especially the latter).
I think I speak for a lot of non-US citizens when I say that it is a tragedy that America cannot be relied upon to do the right thing, even on paper. In my opinion a hell of a lot of anti-American sentiment stems from people who depserately want the US to truly lead, and are appalled at the way it is actually behaving.
Put it another way - 23 years ago citizens of Britan, Australia, and Western Europe would never have seriously felt that they might be 'disappeared' by US intelligence agencies from a third-party country, tortured, detained for years without any recourse to the law, and eventually tried in an extra-judicial process with the possibility of the death penalty. Today that has in fact happened, and continues to happen if President Bush is to be believed.
I have this problem - I work long hours and have a pretty busy life outside of that, so I struggle to find time to play games even though I love them. I tend to pick up a game for a few hours but then have to leave it for weeks at a time. It's especially hard in games like Civilization IV and Deus Ex (or System Shock II and Freespace 2, which I'm trying to play through at the moment), in other words, games which either present an extremely high level of complexity or a very detailed storyline.
I have always thought it would be super-cool if such games provided a sort of "last week, in Civilization IV" recap option when you load your game. For instance, Civ could give you a little potted history of the last hundred years or so - "After the Greek attack on the Germans, Japan and Russia entered into a mutual protection pact, while the Americans began stockpiling arms..." and so on. It could even be presented as a history lecture or news bulletin to fit into the game world. A game like Deus Ex could give you a more story-driven update - "You've just returned to Hell's Kitchen, and your brother Paul is nowhere to be found..."
I can't imagine this would be hard to implement.
IAAL too, and I tend to agree that despite common perceptions, it would be unusual for any serious law firm to advise its client to file a totally frivolous claim just as a stunt - apart from anything else the lawyers themselves would be exposed to a follow up suit from their clients. Looking at the circumstances, it's obvious that this will be high profile, the RIAA will come down on it as hard as possible, and the potential costs are huge, all of which suggest that it wouldn't happen without careful consideration of the consequences.
As such I wouldn't be surprised if there was some merit in it too.
In addition, I tend to regard the question of 'frivolity' as somewhat irrelevant for all but the most obviously stupid claims. It is an unfortunate consequence of the adversarial legal system that once you get over a certain fairly low bar in terms of merit, money, quality of representation, luck, and tactics all have a great deal to do with your prospects of success (as the RIAA know very well). As such it would be pretty surprising if Limewire didn't at least get over that minimum bar.
See, by having the freedom to choose which charities to give money to you can give to causes that you support. You are not forced to give to causes that the government forces you to give to under threat of imprisonment.
Precisely, and I know it's initially a confronting idea but that is precisely WHY the government SHOULD be the one distributing money. Those in most need are frequently the most marginalised and least popular or appealing groups. One function of government is to extend support and protection to such people (for example, the unemployed come to mind) specifically because individuals do not. Whereas an individual will play favourites one way or another, a government should not.
I can't remember who said it, but a society should be judged by how it treats its most vulnerable. Under your system, it is the most appealing who will be supported and protected, and many of the most vulnerable will be ignored.
Treating need as a competitive market is only something that could happen in the current era of rampant laissez-faire capitalism, where 'choice' in the sense of economic liberty is the only criterion for 'good.'
...this development, along with the Bill and Melinda foundation, means we now have extremely large, extremely rich companies doing what our governments should be doing.
If they're promoting cleaner vehicles or saving kittens it's all fine and dandy. But what about accountability? What if Google, with its billions, starts doing things that some of us strongly disagree with? Would Christian conservatives be happy if Google started a campaign to push condoms in schools and third world countries to help stop AIDS? Would progressives be happy if Google started a campaign to restore family values through aggressively marketing church youth groups?
Let's remember that this is the same Google which is arguably supporting the tyrannical Chinese government's censorship. Fundamentally, we should be asking, what is Google's agenda? What if we disagree with it?
I expect many people will be inclined to give me responses about it being an example of a company doing what it wants in a free market, and that it is still bound by the law. However, I say, TANSTAAFL, and I prefer my social engineering to be done by the government because in principle at least the government represents me and my interests, whatever my financial involvement.* Are we looking at a future where democracy is contingent on share ownership?
* yeah yeah, spare me
Google seems a bit like Apple around here at times, perhaps a little too far above reasonable criticism. A great many people seem to ignore the fact that it is a self-interested entity in a competitive market, and at the end of the day what it values is what's good for Google and not the good of all mankind. Even if you think this is great, I urge you to think about whether it's really a positive thing to have one company exerting so much influence over the information we receive (google.com), knowing so much about what we are interested in (google.com), what we talk about (gmail), where we go (google maps/earth), what we buy (Adwords, froogle), what we are creating (the emerging word processing software and related tools, Picasa), and apparently now, how we operate as a society.
