I actually don't mind the addition of achievements, were they permanent, but you should adopt a model similar to Valve: create little icons and give them corny names, with the description below. That would at least give a good reason why each achievement item is so damn big on the page.
I read an article in Wired (the bastion of reporting it is) from before Hulu was launched that discussed the troubles it was having for starting up and how it turned into a "crowned prince" almost overnight (hey, I'm catching up on back-issues). From the way the story is written, it sounds like the creators of Hulu bent over backwards to meet the common demands of video on the internet and get executives to, as well: things like user queues, allowing users to embed the video, etc.
When I started using Hulu, I very much liked it. It had many of the shows I watch on TV normally, and many shows I'd not heard of before and gave a chance. Aside from some issues with the placement of advertisements within certain episodes and the use of lay-over advertisements, as well as organizing their queue, I've absolutely loved it; I haven't used my TV to watch TV for a month or two now, instead just turning to Hulu.
Unfortunately, the comment about Hulu increasing advertising is true: first we got the lay-overs, which, while transparent, took up a large amount of real-estate for many seconds; second, we already have multiple ads in each "break". Somewhat humorously, every time I've seen an "Advertisement 1 of X" while watching I've also seen the "Sorry, we cannot display the advertisement", and I'm not trying to block their ads in any way. I'm sure they'll figure that out, though. I have already seen "Advertisement 1 of 3", though it was only once during an episode.
What I don't get is why so many companies don't just go in for a micropayments model. If the ads build up like cable I'll just jump ship. But, if I have the option to pay an agreeable price and avoid ads altogether, I would happily stay. Unlike much of the internet, I'm happy to pay for a service I feel is worth-while.
Set up the account so I can put some money in, and before each video ask me if I want to pay X cents to watch it ad-free. They already have a similar option where you watch one long ad at the beginning and are ad-free the rest of the way, so this should be easy to setup. Base X on both the popularity of the video and the number of adverts otherwise shown. This way you'll get more takers on the more popular videos, which get more ad-hits anyway. I'm sure there's a cheap price where they would even make a tidy profit on top of whatever ad money they would get otherwise that consumers would be willing to pay.
I also use my user page to find comments I've made, but I'm annoyed by it, too, but I can kind of see his point: on almost every single other internet site ever, your user/profile page is there to inform others, not yourself. On most sites I never visit a page about myself.
However, I'm usually only interested in my most recent comments, so I don't see why Malda can't go halfway where you get the brief bio, then the most recent comments, then the whole feed action thing (which I feel is useless for anyone, but I guess some people like the whole Facebook stalker aspect). A separate link is necessary only for viewing older comments.
The last time the US decided not to participate in a world council, World War II happened. Perhaps it would have occurred even if the League of Nations had worked out, but without the U.S. support the whole thing fell apart.
While we don't carry as much weight these days, especially with the whole world recession going on, the U.S. is still seen as a bright beacon above all others in many, many matters. Sure, the UN doesn't do much for us, but that's because we don't need them to do much for us. It also means that we can basically safely ignore any UN resolution we don't like, even if it doesn't conflict with our Constitution. If the UN somehow decides to kick us out, we just shrug and go on.
However, the UN would then lose a lot of power in many countries, and that could cause trouble that would spread to America and American interests.
Whether or not you think the UN is actually worthwhile, it's worthwhile for the US to stay active within it. At least then we'd be able to more easily oppose stupid resolutions like this (and we hold veto power on every council, I believe). I don't see a vote list, but hopefully we were one of the protesting nations or the ones that voted against the resolution.
I doubt the entire 3D image is sent client side. There's no way outside of flash to structure it, and even if there was it would take way too long to render it.
As for AI learning, it doesn't need to; writing a proper AI and then teaching it would take far longer than just rending a 2D shot for every possible angle (hence my 365^3 figure) and then comparing, at least for this early sample of images. An AI would be the best way to go about the general and long-term case, but I doubt spammers have the resources to go that far. We've had some intelligent trojans, but they were also still far more basic than what I think would be required for this.
That's very true. The problem now isn't rendering CAPTCHAs useless, it's doing so by automated means.
As you said, anything that must be used by humans can be broken by humans. But you still wind up with logistics problems--having the money to pay these people (or, in the case of free porn, the bandwidth and content to keep them interested) and the fact that those people are still limited by their humanity. Even the fastest typist wouldn't be able to complete a form (CAPTCHA aside) as quick as a robot. And, if a robot can break a CAPTCHA, it can fill that out faster than a human, as well.
