Steam's legal footing looks pretty good to me. IANAL, but neither are you, and at least I was aware of recent case law movement on this issue. Why you weren't is puzzling, considering that it's been covered pretty extensively and recently here.
The reason is because of banal, annoying comments like this that reek of self-righteousness that caused me to walk away from Slashdot for awhile. So, in short... stuff off.
If you have the physical asset (ie., the CD/DVD) and you sell it, you are protected under copyright law and the distributor and/or owner have no legal ability to stop you from reselling the material. This is exactly why used book stores are legal. Steam is on tenuous legal footing in that they prevent the exercising of your legal right to resell a work that you have purchased.
BTW: Steam still has MAJOR faults that nobody really mentions on gaming sites very often such as server lists not populating and authentication problems as well as that little banned issue they ran into a while back with Modern Warfare, so all of these services are really a pain in the ass when it comes down to it.
No joke. Add the random disconnects, the painfully slow server response times, inability to better choose your server, PITA local server setup, etc. Steam isn't perfect, but at least it isn't the permanent connection DRM that Ubisoft is using on Assassin's Creed 2
I bet you the closer to that ideal you get the more corruption and monopolies you see. In fact I bet the closer to that ideal you get the lower the general standard of living is.
I rather doubt that your statements are accurate. In a true capitalist economy (which is what we are talking about here) people would be free of government interference and the government would only fulfill three roles, police (to protect against criminals), military (to protect against foreign invasion, and courts (to settle disputes using objectively defined laws). People that have the ability and desire to produce something would be free to do so without interference from the government (taxes, restrictive regulations, etc).
The freedom from government handouts could initially make it appear as though the standard of living was reduced, but once people realize that there is no handout coming then they are free to choose their path, to starve (which is against the human desire for life) or to apply their abilities to the acquisition of the necessities of life through work.
In truth, it is the opposite of your statement that is true. The farther you get from capitalism the more corruption and monopolies you see. China is a great example of this. They are far from a free economy, but is rife with corruption and state run monopolies are the norm.
The bigger issue here hasn't really been addressed by anyone in the general media or the gaming specific media. The issue is that most of the people in office haven't played many of the modern video games they are demonizing and seeking to legislate. Should laws like this (the correctly cited version that is) pass? I don't see why not, there is no added burden beyond having to look at someone's ID. Besides, the kids will just get their parents to buy the games for them, therefore circumventing the law.
The larger issue of uneducated (or undereducated) lawmakers is where the gaming public needs to focus its energy. The industry is often viewed by the lawmakers and the non-gaming public as attempting to push their agenda of violence for all. The education needs to come from the gaming public. There are books out there that discuss the real impact of gaming on people, and the impact is not as bad as lawmakers and the non-gaming public believes.
In Steven Johnson's book Everything Bad is Good For You he discussed how we as gamers spend so much time "not having fun" while playing a game, how we learn skills beyond that which we would subject ourselves to in the real world. An example Mr. Johnson uses is his nephew who learned the basic premise of industrial economics while playing SimCity. No seven year old would sit through an urban planning or economics class to learn that reduced tax rates spur growth, but that same child happily learns this while playing a game. Granted SimCity isn't going to be regulated as violent anytime soon, but Mr. Johnson doesn't stop with SimCity. He touches on the value of games like Half-Life in building the players ability to track objectives. As the player progresses they develop a sort of running task list of objectives. While a game like PacMan might have a relatively short objective list, a game like Zelda or Half-Life has a large and complex matrix of objectives, some of them might even appear on the surface to conflict with each other.
If Mr. Johnson's book doesn't fully address the world of gaming (which it doesn't as it also looks at TV), James Paul Gee's book What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy addresses the impact of gaming do a much deeper level. Mr. Gee's book addresses the development of semiotic domains, learning and identity, situated meaning, telling and doing, cultural models, and the social mind through the lens of a converted gamer. Using games such as Pikman, Deus Ex, Tomb Raider, and EverQuest (to name a few) Mr. Gee investigated how playing games helps develop a person's ability to read, understand, and interact both in the virtual world and in the real world.
I mention these two books because they are what is missing from the debate on regulating the gaming industry. Lawmakers look past the good and seek out the bad because it is in their political interest to do this. We as gamers need to make sure that our elected leaders understand that gaming is not a "waste of time," but is a "fun" way for the gamer to learn skills and concepts that can help them in the "real world." Instead of voicing our displeasure concerning these proposed laws only on Slashdot we as gamers need to interact with our elected leaders and make sure they understand that it is not just young boys that play games anymore, but that more and more middle aged men and women are playing games like Quake or Gears of War.