Put it this way - if Google's board turned rabid tomorrow, how much damage could it do?
Ramses II lived to see his 90th birthday and his heir was in his 60s when he took the throne, ruling for about another 20 years
Wow, this nanotechnology stuff is amazing! Not only did rubbing lead directly onto his head not shorten his lifespan, it actually meant that his hair got younger and lived longer than he did!
Eat your heart out, Rogaine!
I presume Google has no intention of paying anyone for the time they put into this system.
As such all that this really represents is a way for a large, profit driven corporation to make money by using the time and efforts of a large collection of individuals.
Seems kinda sinister to me. Personally I would like to gather the rewards for my own efforts, not allow some megacorp to do so. But unarguably a very 'creative' way to go about it, to be sure.
Oh, I agree. That was really my point, made in a roundabout way. People, including me, mainly spew forth garbage. The blog craze has created an environment where there seems to be a belief that if you electronically record and publish this garbage, it somehow becomes worthwhile.
At the same time, there are a few people with interesting things to say. What I was trying to suggest is that the current trend really doesn't reward quality, and it is becoming an increasingly frustrating chore to find anything worthwhile but current to read amongst the morass of grammatically incorrect navel-gazing.
I may be alone in this, but I find MySpace for the most part intensely narcissistic and inane.
People are presented with a tool for publishing absolutely anything, about any topic they choose. Instead of presenting thoughtful, creative or otherwise valuable content, the vast majority elect to pointlessly ramble about themselves in minute detail or engage in endless back and forth with other users about nothing in particular. Which is fine, but it shouldn't have the legitimacy of other web content.
In many ways, the whole blog concept has perhaps lowered the barrier to entry for on-line publishing a little *too* far. When anyone can publish anything you want with virtually no effort, then it no longer requires that you be inspired or motivated before your inane ramblings are out there in cyberspace. The media has adopted the trend too, with 'blog' in the context of a news site all too often meaning 'poorly researched and largely content-free "reporting" on sensationalist subject matter.'
Perhaps it's time to move past the blog hype and to consider some method for differentiating personal diaries (i.e., what used to be a personal homepage), social chit chat (i.e., what used to be a bulletin board, IRC, or IM activity), and publications with actual content. Right now the net is awash with an ever-expanding tide of rubbish and there is very little to assist in finding the few really interesting and high quality publications amongst the garbage.
Ultimately it's depressing that, given the ability to communicate our ideas to anyone on earth, most of us can't come up with anything better than pictures of ourselves drinking too much and mass-produced but ineffectual rebelliousness.
Do you really have any choice as to whether you accept an AUP from your ISP? Where I live, the options are few and my choice would almost certainly be to accept this kind of AUP or have no Internet access, or at least no broadband access.
Likewise, if the 3 power companies in my area did decide to implement that kind of policy, what choices would I have? 1. Accept it. 2. Have no power. This is the problem with arguments about a 'free' market and 'free' choice - really, these companies have the power. For example, I cannot approach my ISP and present them with a policy that I will only use their service on the condition that they never reveal my IP address to a third party. Why? Because I have no bargaining position. I am one of millions of customers. They are one of a relatively very few service providers, all of whom have similar policies.
Which, as the innocent denizens of Slashdot often remind us, are no doubt being used for purely non-infringing purposes, such as downloading home made movies and Linux distros...
Or perhaps you meant 'misconfigured' in the sense of 'not running PeerGuardian'.
Realistically, it is quite likely that the individuals being targeted are uploading copyright material. The more significant question is whether this type of 'denial of service' justice is appropriate, especially when the apparent 'victim' is not the same company that is denying you access to their services.
Personally I find it very disturbing - take it far enough and we could have the power company switching off power to your home if the RIAA or non-US equivalent declares you a 'likely copyright thief'. Cue 'free market' rants, but in the end, if you are blacklisted by telcos you will not have Internet access, free market or not.
It was worth it for the head museum scene and Conan O'Brien.
COB: There's one thing I've got that you'll never have: a soul!
Bender: Eh...
COB: And freckles!!!
Bender: [cries]
Plus without the heads-in-jars we'd never have had the pleasure of cyborg president Nixon.
Interesting side note: as a head in a jar, I envy the dead.
Stirring defence of Futurama and the Simpsons there. But I think you're pretty much wrong in everything you say. To respond to your three main points:
1. The characters in the Simpsons are surprisingly consistent; the clearly distinct characters and their traits are one of the shows great strengths. Lisa is BOTH intelligent AND a member of the archetypal working class family; these are not mutually exclusive, and the show is subtle enough to deal with this.