So the issue is preventing, or at least slowing down, robots, which can work 24/7 without a break. A variety of things have been done with normal CAPTCHAs to do this: colors, lines, running letters into each other, adding cats and dogs to letters (seriously). This step, once "perfected" and widely adopted, will be a huge leap in stopping these robots. Even if they can be trained to have a copy of the exact 3D models given (which are sure to increase in variety if not types), they still have to take a picture of it from every single angle, which I believe is 359^3 images, and then compare every single one (which is O(x^n) time, where x is the time for one image comparison).
It's an arm's race, though. Eventually some enterprising hacker will figure out a way for bots to "guesstimate" based on various aspects of an image, and once that solution is sold to the highest bidder we start the war all over again.
This seems to fall into the same pit that normal CAPTCHAs have: the Blind. But, it will likely be dealt with in the same way.
The big problem with the current implementation is that it relies on Javascript, which has a whole host of problems from cross-browser compatibility to having Javascript enabled at all.
I imagine this won't be a problem for long, though. At worst, you basically put up all the arrays at once and stick them with radioboxes. The problem is that this becomes extremely cluttered and likely confusing. A simpler route, but one that would be easier for bots to break, is to just have the user check a box by each of the three items shown. This is easier because the bot can just do random selections and get about 10% through.
If this could be paired with words, then you can break it down to three easy drop-down boxes to name the items in order, but then you have to worry about having unique enough words that they don't get messed up. (For instance, consider a dinner knife: it could be a knife, a blade, or a utensil.)
what's to stop the small newspapers from firing the majority of their staff and operating like Internet newspapers with self-moderated volunteer staffs?
Because the large majority of those "self-moderated staffs" would be reactionary, rather than relating, and would have an even larger bias than any newspaper already have.
The problem with groupthink moderation is that anything that goes against the current popular thought process will be buried. Not just what would be considered "editorial" pieces, but hard facts with citations that contradict what the groupthink is. Slashdot tends to stave this off somewhat because it has enough people in various thought groups willing to moderate, as well as a small pool of people who are likely objectionable when doing so. However, this speaks to Slashdot's audience and not its system; even with that, worthwhile posts are often buried for the sake of removing derision.
Could you really imagine Digg or Reddit as a newspaper?
Furthermore, a volunteer force would not have the time to do any kind of investigative reporting or research (not that much of that seems to happen now, anyway). You said a "majority", meaning there would be some full-time reporting staff, so that helps.
More likely, papers would encourage individuals to submit stories, which then go through an editorial process (something more robust than/.'s faux setup), and then get put online. A lot of small papers already do this; the difference is that with an online version, you would be able to have a queue that interested visitors could sift through of the stuff that is waiting for review, ala the Firehose. If a certain story is getting a lot of attention, that would bump it up in the queue so the site has a more timely response.
The best that a volunteer force can really do is just reporting town-hall meetings and school baseball games. I suppose in the small towns we're talking about that's all that usually gets in there, anyway.
If they really wanted to crack down, Last.fm (and related websites) could easily block IPs from proxies. It might be a race between blocking IPs and new ones coming online, but one where the proxy users lose out most of the time. I don't know that proxy users would have any single remedy, either.
I doubt they will do this, but it's still something to consider.
I'm more worried that it will prop up a trend that already happens: include "extra" content on the game, but don't allow a player to access it until they've paid for the "extra" content.
The download is thus a mere MB, or something likewise intangibly small, so the publisher gets their cake and eats it, too.
Another company that/. is familiar with, Nintendo, started in 1889 making Hanafuda cards. (Before getting into video games they tried doing cabs and 'love hotels', as well.)
Or, because you're asking the internet of all things, you get back horribly wrong data which is bolstered by misled/malicious other users and you take as correct, which fucks up the whole case.
I'm not terribly familiar with the jury system, but I do think that jurors should be able to ask questions of witnesses/lawyers/the judge if there is uncertainty on something. However, going to the internet is not a good replacement, unless the case is about porn.
I can't wait to hear about an innocent man convicted/guilty man freed because the case rested on the rate of population change by elephants and you went to Wikipedia for that answer.
Agreed. The day that SciFi started showing Wrestling is the day they truly died, IMO.
USA, with it's "characters welcome" slogan, has done well, IMO. Monk, Psych, and Burn Notice are all awesome, and I hear their newer shows (like "In Plain Sight") do well, too. However, they also show Wrestling, which makes me worry. It does fit into the "characters" montra, though, so I'm not terribly worried.
Yet.
In any case, this is just another reason to stick with something like Hulu or go to torrents.
And, in many cases, money does not equal improvement. I'm all for some sort of merit-pay system (though exactly how to judge merit would be an issue), but that would still only go so far in making a change.