I'm not convinced. Yes airfare by itself is more than renting a 15 passenger van with 9 other people, despite the rate seeming a bit low for a 15 passenger. But honestly how many people travel to Europe a la carte? I sure don't. I just checked Delta's vacation deals and I could fly with my wife from Denver to Paris leaving March 8 and returning March 13, staying at the Concorde St. Lazare for a total of US$2382.62. Is that more than going to Las Vegas or New York? Certainly if we look at just the bottom dollar. However, if I took my 9 year old nephew who is studying French in school that price is insignificant. To base a decision solely on the monetary aspect neglects a lot of much stronger mitigating factors.
So no, I would say that I cannot see Paris in a weekend
The flight dates cited above are, to me, a long weekend. So yes, I could see Paris in a weekend. If we use the strict definition of a weekend, you can only see that which is nearby. You certainly couldn't see Seattle, Boston, or San Francisco in a strictly defined weekend either, I've tried.
If you are middle class or lower, $800 is a lot of money to blow on a short trip.
If you budget for it I don't think it is and further more, the amount one can learn on such an adventure is worth many times the dollar value!
English is the primary language in the US and because of that, there is very little motivation for the average american to learn foreign languages.
Why do we want "average Americans"? As I said in a reply to another poster, "We are now, more than ever, in a global economy and not everyone wants to be forced to speak English to conduct business." I'm pleased to hear that you can speak French, English, and Spanish. Now what we need is more people that can speak those languages, as well as Mandarin Chinese and Korean. I speak English, Spanish, and Italian fairly fluently as well as being able to function in French, Portuguese, and Japanese and my wife speaks English, German, and Dutch fairly fluently as well as being able to function in Spanish and Italian. It really worries my that people like us are a rarity in a country composed of people from all over the world, and that's why I pushed my college students so hard to pick up at least 2 other languages. Those that can speak multiple languages can write their own ticket!
I'm not in the mood to start a flame war on this comment, but I will say this.
Good, because I didn't intend for it to sound as though I was flaming anyone, nor to sound so rude.
While there are some americans whom this discription fits perfectly, I've found that most americans don't fall into this category. The expense of going to another continent is the primary obstacle, and by the time most americans could afford the trip they have other things that require time and money, so the trip becomes a lower and lower priority.
I've found more US citizens that have no desire to travel and leave the safety of the US than I've found people wishing to go overseas. Yes there are people that want to travel that can't afford it right now, but if they really wanted to they could plan for it. So you don't go with your spouse, but maybe take your kids for a month when the graduate high school with good grades. Perhaps that's the motivation they need to not drop out from high school [to reference the reason for this thread;-)]. I'm not saying that everyone should go to Europe, but everyone should get out of North America at least once. We can at least agree that such a trip would help broaden world views and maybe help reduce distrust.
I've seen several people who at 25 wanted to see the world, turn 40 without ever making the trip, and by that point they're less adventurous. If you have the money to make the trip and don't that's one thing. But most people don't have the mon
$1600 for four days, over 16 hours of which (at least) are spent in airports and on a plane? And that isn't expensive?
Okay, I could have phrased this better, the 4 days was from touchdown to takeoff. Actually it was more like 3.5 days, but still we saw the Rijksmuseum, the Van Gogh Museum, the Anne Franke House, the Rembrandt house, spent a day walking around gawking at stuff like fools, and spent about 6 hours lost in the residential district near the Anne Franke House and on the trams. I don't think it was expensive at all especially considering I paid for it on my graduate assistant, part-time rental agent, sports videographer salaries. I wouldn't trade my experience in Amsterdam for anything, and it was worth a whole lot more to me than US$1600
It's an indirect consequence of our size and of the universality of our native tongue, but I don't know that it necessarily reflects the view that the rest of the world isn't as important - it's just that we don't have to interact with the rest of the world too often.
This statement is kind of scary really. We are now, more than ever, in a global economy and not everyone wants to be forced to speak English to conduct business. France and Quebec come to mind, but we can't forget that the Chinese languages and Korean are going to become more and more important. So much of the culture of a country is vested in its language that travelers and businessmen who at least speak a little bit of the countries native language are better positioned than those that do not. The fact is we are interacting more and more with countries for whom English is not the native language. The quicker we as a nation and as educators (for we all really are educators) confront this reality and adapt to it, the better placed the United States will be in the future.
I think one of the most common misconceptions is that it is expensive to go to Europe. Yes it is expensive if you want to travel during peak season, stay in American hotels, eat at high class restaurants, and stay for 2 weeks. However, if you plan it right, you can spend time in Europe without blowing your budget, you just have to be adventurous and a bit flexible.
Or... I can hop in a car on a weekend and drive to any number of parks or interesting cities here.
First off, it likely is not nearly as inexpensive to travel in the US as you assume. For many people the fact you are paying in US Dollars is a safety net and somehow reduces the cost.
but I can't see Paris in a weekend.