2. Futurama IS better than Dr Who whichever way you spin it (allowing for taste), and its PLOTS are amongst its great strengths. When you compare the Simpsons to Futurama, one thing that is very apparent is that Futurama has much more comprehensive, less formulaic, better written storylines. The episodes, and the series, feature an internal logic which is stronger than the Simpsons, or indeed almost any other comedy other than Seinfeld or Arrested Development.
In many cases the humour is directly derived from the strength of the plot. For example, Fry travels back in time and becomes his own grandfather. As a result, he is unique in the universe, and his uniqueness ties in to the whole Nibblonian vs Brains subplot. Similarly, Leela's origins story is tightly woven throughout the various episodes and across the series. I know for a fact that Groening, Cohen and co set out to write lengthy thematic arcs which in some cases spanned series 1-4 inclusive.
If you think it's a plot-less cartoon with jokes, you're not really watching it.
3. Well, this basically explains why you think what you think. I agree to the extent that each episode of Futurama is self-contained. However, they are also intricately linked with other episodes, and you miss a lot of important context and detail from some episodes if you treat them as a one-off 'adventure'.
Try watching Futurama, in order, from start to finish. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
$30 million is two decades worth of average adult earnings to you?
See, this is why the US has problems with offshoring. I'll do the same job for only $20 million! And we're off on the slippery slope to an average adult only earning $10 million or so in two decades... disgraceful.
The Register reports that British and Dutch scientists located a previously undetected word
May I recommend the present perfect simple tense? I think you'll find that nuanced grammar adds a delightful twist to the English language.
For instance:
Slashdot contributors and editors have discovered that applying simple grammatical principles can significantly enhance their audience's comprehension of stories posted on the site
Whilst I generally agree that it is indeed bullshit, it is possible to imagine the scenario in which, for some reason, there is a bug in Genuine Advantage which leads to a denial of access to the Windows Update service for legitimately registered users.
I have often wondered whether Steam has a similar feature - if Valve goes bankrupt, for instance, does it release you from the (ridiculous) copy protection/licensing arrangements put in place when you install Half Life 2 and other products?
The best way to do any of this would be to simply check if the parent company's server is still there and able to provide authentication/updating. If it is unavailable for some reason the local software should function autonomously, as it always should, but without the need for approval from the parent.
Of course the *real* best solution is to stop trying to monitor usage on a micro-level and just make good products at a reasonable price. As has been demonstrated over and over again, this is the way to stop piracy.
The DVD has actually been unavailable in Australia for a long time now. I tried to find a new copy to no avail, and ended up having to breach my MPAA programming and copy it from someone who bought it in its (extremely) limited first release here.
The quality is as bad as VHS - I suspect it might actually be from VHS. The sound is stereo. It is, at least, the 'director's' cut, although that version wasn't Scott's final vision for the film (it remains to be seen how the new 'definitive' cut pans out on that front).
My understanding is that the re-release has been blocked for a long time by some asshole with some of the IP rights to the film. I guess Time Warner finally had him 'retired' so they could go ahead with the release.
I really, really hope it has properly remastered footage (memo Time Warner: look at the remastered version of Twin Peaks season 1 as a guide to how good remastered vision and sound can be) and cinematic sound - I assume it was in more than stereo when it came out, though this may not be the case.
I also hope they don't mess with the essential plot elements a la Star Wars and ET... that would be a crime against art beyond any mutilation of a kids space fantasy...
Namely, the Register, who have been mapping out the links in the global robo-conspiracy for some time now:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/science/rotm/
A very amusing read...
Learn to LINK man. Take the following phrase:
"ThinkGaming is reporting from E3, and had a chance to take a look at Will Wright's Spore during the early-hours press access."
The Zonk approach: link from "Will Wright's Spore" goes to thinkgaming.org article.
The *sensible* approach: link from "Will Wright's Spore" goes to official site; link from "ThinkGaming is reporting" goes to thinkgaming.org article.
I mean seriously, how many times do you have to post "edited for clarity - Z" before you figure it out?
Am I alone in finding this kind of topic - "The state of X in the year 2050" - really, incredibly pointless?
Given that no-one has been able to make accurate predictions about computer technology over a 5-year horizon, what possible basis is there for thinking that anyone can predict what the state of technology will be in 50 years time? By then we may be keeping our data secure by storing it in a hidden pocket of space-time in a parallel universe 10,000,000 years back in time and retrieving it through a wormhole when required. Or civilization may have collapsed, leaving us with the 'pointy rock tied to a stick' device as our best form of security.
My point is: no-one knows. It's pointless to predict this far into the future.
I would prefer people stick to making these kinds of predictions about large, relatively predictable fields (e.g.: the climate; oil supplies; population; tectonic plate movement) and leave their prognostications about ridiculous things like 'computer security' to something like a 2-10 year window.
Or we could, you know, read some *news* instead of some random predictions.