Too many educators, even at the university level, are just bad. Either they don't care, never learned themselves, or learned wrong. Even at the high school level, I had more than one teacher who's regular daily plan was to have us open our textbooks and read aloud in class. You don't learn anything from that. Even if there was some discussion afterwards, most of it still went in one ear and out the other.
If we want to fix American education, we need to change the way that the education system thinks. Considering the advances of the lass century, a good majority is still sticking to ideas from somewhere around the 12th century.
1) Memorization is out, critical thinking is in.
We have the internet. We have Google. Even if all of technology were to fail today, we would still have public libraries. Rote memorization is a worthless skill these days, except in very specific fields; even then, you shouldn't have to do it until you reach college level. Information doesn't need to be stored in our minds, just noted and looked up later.
The downside is that this massive amount of information can be hard to parse, which is why we have to pair the removal of memorization with the introduction of critical thinking exercises. We need to be teaching the kids not just to ask questions, but how they should ask them and what kinds to ask. Right now the mentality is that kids should just shut up and learn. Critical thinking is a skill that will help them far beyond even university, regardless of what path they take in life.
2) Closed-book testing is out
Now, I'm not saying we should sit kids in front of a search engine with each test, but too many tests require memorization of stuff that really doesn't need to be memorized. Instead of seeing if someone can remember tan(3/4) or the derivative of sec^-1(), give them a list of common functions and then put harder problems on the test. The whole "no calculator" thing also seems kind of blech, though for more basic problems I do agree on it.
I had one professor (a rather brilliant and geeky CS prof) who would make homework absolutely brutal, quizzes hard, and tests moderately difficult. In this way, when we were tested it was actually easier, whereas you normally expect and get the opposite. Math-based classes should give weekly quizzes that are difficult and no calculator allowed, and regular tests that are easier and allow a calculator.
If a class like American History must do a test, it should be an essay one, allowing students to have their own notes. Ask questions that require students to analyze events, not regurgitate them. It doesn't matter what years we had the American Revolution, at least not compared to the reason we had it. If a kid can say that the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, and that the American Revolution started about that same time, but not why we did those things or the motivations for the Boston Tea Party, then in my view he's learned nothing. Fine, do some quick-fact sheet for the first ten minutes, then switch over to open-note and essay.
However, I'd prefer that in lieu of tests, these kinds of classes did reports and presentations. Do debates in Government classes, grading on the amount of thought put into arguments.
3) Engage the kids
I would even say that note-taking is old and busted. When kids are taking notes, they can't pay attention, except to the extremely immediate which they forget after putting it on paper. I found that, at least in my math classes, I learned far more when I wrote nothing (while watching the rest of the class scribble furiously) during class than when I wrote pages.
This isn't saying notes are bad--certainly, in a relevant class kids should take notes on the big and important items--but lik
If things change as I hope to, the idea of lust won't be as deeply ingrained, because it will be far more open; looking at any naked woman would be like looking at the Venus de Milo, plus arms.
There are other changes afoot, forced by technology, such as the idea of ownership thanks to digital rights. This will start coming into the real world as 3D printers get better and better and can churn out anything with enough schematics. Once we have some sort of replicator, all ideas of property ownership will break down completely.
The world painted for us in Star Trek isn't one caused by humanity becoming enlightened over time, it's forced by changes in technology that cause panic, and one people settled down they became okay with the whole setup.
The most fascinating part of this future is that very strong ethical, privacy and legal limits will have to be put in place.
I think something else will happen.
I think society will change.
Speaking strictly for American society (though I fully expect the same to happen in other first-world countries, though perhaps at different rates), we've long had various scruples that, while perhaps not bad, don't make the most sense. For instance, the general requirement that we remain clothed; or, in a more tame sense, that men may go bare-chested but women may not (add to that further with much of women's fashion). There are reasons to wear clothes, but shame for the human body has always been an odd one. Also, it's perfectly fine (by society) to talk about someone behind their back, but never to tell someone they're bad/ugly and give constructive criticism. Who cares if you're helping someone out with that (whether or not they want the help), you should be talking about it to someone who can't do squat like some sort of weasel!
As television has brought us pictures of war sooner and sooner, and VHS everything else, we began to become more and more "open" about things. The internet has only increased this, as well as allowing for amateur footage of... well, everything.
I think that instead of all these huge restrictions being put on such devices, society's view will shift as it is further exposed. There will be a brief push-back, but that will subside. Over time, people will become more and more relaxed about various subjects and previous "taboos". We saw it happen with black rights, women's rights, and interracial marriage. Right now we're seeing it happen with homosexuality and marijuana.