Sure you can! Can you see all of it? No, but you can see part of it and more importantly you can get an idea where else you might want to go in Paris and in France. Again the issue of cost appears. I took my wife to Amsterdam for a 4 day weekend in March. I bought the package of airfare and hotel for US$1600 in December. If you are serious about going to Europe you can look at the travel packages offered by airlines and credit card companies. Usually off season travel to various parts of Europe can be found in the "deals" section (or something similarly named)
I've travelled enough in the US to have crossed Europe twice over, and for a combined cost similar to what it would have been to go to Europe once.
I travel for a living and I find that very hard to believe. My two week hotel stay in Cambridge cost more than my trip to Europe, and that's before I add in airfare and food, and the hotel in Amsterdam was much nicer. It comes down to convenience. People in the US like convenience and spending 16 hours on a plane to spend 4 days in Europe just isn't convenient for most people.
No one values foreign languages here because you have to go looking for uses for them.
This is entirely dependent on where you live! Most major cities have plenty of people that speak a foreign language as their primary language and if not in a major city then visit any resort town like Vail or Aspen.
people look for all these huge reasons why Americans don't have much first-hand knowledge of the rest of the world, and my answer to much of it isn't that we're a superpower (that's why you know so much about us) or that we don't like you or anything, it's that you're FAR FAR away, and most people will have little chance or need to actually ever use that knowledge
Yet for many US citizens it isn't unheard of to drive thousands of miles for vacation (or thanksgiving). No, I don't buy that far away stuff either. I think that again most US citizens believe that this is the only country that matters (some give grudging respect to Canada) and because of that they see no reason to travel to another country that doesn't speak "their language" and doesn't have "their customs."
I think perhaps we as a country put too much emphasis on a high school education. So often we hear that someone has dropped out of high school and immediately think they are lazy, stupid, or into drugs. There is no avenue by which an individual is truly challenged in most high schools and our higher educational system has "evolved" to exclude dropouts from tech schools unless they at least complete their GED.
One of the smartest professors I had while completing my Masters in International Rhetorical Studies is a high school dropout and does not have his GED. Instead he got into a junior college in Chico, CA before transferring to Cal State. He received his MA and PhD from Penn State. Asked why he dropped out he said that he was bored, didn't feel he was being challenged, and felt he was being pandered to. Today he is a leading researcher in Foucault and rhetorical ethics, and he still doesn't have a HS diploma or a GED.
Sure, my professor might be a unique case for dropouts, but the fact that his story could not be repeated today due to requirements concerning HS diplomas and GED leaves a bad taste in my mouth. We should be giving people an opportunity, not relegating them to "unskilled labor" because they dropped out of high school. Goodness knows if I had had the chance I would have dropped out of high school and gone to a junior college by my junior year at the latest.
Before I continue let me say I have worked for television sales and am still active in the industry.
Television advertising is never going to go the way you state. The advertisements are a fairly common breakdown of network (or syndicated) and local commercials. In a half hour of Simpsons the local station will get approximately 4:30 depending on agreements with the network or syndicators. The first break of most shows is reserved for network or syndicated spots that come down off the satellite and *must* be aired. Many of the subsequent breaks have at least a portion of their time devoted to the same kind of commercials. The only way Google can target advertisements is by working at the local level. However, it is still up to the Account Executive to sell the time in the program before the commercial can be placed. You are not going to get the kind of targeting of advertisements for many years, if ever.
When Google talks about targeting they are refering to demographic targeting. They target "you" by analyzing the demographics that most heavily watch a particular channel and show and then route ads that are designed for those demographics into those shows. The exact same thing, by the way, that a good national or regional account executive does. This is just a computer crunching the numbers without a human's intervention, it's not as revolutionary as it seems.
Yes, God forbid you should have to sacrifice a little convenience (and let's be clear, when we're talking about using your cellphone on an airliner we're talking about convenience, not liberty) to protect your life and the lives of others.
Phone usage okay, fine. But when you start telling people they can't bring bottles of water on a flight, that starts to impinge on their rights. Airlines are horrible about providing beverages on a long flight. I for one am constantly with a bottle of water and constantly drinking from it. I happen to love being hydrated. To tell me that I am to go without anything to drink until a flight attendent thinks it's time to give out some water it impinging on my right to a hydrated and healthy body.
Further, when was the last time you were on a 5 hour flight across country without a music listening device, laptop, or game system? Most people (not all, but most) have these devices to try to stay relatively sane while cooped up in a flying metal cylinder. While not necessary (I prefer a good book or magazine, which is banned from UK flights right now) it helps, especially if you are flying in a plane full of children. I rather like them doing something other than screaming at the top of their lungs.
more angry about the hassle this causes, than anything else? Terrorists spread terror, so they've hit their mark. By being foiled the plot does an amazing amount of damage on its own, spreading FUD.
I agree completely. The overhyped knee-jerk reaction of governments to this is just another example of the terrorist winning. Terrorism isn't about killing people (that is a side effect), its about altering people's behavior. And once again we are forced to alter our behavior because of terrorism.
The terrorists won. Despite being captured their goal of disruption and alteration of lives has been reached.
Why do movies seem so bad when compared to a TV series? Well that is a rather easy answer.
How long does the TV series have to create the multiple plots, develop the characters, flesh out the backstory, and create a link between the viewer and the character? For an average one-hour show, 12 hours per season. Assume the show lasts 10 seasons and there you have 120 hours for the producers of the TV series to create an indepth and powerful connection with the audience.
Now, how long does the movie producer have? Between 2 and 3 hours. Any longer and people will not go to the movie as it will take too long to sit through. It's no coincidence that the uncut Lord of the Rings series is somewhere around 10 hours per installment. Of course many people here have read the series, so there was already a connection, but think for a second about those that might not have read the series. They would have been overwhelmed by a 30 hour series, but true devotees lapped it up.
Yes, movies have gotten worse, but that isn't necessarily all the part of the movie producers, part of it is a function of the increasing complexity of the TV series and video games we all enjoy on a daily basis.
Actually, eugenics was a social technology used by several governments to "strengthen" the genetic lines of their populace. The United States, the UK, Italy, and of course Germany all ran quite indepth programs of eugenics, with government funding, from the early 1900s until the 1930s (except Germany who continued a bit longer).
Also, it wasn't always about "killing and sterilising [sic] people," in the case of the United States and UK in particular it was research into how to prevent the deterioration of the human mental abilities.
There are possible risks with nanotechnology, especially since we don't have a full grasp of what the newly engineered particles can do.
Gunter Oberdorster at University of Rochester http://www2.envmed.rochester.edu/envmed/tox/facult y/oberdoerster.html found that fullerenes caused "damage" to the brains of fish. Now a researcher from Rice recently gave a lecture here at the U of South Carolina and called some of that research into question, but still you have to wonder. Also, there is the problem of metals from nanopackaging surrounding chemo delivery particles http://www.gatech.edu/news-room/release.php?id=450 possibly collecting in the pancreas. Also research on some particles have suggested that they might cross the blood-brain barrier in humans. While this might be good for dealing with brain tumors http://www.nano.org.uk/thisweek78.htm it also raises the very real possibility that something we don't want in the brain might get there.
While I'm not all about regulating the nano-industry into oblivion, I would rather we treat it with much respect. I know that there is an "Asilomar" style conference on nano in the planning for either late this year or early next year partially sponsored by U of South Carolina http://www.nano.sc.edu/
Let's not assume anything is safe, after all, look what happened when nuclear power was tumpeted as the salvation discovery.
Granted, that's impressive spending, but how much of this has to do with a higher overall cost of living in the US, and therefore, higher salaries for your workers? Also, how much of that spending is directly related to the military?
Add to that how much of the money is spend researching how to abide by asinine rules and regulations put in place due to the scientific communities inabiity to effectively communicate with the US public. Not to mention scientists are often constrained by those very rules. Stem cell research for instance.
By default a regulation on domestic aviation would extend to most, but not all of course, of the international aviation. Why, well let's look.
Airline A flies only routes within the continental United States and they fly a Boeing 787 due to high demand on that route (this isn't that far fetched since the 787 is a 767 replacement). The 787 is capable of international flight, so the emission limitations that are on the domestic 787 will be on the international 787 as well. Therefore Airline B that flies exclusively international travel will be restricted by Kyoto by default. This same thing is true of Airbus aircraft. There are the two largest commercial aviation producers, and their aircraft that are designed for both domestic and international flights.
Sure, some airlines will move their less efficient aircraft to international routes, but how long will that last before they are replaced due to the high fuel costs of flying these gas guzzlers? I would wager not long.
There is a distinct difference between art held in a gallery and art put on public display. When this distinction is blurred we run into the issue of putting an unfair limitation on photographers. If the display is on public lands and the upkeep is paid for from public funds then there should be no legal impediment to it being photographed.
If we begin going down this road then all sculptures put on any public land could be subject to this taxation. We could sit here follow the slippery slope fallacy with this, but I think the point is made. This is an outrageous move on the part of the city of Chicago. They might want to look to the city of Loveland, Colorado and the large sculpture garden they have to understand how to run a public art exhibit of this nature.
As has been pointed out by several others, students do have rights within a public school, but they also have some responsibility. We as a society have failed the education system. Not just the primary and secondary schools, but all public schools (including universities). Funding is an issue in almost every school. Left without funds, teachers fight an uphill battle to present information in a manner that students who have been educated by the "soundbite" nature of the television will pay attention to.
I deal with the "professor is out to get me" attitude constantly. It appears to be a product of the no-blame society we live in.
"My computer got a virus, it's Microsoft and Symantec's fault for not protecting me."