There's always the chance of another Roman-style (or was it Greek?) tragedy happening where we suddenly regress a millennium, but if we continue the path we are bound to become a society that has almost no social bounds outside of actual harm. Perhaps not in 20 years, and maybe not even in 100, but I believe it will happen, especially if content expands exponentially.
Kansas has recently passed a bill that refutes the theory of gravity. The bill says that humans can leap to the moon "if we only believe", and that "it's all in your head".
I agree with you that there will still be physical boxes, just like we still have LPs, but there's a trend going on that will be what keeps that up.
More and more, mainly with huge "hype" games, but increasingly with smaller ones, you have these collector's/director's sets that have all manner of nifty geek-orgasm-inducing items, not to mention pre-order bonuses. As time goes by and digital distribution becomes easier and more of the norm, we'll see a decrease in regular boxed media but an increase in these special sets. Their level of "awesome" will drop a bit, and the price as well, but they'd still be put out in larger quantities (though less than boxed media sees now).
Those who buy them will be the "hardcore" fans. We'll still get some regular boxed media, but it will be available at a much more limited number of retailers, and some companies may opt to just open their own online store and just press-on-demand.
The problem is that constantly second-guessing our doctors can lead to problems with the general public. Sure, some are completely obvious (such as mister "gotta remove that foot" for an ingrown nail, an ailment I've suffered myself[1]), but some might not be so apparent (except to those of us on the mentalier-than-thou Slashdot). A second opinion from another doctor (though perhaps not one who outright says "that guy is full of shit") is far and away a good idea for anything that seems off or would be irreversible, but doing your own second-guessing and internet research often leads to false presumptions and bad ideas, especially for John Q. Public.
In the same way, I'm a nerd for computers, not cars, and so if I think a mechanic is bullshitting me I'll take it to another one and see if the prognosis matches up. If the mechanic is trying to sell me a new radiator when I came in for a flat tire, then I know something is up. Yeah, I could pull out some car manuals and mechanic guides, hit some stuff with wrenches, and ask on various auto sites, but more likely than not I'll either wind up on a wild goose chase for anything worse than some loose bolts or spark plugs needing a change, or doing completely wrong work.
Crap, I didn't even realize I was making a car analogy. Oh well.
[1] I had an ingrown toenail that got infected on my L big toe, the doctor said we had to tear off the whole thing and kill the roots. So we did. Later I learned that the doc could have just shaven down the roots so it would be a thinner nail. A few years later I started getting the same problem on my right foot, and at the threat of my mother that the toe would be removed at the doctor visit the next day if the doctor deems it necessary, I spent two hours soaking my foot, then an hour with various tools (both medical and mechanical) simply getting rid of the ingrown portion myself.
Then the answer would seem to be to make new games that are actually more fun to play than the old ones.
It's an interesting catch-22-like situation, though one that has a definite start in any sales drop that could be attributed to piracy.
Company releases new, innovative, and/or fun game. Because of that, it likely gets little marketing (there are rare cases like LBP), meaning it's only well known in gaming circles. Half of those who want it pirate it, the other half purchase.
The end result is that the publisher sees much lower sales numbers than expected, even for a new property. Being able to track piracy numbers roughly, they believe that the massive number of pirates are part of the reason, and so they are less likely to release another new/innovative/fun game, because the more standard fodder/sequel gets much more attention from the "casual" gamer community and thus more in sales.
While I bemoan the lack of originality in the industry, I can't blame companies too much--even if they're gamers first, they're still developers second, and to make a game you have to spend a lot of money (especially today) and plan to make money off of it. The less risk, the more likely the plan of action is. It's smart business, and no number of whining gamers will change that (especially a hardcore market that is seen as full of pirates).
really acting any better than the RIAA/MPAA trying to force their ideal laws on foreign nations.
Are you serious?
Nintendo may have some backwards ideas when it comes to game properties (Ye Olde Nintendo once campaigned against second-hand sales, and still grumbles now and then), but for the most part they're going the correct route to protect their IP. They're not suing grandmas or threatening colleges or trying to tell the populace "Why yes, we'll let you use your internet if you pay us".
When they do their crackdowns, it's usually after true "pirates", the ones that make copies of games and sell them on the street or through shady retailers. Going after companies like the R4 and such is a little more hazy, but still along the same lines as going after those producing mod chips for copying games.
I don't like wasted government resources, but if a company with that kind of reach wants to protect its IP it does require law enforcement's assistance. So long as they are willing to pay for the time, I don't see a problem with it.