"My child failed because they didn't show up for class, it's the fault of the professor for not taking role properly."
I'm not saying that RFID is necessarly a good thing, but I can see where it might fit in the overall scheme of things. Everyone has to accept some of the blame for this.
*Taxpayers need to fork over enough money to improve schools and help high school graduates pay for college.
*Parents need to be active in the education of their children.
*Students need to be shown the benefits of education and take it seriously.
*Educators need to teach without dumbing it down. How many of us were taught something in middle school only to be told that was only half true when we were in high school?
I don't support your decision and I think the world would be a better place if abortions were forced upon you.
Nice. Might I point out that this sounds a lot like the Eugenics laws passed by Nazi Germany. If you don't do it for the good of the Volk you need not do it. It's not just 19-year-olds that might neglect children. http://www.sptimes.com/2005/02/09/Citrus/Accused_c ouple_stayed.shtml A 50-year-old couple tortured thier children. Further your stereotyping of children of single parents (don't just assume there are only single mothers) sounds to me like a nice availability heuristic. It might help to educate yourself some more.
Is there protection in Canada's anti-hate speech legislation that protects academics engaged in scholarly writing that might fall into the hate speech designation that you quoted?
For instance, a study on rhetoric surrounding homosexual unions might (especially if it includes anything from the conservative portions of the US) violate the letter of the law. So does that legislation rein in academic discussions?
Just wondering.:-P
Actually, nuclear power's bad wrap has come more from the scientific communities poor understanding of how the public views risk and hazard (yes, those are mutually exclusive items at least in the field of risk communication).
It took years to move the public from a mushroom cloud image of nuclear power to a cooling tower image. Then along comes TMI and Chernobyl. In all reality TMI was handled well by the NRC risk communication teams, but Chernobyl had a devestating impact on the public's view of nuclear power.
Nevermind that the USSR design and the US design are completely different. The fact remains that too often the scientific community fails to understand just how much outrage the public has for nuclear power and has not properly communicated with the public in a way that "Joe Six Pack" can understand.
While I see the validity of your arguement, and agree with you in principle, there is at least one case that comes to mind where a $400 video card makes sense. Video editing.
Granted the number of people using these expensive and powerful cards for this purpose is small, it still represents a powerful buying force and a big reason for cards like the ATI All-In-Wonder Radeons still occupy shelf space at computer parts stores.
I am, first off, happy as can be to see this post, as I am working on the same thing for much the same reason, SPACE!
Dorm rooms and apartments are the devil to have a big boxy TV in. You have this monster, let's take the first 20" TV I saw on the Best Buy website, it has a 437 in^2 footprint. That doesn't sound like much, but in a small apartment that's HUGE!
So, if you can limit it to one giant box and run everything through it, you are saving major space. Even better if you end up being able to afford a wall mountable flat screen.
Thank you FilmSmith. I was going to say much the same thing. I find it is the mentality displayed by the first post that makes so many people view engineers and scientists as unapproachable narcissistic jerks. I find my friends that are studying the liberal arts to be much more intellecually stimulating conversationalists than any engineer or scientist I've known.
Slashdot Mirror
Steam's legal footing looks pretty good to me. IANAL, but neither are you, and at least I was aware of recent case law movement on this issue. Why you weren't is puzzling, considering that it's been covered pretty extensively and recently here.
The reason is because of banal, annoying comments like this that reek of self-righteousness that caused me to walk away from Slashdot for awhile. So, in short... stuff off.
If you have the physical asset (ie., the CD/DVD) and you sell it, you are protected under copyright law and the distributor and/or owner have no legal ability to stop you from reselling the material. This is exactly why used book stores are legal. Steam is on tenuous legal footing in that they prevent the exercising of your legal right to resell a work that you have purchased.
BTW: Steam still has MAJOR faults that nobody really mentions on gaming sites very often such as server lists not populating and authentication problems as well as that little banned issue they ran into a while back with Modern Warfare, so all of these services are really a pain in the ass when it comes down to it.
No joke. Add the random disconnects, the painfully slow server response times, inability to better choose your server, PITA local server setup, etc. Steam isn't perfect, but at least it isn't the permanent connection DRM that Ubisoft is using on Assassin's Creed 2
There is no Meigs Field in FSX, just like in real life. FSX default airport is Friday Harbor in Washington.
I rather doubt that your statements are accurate. In a true capitalist economy (which is what we are talking about here) people would be free of government interference and the government would only fulfill three roles, police (to protect against criminals), military (to protect against foreign invasion, and courts (to settle disputes using objectively defined laws). People that have the ability and desire to produce something would be free to do so without interference from the government (taxes, restrictive regulations, etc).
The freedom from government handouts could initially make it appear as though the standard of living was reduced, but once people realize that there is no handout coming then they are free to choose their path, to starve (which is against the human desire for life) or to apply their abilities to the acquisition of the necessities of life through work.
In truth, it is the opposite of your statement that is true. The farther you get from capitalism the more corruption and monopolies you see. China is a great example of this. They are far from a free economy, but is rife with corruption and state run monopolies are the norm.
The bigger issue here hasn't really been addressed by anyone in the general media or the gaming specific media. The issue is that most of the people in office haven't played many of the modern video games they are demonizing and seeking to legislate. Should laws like this (the correctly cited version that is) pass? I don't see why not, there is no added burden beyond having to look at someone's ID. Besides, the kids will just get their parents to buy the games for them, therefore circumventing the law.
The larger issue of uneducated (or undereducated) lawmakers is where the gaming public needs to focus its energy. The industry is often viewed by the lawmakers and the non-gaming public as attempting to push their agenda of violence for all. The education needs to come from the gaming public. There are books out there that discuss the real impact of gaming on people, and the impact is not as bad as lawmakers and the non-gaming public believes.
In Steven Johnson's book Everything Bad is Good For You he discussed how we as gamers spend so much time "not having fun" while playing a game, how we learn skills beyond that which we would subject ourselves to in the real world. An example Mr. Johnson uses is his nephew who learned the basic premise of industrial economics while playing SimCity. No seven year old would sit through an urban planning or economics class to learn that reduced tax rates spur growth, but that same child happily learns this while playing a game. Granted SimCity isn't going to be regulated as violent anytime soon, but Mr. Johnson doesn't stop with SimCity. He touches on the value of games like Half-Life in building the players ability to track objectives. As the player progresses they develop a sort of running task list of objectives. While a game like PacMan might have a relatively short objective list, a game like Zelda or Half-Life has a large and complex matrix of objectives, some of them might even appear on the surface to conflict with each other.
If Mr. Johnson's book doesn't fully address the world of gaming (which it doesn't as it also looks at TV), James Paul Gee's book What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy addresses the impact of gaming do a much deeper level. Mr. Gee's book addresses the development of semiotic domains, learning and identity, situated meaning, telling and doing, cultural models, and the social mind through the lens of a converted gamer. Using games such as Pikman, Deus Ex, Tomb Raider, and EverQuest (to name a few) Mr. Gee investigated how playing games helps develop a person's ability to read, understand, and interact both in the virtual world and in the real world.
I mention these two books because they are what is missing from the debate on regulating the gaming industry. Lawmakers look past the good and seek out the bad because it is in their political interest to do this. We as gamers need to make sure that our elected leaders understand that gaming is not a "waste of time," but is a "fun" way for the gamer to learn skills and concepts that can help them in the "real world." Instead of voicing our displeasure concerning these proposed laws only on Slashdot we as gamers need to interact with our elected leaders and make sure they understand that it is not just young boys that play games anymore, but that more and more middle aged men and women are playing games like Quake or Gears of War.
I'm not convinced. Yes airfare by itself is more than renting a 15 passenger van with 9 other people, despite the rate seeming a bit low for a 15 passenger. But honestly how many people travel to Europe a la carte? I sure don't. I just checked Delta's vacation deals and I could fly with my wife from Denver to Paris leaving March 8 and returning March 13, staying at the Concorde St. Lazare for a total of US$2382.62. Is that more than going to Las Vegas or New York? Certainly if we look at just the bottom dollar. However, if I took my 9 year old nephew who is studying French in school that price is insignificant. To base a decision solely on the monetary aspect neglects a lot of much stronger mitigating factors.
The flight dates cited above are, to me, a long weekend. So yes, I could see Paris in a weekend. If we use the strict definition of a weekend, you can only see that which is nearby. You certainly couldn't see Seattle, Boston, or San Francisco in a strictly defined weekend either, I've tried.
If you budget for it I don't think it is and further more, the amount one can learn on such an adventure is worth many times the dollar value!
Why do we want "average Americans"? As I said in a reply to another poster, "We are now, more than ever, in a global economy and not everyone wants to be forced to speak English to conduct business." I'm pleased to hear that you can speak French, English, and Spanish. Now what we need is more people that can speak those languages, as well as Mandarin Chinese and Korean. I speak English, Spanish, and Italian fairly fluently as well as being able to function in French, Portuguese, and Japanese and my wife speaks English, German, and Dutch fairly fluently as well as being able to function in Spanish and Italian. It really worries my that people like us are a rarity in a country composed of people from all over the world, and that's why I pushed my college students so hard to pick up at least 2 other languages. Those that can speak multiple languages can write their own ticket!
Good, because I didn't intend for it to sound as though I was flaming anyone, nor to sound so rude.