I will agree that they send mixed messages on piracy. On one hand, the DSi won't work with any flashcart made before it was introduced (and it also renders useless anything that needed a slot 2 solution). On the other, they really drug their feet about closing the Twilight Princess hack for the Wii, even going to the point of including the code needed to close it in an update, but not implementing that code.
Slashdot Mirror
I actually don't mind the addition of achievements, were they permanent, but you should adopt a model similar to Valve: create little icons and give them corny names, with the description below. That would at least give a good reason why each achievement item is so damn big on the page.
I read an article in Wired (the bastion of reporting it is) from before Hulu was launched that discussed the troubles it was having for starting up and how it turned into a "crowned prince" almost overnight (hey, I'm catching up on back-issues). From the way the story is written, it sounds like the creators of Hulu bent over backwards to meet the common demands of video on the internet and get executives to, as well: things like user queues, allowing users to embed the video, etc.
When I started using Hulu, I very much liked it. It had many of the shows I watch on TV normally, and many shows I'd not heard of before and gave a chance. Aside from some issues with the placement of advertisements within certain episodes and the use of lay-over advertisements, as well as organizing their queue, I've absolutely loved it; I haven't used my TV to watch TV for a month or two now, instead just turning to Hulu.
Unfortunately, the comment about Hulu increasing advertising is true: first we got the lay-overs, which, while transparent, took up a large amount of real-estate for many seconds; second, we already have multiple ads in each "break". Somewhat humorously, every time I've seen an "Advertisement 1 of X" while watching I've also seen the "Sorry, we cannot display the advertisement", and I'm not trying to block their ads in any way. I'm sure they'll figure that out, though. I have already seen "Advertisement 1 of 3", though it was only once during an episode.
What I don't get is why so many companies don't just go in for a micropayments model. If the ads build up like cable I'll just jump ship. But, if I have the option to pay an agreeable price and avoid ads altogether, I would happily stay. Unlike much of the internet, I'm happy to pay for a service I feel is worth-while.
Set up the account so I can put some money in, and before each video ask me if I want to pay X cents to watch it ad-free. They already have a similar option where you watch one long ad at the beginning and are ad-free the rest of the way, so this should be easy to setup. Base X on both the popularity of the video and the number of adverts otherwise shown. This way you'll get more takers on the more popular videos, which get more ad-hits anyway. I'm sure there's a cheap price where they would even make a tidy profit on top of whatever ad money they would get otherwise that consumers would be willing to pay.
I also use my user page to find comments I've made, but I'm annoyed by it, too, but I can kind of see his point: on almost every single other internet site ever, your user/profile page is there to inform others, not yourself. On most sites I never visit a page about myself.
However, I'm usually only interested in my most recent comments, so I don't see why Malda can't go halfway where you get the brief bio, then the most recent comments, then the whole feed action thing (which I feel is useless for anyone, but I guess some people like the whole Facebook stalker aspect). A separate link is necessary only for viewing older comments.
The last time the US decided not to participate in a world council, World War II happened. Perhaps it would have occurred even if the League of Nations had worked out, but without the U.S. support the whole thing fell apart.
While we don't carry as much weight these days, especially with the whole world recession going on, the U.S. is still seen as a bright beacon above all others in many, many matters. Sure, the UN doesn't do much for us, but that's because we don't need them to do much for us. It also means that we can basically safely ignore any UN resolution we don't like, even if it doesn't conflict with our Constitution. If the UN somehow decides to kick us out, we just shrug and go on.
However, the UN would then lose a lot of power in many countries, and that could cause trouble that would spread to America and American interests.
Whether or not you think the UN is actually worthwhile, it's worthwhile for the US to stay active within it. At least then we'd be able to more easily oppose stupid resolutions like this (and we hold veto power on every council, I believe). I don't see a vote list, but hopefully we were one of the protesting nations or the ones that voted against the resolution.
What am I forgetting? Shouldn't 359^3 cover a rotation to any point in three-dimensional space, with 359 degrees for each axis?
I doubt the entire 3D image is sent client side. There's no way outside of flash to structure it, and even if there was it would take way too long to render it.
As for AI learning, it doesn't need to; writing a proper AI and then teaching it would take far longer than just rending a 2D shot for every possible angle (hence my 365^3 figure) and then comparing, at least for this early sample of images. An AI would be the best way to go about the general and long-term case, but I doubt spammers have the resources to go that far. We've had some intelligent trojans, but they were also still far more basic than what I think would be required for this.
That's very true. The problem now isn't rendering CAPTCHAs useless, it's doing so by automated means.