I've found more US citizens that have no desire to travel and leave the safety of the US than I've found people wishing to go overseas. Yes there are people that want to travel that can't afford it right now, but if they really wanted to they could plan for it. So you don't go with your spouse, but maybe take your kids for a month when the graduate high school with good grades. Perhaps that's the motivation they need to not drop out from high school [to reference the reason for this thread ;-)]. I'm not saying that everyone should go to Europe, but everyone should get out of North America at least once. We can at least agree that such a trip would help broaden world views and maybe help reduce distrust.
Let me reply quickly to two of your statements.
Okay, I could have phrased this better, the 4 days was from touchdown to takeoff. Actually it was more like 3.5 days, but still we saw the Rijksmuseum, the Van Gogh Museum, the Anne Franke House, the Rembrandt house, spent a day walking around gawking at stuff like fools, and spent about 6 hours lost in the residential district near the Anne Franke House and on the trams. I don't think it was expensive at all especially considering I paid for it on my graduate assistant, part-time rental agent, sports videographer salaries. I wouldn't trade my experience in Amsterdam for anything, and it was worth a whole lot more to me than US$1600
This statement is kind of scary really. We are now, more than ever, in a global economy and not everyone wants to be forced to speak English to conduct business. France and Quebec come to mind, but we can't forget that the Chinese languages and Korean are going to become more and more important. So much of the culture of a country is vested in its language that travelers and businessmen who at least speak a little bit of the countries native language are better positioned than those that do not. The fact is we are interacting more and more with countries for whom English is not the native language. The quicker we as a nation and as educators (for we all really are educators) confront this reality and adapt to it, the better placed the United States will be in the future.
I think one of the most common misconceptions is that it is expensive to go to Europe. Yes it is expensive if you want to travel during peak season, stay in American hotels, eat at high class restaurants, and stay for 2 weeks. However, if you plan it right, you can spend time in Europe without blowing your budget, you just have to be adventurous and a bit flexible.
First off, it likely is not nearly as inexpensive to travel in the US as you assume. For many people the fact you are paying in US Dollars is a safety net and somehow reduces the cost.
Sure you can! Can you see all of it? No, but you can see part of it and more importantly you can get an idea where else you might want to go in Paris and in France. Again the issue of cost appears. I took my wife to Amsterdam for a 4 day weekend in March. I bought the package of airfare and hotel for US$1600 in December. If you are serious about going to Europe you can look at the travel packages offered by airlines and credit card companies. Usually off season travel to various parts of Europe can be found in the "deals" section (or something similarly named)
I travel for a living and I find that very hard to believe. My two week hotel stay in Cambridge cost more than my trip to Europe, and that's before I add in airfare and food, and the hotel in Amsterdam was much nicer. It comes down to convenience. People in the US like convenience and spending 16 hours on a plane to spend 4 days in Europe just isn't convenient for most people.
This is entirely dependent on where you live! Most major cities have plenty of people that speak a foreign language as their primary language and if not in a major city then visit any resort town like Vail or Aspen.
Yet for many US citizens it isn't unheard of to drive thousands of miles for vacation (or thanksgiving). No, I don't buy that far away stuff either. I think that again most US citizens believe that this is the only country that matters (some give grudging respect to Canada) and because of that they see no reason to travel to another country that doesn't speak "their language" and doesn't have "their customs."
I think perhaps we as a country put too much emphasis on a high school education. So often we hear that someone has dropped out of high school and immediately think they are lazy, stupid, or into drugs. There is no avenue by which an individual is truly challenged in most high schools and our higher educational system has "evolved" to exclude dropouts from tech schools unless they at least complete their GED.
One of the smartest professors I had while completing my Masters in International Rhetorical Studies is a high school dropout and does not have his GED. Instead he got into a junior college in Chico, CA before transferring to Cal State. He received his MA and PhD from Penn State. Asked why he dropped out he said that he was bored, didn't feel he was being challenged, and felt he was being pandered to. Today he is a leading researcher in Foucault and rhetorical ethics, and he still doesn't have a HS diploma or a GED.
Sure, my professor might be a unique case for dropouts, but the fact that his story could not be repeated today due to requirements concerning HS diplomas and GED leaves a bad taste in my mouth. We should be giving people an opportunity, not relegating them to "unskilled labor" because they dropped out of high school. Goodness knows if I had had the chance I would have dropped out of high school and gone to a junior college by my junior year at the latest.
Before I continue let me say I have worked for television sales and am still active in the industry.
Television advertising is never going to go the way you state. The advertisements are a fairly common breakdown of network (or syndicated) and local commercials. In a half hour of Simpsons the local station will get approximately 4:30 depending on agreements with the network or syndicators. The first break of most shows is reserved for network or syndicated spots that come down off the satellite and *must* be aired. Many of the subsequent breaks have at least a portion of their time devoted to the same kind of commercials. The only way Google can target advertisements is by working at the local level. However, it is still up to the Account Executive to sell the time in the program before the commercial can be placed. You are not going to get the kind of targeting of advertisements for many years, if ever.