As you said, anything that must be used by humans can be broken by humans. But you still wind up with logistics problems--having the money to pay these people (or, in the case of free porn, the bandwidth and content to keep them interested) and the fact that those people are still limited by their humanity. Even the fastest typist wouldn't be able to complete a form (CAPTCHA aside) as quick as a robot. And, if a robot can break a CAPTCHA, it can fill that out faster than a human, as well.
So the issue is preventing, or at least slowing down, robots, which can work 24/7 without a break. A variety of things have been done with normal CAPTCHAs to do this: colors, lines, running letters into each other, adding cats and dogs to letters (seriously). This step, once "perfected" and widely adopted, will be a huge leap in stopping these robots. Even if they can be trained to have a copy of the exact 3D models given (which are sure to increase in variety if not types), they still have to take a picture of it from every single angle, which I believe is 359^3 images, and then compare every single one (which is O(x^n) time, where x is the time for one image comparison).
It's an arm's race, though. Eventually some enterprising hacker will figure out a way for bots to "guesstimate" based on various aspects of an image, and once that solution is sold to the highest bidder we start the war all over again.
This seems to fall into the same pit that normal CAPTCHAs have: the Blind. But, it will likely be dealt with in the same way.
The big problem with the current implementation is that it relies on Javascript, which has a whole host of problems from cross-browser compatibility to having Javascript enabled at all.
I imagine this won't be a problem for long, though. At worst, you basically put up all the arrays at once and stick them with radioboxes. The problem is that this becomes extremely cluttered and likely confusing. A simpler route, but one that would be easier for bots to break, is to just have the user check a box by each of the three items shown. This is easier because the bot can just do random selections and get about 10% through.
If this could be paired with words, then you can break it down to three easy drop-down boxes to name the items in order, but then you have to worry about having unique enough words that they don't get messed up. (For instance, consider a dinner knife: it could be a knife, a blade, or a utensil.)
Because the large majority of those "self-moderated staffs" would be reactionary, rather than relating, and would have an even larger bias than any newspaper already have.
The problem with groupthink moderation is that anything that goes against the current popular thought process will be buried. Not just what would be considered "editorial" pieces, but hard facts with citations that contradict what the groupthink is. Slashdot tends to stave this off somewhat because it has enough people in various thought groups willing to moderate, as well as a small pool of people who are likely objectionable when doing so. However, this speaks to Slashdot's audience and not its system; even with that, worthwhile posts are often buried for the sake of removing derision.
Could you really imagine Digg or Reddit as a newspaper?
Furthermore, a volunteer force would not have the time to do any kind of investigative reporting or research (not that much of that seems to happen now, anyway). You said a "majority", meaning there would be some full-time reporting staff, so that helps.
More likely, papers would encourage individuals to submit stories, which then go through an editorial process (something more robust than /.'s faux setup), and then get put online. A lot of small papers already do this; the difference is that with an online version, you would be able to have a queue that interested visitors could sift through of the stuff that is waiting for review, ala the Firehose. If a certain story is getting a lot of attention, that would bump it up in the queue so the site has a more timely response.
The best that a volunteer force can really do is just reporting town-hall meetings and school baseball games. I suppose in the small towns we're talking about that's all that usually gets in there, anyway.
If they really wanted to crack down, Last.fm (and related websites) could easily block IPs from proxies. It might be a race between blocking IPs and new ones coming online, but one where the proxy users lose out most of the time. I don't know that proxy users would have any single remedy, either.
I doubt they will do this, but it's still something to consider.
I'm more worried that it will prop up a trend that already happens: include "extra" content on the game, but don't allow a player to access it until they've paid for the "extra" content.
The download is thus a mere MB, or something likewise intangibly small, so the publisher gets their cake and eats it, too.
Another company that /. is familiar with, Nintendo, started in 1889 making Hanafuda cards. (Before getting into video games they tried doing cabs and 'love hotels', as well.)
Or, because you're asking the internet of all things, you get back horribly wrong data which is bolstered by misled/malicious other users and you take as correct, which fucks up the whole case.
I'm not terribly familiar with the jury system, but I do think that jurors should be able to ask questions of witnesses/lawyers/the judge if there is uncertainty on something. However, going to the internet is not a good replacement, unless the case is about porn.
I can't wait to hear about an innocent man convicted/guilty man freed because the case rested on the rate of population change by elephants and you went to Wikipedia for that answer.
Seriously? When'd they do that?
Agreed. The day that SciFi started showing Wrestling is the day they truly died, IMO.
USA, with it's "characters welcome" slogan, has done well, IMO. Monk, Psych, and Burn Notice are all awesome, and I hear their newer shows (like "In Plain Sight") do well, too. However, they also show Wrestling, which makes me worry. It does fit into the "characters" montra, though, so I'm not terribly worried.
Yet.
In any case, this is just another reason to stick with something like Hulu or go to torrents.
And, in many cases, money does not equal improvement. I'm all for some sort of merit-pay system (though exactly how to judge merit would be an issue), but that would still only go so far in making a change.
Too many educators, even at the university level, are just bad. Either they don't care, never learned themselves, or learned wrong. Even at the high school level, I had more than one teacher who's regular daily plan was to have us open our textbooks and read aloud in class. You don't learn anything from that. Even if there was some discussion afterwards, most of it still went in one ear and out the other.
If we want to fix American education, we need to change the way that the education system thinks. Considering the advances of the lass century, a good majority is still sticking to ideas from somewhere around the 12th century.
1) Memorization is out, critical thinking is in.
We have the internet. We have Google. Even if all of technology were to fail today, we would still have public libraries. Rote memorization is a worthless skill these days, except in very specific fields; even then, you shouldn't have to do it until you reach college level. Information doesn't need to be stored in our minds, just noted and looked up later.
The downside is that this massive amount of information can be hard to parse, which is why we have to pair the removal of memorization with the introduction of critical thinking exercises. We need to be teaching the kids not just to ask questions, but how they should ask them and what kinds to ask. Right now the mentality is that kids should just shut up and learn. Critical thinking is a skill that will help them far beyond even university, regardless of what path they take in life.
2) Closed-book testing is out
Now, I'm not saying we should sit kids in front of a search engine with each test, but too many tests require memorization of stuff that really doesn't need to be memorized. Instead of seeing if someone can remember tan(3/4) or the derivative of sec^-1(), give them a list of common functions and then put harder problems on the test. The whole "no calculator" thing also seems kind of blech, though for more basic problems I do agree on it.
I had one professor (a rather brilliant and geeky CS prof) who would make homework absolutely brutal, quizzes hard, and tests moderately difficult. In this way, when we were tested it was actually easier, whereas you normally expect and get the opposite. Math-based classes should give weekly quizzes that are difficult and no calculator allowed, and regular tests that are easier and allow a calculator.
If a class like American History must do a test, it should be an essay one, allowing students to have their own notes. Ask questions that require students to analyze events, not regurgitate them. It doesn't matter what years we had the American Revolution, at least not compared to the reason we had it. If a kid can say that the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, and that the American Revolution started about that same time, but not why we did those things or the motivations for the Boston Tea Party, then in my view he's learned nothing. Fine, do some quick-fact sheet for the first ten minutes, then switch over to open-note and essay.
However, I'd prefer that in lieu of tests, these kinds of classes did reports and presentations. Do debates in Government classes, grading on the amount of thought put into arguments.
3) Engage the kids
I would even say that note-taking is old and busted. When kids are taking notes, they can't pay attention, except to the extremely immediate which they forget after putting it on paper. I found that, at least in my math classes, I learned far more when I wrote nothing (while watching the rest of the class scribble furiously) during class than when I wrote pages.
This isn't saying notes are bad--certainly, in a relevant class kids should take notes on the big and important items--but lik
If things change as I hope to, the idea of lust won't be as deeply ingrained, because it will be far more open; looking at any naked woman would be like looking at the Venus de Milo, plus arms.
There are other changes afoot, forced by technology, such as the idea of ownership thanks to digital rights. This will start coming into the real world as 3D printers get better and better and can churn out anything with enough schematics. Once we have some sort of replicator, all ideas of property ownership will break down completely.
The world painted for us in Star Trek isn't one caused by humanity becoming enlightened over time, it's forced by changes in technology that cause panic, and one people settled down they became okay with the whole setup.
I think something else will happen.
I think society will change.
Speaking strictly for American society (though I fully expect the same to happen in other first-world countries, though perhaps at different rates), we've long had various scruples that, while perhaps not bad, don't make the most sense. For instance, the general requirement that we remain clothed; or, in a more tame sense, that men may go bare-chested but women may not (add to that further with much of women's fashion). There are reasons to wear clothes, but shame for the human body has always been an odd one. Also, it's perfectly fine (by society) to talk about someone behind their back, but never to tell someone they're bad/ugly and give constructive criticism. Who cares if you're helping someone out with that (whether or not they want the help), you should be talking about it to someone who can't do squat like some sort of weasel!
As television has brought us pictures of war sooner and sooner, and VHS everything else, we began to become more and more "open" about things. The internet has only increased this, as well as allowing for amateur footage of... well, everything.
I think that instead of all these huge restrictions being put on such devices, society's view will shift as it is further exposed. There will be a brief push-back, but that will subside. Over time, people will become more and more relaxed about various subjects and previous "taboos". We saw it happen with black rights, women's rights, and interracial marriage. Right now we're seeing it happen with homosexuality and marijuana.
There's always the chance of another Roman-style (or was it Greek?) tragedy happening where we suddenly regress a millennium, but if we continue the path we are bound to become a society that has almost no social bounds outside of actual harm. Perhaps not in 20 years, and maybe not even in 100, but I believe it will happen, especially if content expands exponentially.
Kansas has recently passed a bill that refutes the theory of gravity. The bill says that humans can leap to the moon "if we only believe", and that "it's all in your head".
I agree with you that there will still be physical boxes, just like we still have LPs, but there's a trend going on that will be what keeps that up.
More and more, mainly with huge "hype" games, but increasingly with smaller ones, you have these collector's/director's sets that have all manner of nifty geek-orgasm-inducing items, not to mention pre-order bonuses. As time goes by and digital distribution becomes easier and more of the norm, we'll see a decrease in regular boxed media but an increase in these special sets. Their level of "awesome" will drop a bit, and the price as well, but they'd still be put out in larger quantities (though less than boxed media sees now).
Those who buy them will be the "hardcore" fans. We'll still get some regular boxed media, but it will be available at a much more limited number of retailers, and some companies may opt to just open their own online store and just press-on-demand.
...if he would download his own car?
Will they remove that stupid "feature" that doesn't allow you to empty a "file upload" box? Hate that so much.
Also, the option to turn off (or at least diminish) the AwesomeBar.
Yes, there are add-ons for both problems, but these shouldn't be problems. I should need add-ons to enhance an application, not "cripple" it.
The problem is that constantly second-guessing our doctors can lead to problems with the general public. Sure, some are completely obvious (such as mister "gotta remove that foot" for an ingrown nail, an ailment I've suffered myself[1]), but some might not be so apparent (except to those of us on the mentalier-than-thou Slashdot). A second opinion from another doctor (though perhaps not one who outright says "that guy is full of shit") is far and away a good idea for anything that seems off or would be irreversible, but doing your own second-guessing and internet research often leads to false presumptions and bad ideas, especially for John Q. Public.
In the same way, I'm a nerd for computers, not cars, and so if I think a mechanic is bullshitting me I'll take it to another one and see if the prognosis matches up. If the mechanic is trying to sell me a new radiator when I came in for a flat tire, then I know something is up. Yeah, I could pull out some car manuals and mechanic guides, hit some stuff with wrenches, and ask on various auto sites, but more likely than not I'll either wind up on a wild goose chase for anything worse than some loose bolts or spark plugs needing a change, or doing completely wrong work.
Crap, I didn't even realize I was making a car analogy. Oh well.
It's an interesting catch-22-like situation, though one that has a definite start in any sales drop that could be attributed to piracy.
Company releases new, innovative, and/or fun game. Because of that, it likely gets little marketing (there are rare cases like LBP), meaning it's only well known in gaming circles. Half of those who want it pirate it, the other half purchase.
The end result is that the publisher sees much lower sales numbers than expected, even for a new property. Being able to track piracy numbers roughly, they believe that the massive number of pirates are part of the reason, and so they are less likely to release another new/innovative/fun game, because the more standard fodder/sequel gets much more attention from the "casual" gamer community and thus more in sales.
While I bemoan the lack of originality in the industry, I can't blame companies too much--even if they're gamers first, they're still developers second, and to make a game you have to spend a lot of money (especially today) and plan to make money off of it. The less risk, the more likely the plan of action is. It's smart business, and no number of whining gamers will change that (especially a hardcore market that is seen as full of pirates).
Are you serious?
Nintendo may have some backwards ideas when it comes to game properties (Ye Olde Nintendo once campaigned against second-hand sales, and still grumbles now and then), but for the most part they're going the correct route to protect their IP. They're not suing grandmas or threatening colleges or trying to tell the populace "Why yes, we'll let you use your internet if you pay us".
When they do their crackdowns, it's usually after true "pirates", the ones that make copies of games and sell them on the street or through shady retailers. Going after companies like the R4 and such is a little more hazy, but still along the same lines as going after those producing mod chips for copying games.
I don't like wasted government resources, but if a company with that kind of reach wants to protect its IP it does require law enforcement's assistance. So long as they are willing to pay for the time, I don't see a problem with it.
I will agree that they send mixed messages on piracy. On one hand, the DSi won't work with any flashcart made before it was introduced (and it also renders useless anything that needed a slot 2 solution). On the other, they really drug their feet about closing the Twilight Princess hack for the Wii, even going to the point of including the code needed to close it in an update, but not implementing that code.