When Google talks about targeting they are refering to demographic targeting. They target "you" by analyzing the demographics that most heavily watch a particular channel and show and then route ads that are designed for those demographics into those shows. The exact same thing, by the way, that a good national or regional account executive does. This is just a computer crunching the numbers without a human's intervention, it's not as revolutionary as it seems.
Yes, God forbid you should have to sacrifice a little convenience (and let's be clear, when we're talking about using your cellphone on an airliner we're talking about convenience, not liberty) to protect your life and the lives of others.
Phone usage okay, fine. But when you start telling people they can't bring bottles of water on a flight, that starts to impinge on their rights. Airlines are horrible about providing beverages on a long flight. I for one am constantly with a bottle of water and constantly drinking from it. I happen to love being hydrated. To tell me that I am to go without anything to drink until a flight attendent thinks it's time to give out some water it impinging on my right to a hydrated and healthy body.
Further, when was the last time you were on a 5 hour flight across country without a music listening device, laptop, or game system? Most people (not all, but most) have these devices to try to stay relatively sane while cooped up in a flying metal cylinder. While not necessary (I prefer a good book or magazine, which is banned from UK flights right now) it helps, especially if you are flying in a plane full of children. I rather like them doing something other than screaming at the top of their lungs.
more angry about the hassle this causes, than anything else? Terrorists spread terror, so they've hit their mark. By being foiled the plot does an amazing amount of damage on its own, spreading FUD.
I agree completely. The overhyped knee-jerk reaction of governments to this is just another example of the terrorist winning. Terrorism isn't about killing people (that is a side effect), its about altering people's behavior. And once again we are forced to alter our behavior because of terrorism.
The terrorists won. Despite being captured their goal of disruption and alteration of lives has been reached.
Why do movies seem so bad when compared to a TV series? Well that is a rather easy answer.
How long does the TV series have to create the multiple plots, develop the characters, flesh out the backstory, and create a link between the viewer and the character? For an average one-hour show, 12 hours per season. Assume the show lasts 10 seasons and there you have 120 hours for the producers of the TV series to create an indepth and powerful connection with the audience.
Now, how long does the movie producer have? Between 2 and 3 hours. Any longer and people will not go to the movie as it will take too long to sit through. It's no coincidence that the uncut Lord of the Rings series is somewhere around 10 hours per installment. Of course many people here have read the series, so there was already a connection, but think for a second about those that might not have read the series. They would have been overwhelmed by a 30 hour series, but true devotees lapped it up.
Yes, movies have gotten worse, but that isn't necessarily all the part of the movie producers, part of it is a function of the increasing complexity of the TV series and video games we all enjoy on a daily basis.
Actually, eugenics was a social technology used by several governments to "strengthen" the genetic lines of their populace. The United States, the UK, Italy, and of course Germany all ran quite indepth programs of eugenics, with government funding, from the early 1900s until the 1930s (except Germany who continued a bit longer).
Also, it wasn't always about "killing and sterilising [sic] people," in the case of the United States and UK in particular it was research into how to prevent the deterioration of the human mental abilities.
There are possible risks with nanotechnology, especially since we don't have a full grasp of what the newly engineered particles can do.
Gunter Oberdorster at University of Rochester http://www2.envmed.rochester.edu/envmed/tox/facult y/oberdoerster.html found that fullerenes caused "damage" to the brains of fish. Now a researcher from Rice recently gave a lecture here at the U of South Carolina and called some of that research into question, but still you have to wonder. Also, there is the problem of metals from nanopackaging surrounding chemo delivery particles http://www.gatech.edu/news-room/release.php?id=450 possibly collecting in the pancreas. Also research on some particles have suggested that they might cross the blood-brain barrier in humans. While this might be good for dealing with brain tumors http://www.nano.org.uk/thisweek78.htm it also raises the very real possibility that something we don't want in the brain might get there.
While I'm not all about regulating the nano-industry into oblivion, I would rather we treat it with much respect. I know that there is an "Asilomar" style conference on nano in the planning for either late this year or early next year partially sponsored by U of South Carolina http://www.nano.sc.edu/
Let's not assume anything is safe, after all, look what happened when nuclear power was tumpeted as the salvation discovery.
Granted, that's impressive spending, but how much of this has to do with a higher overall cost of living in the US, and therefore, higher salaries for your workers? Also, how much of that spending is directly related to the military?
Add to that how much of the money is spend researching how to abide by asinine rules and regulations put in place due to the scientific communities inabiity to effectively communicate with the US public. Not to mention scientists are often constrained by those very rules. Stem cell research for instance.
By default a regulation on domestic aviation would extend to most, but not all of course, of the international aviation. Why, well let's look.
Airline A flies only routes within the continental United States and they fly a Boeing 787 due to high demand on that route (this isn't that far fetched since the 787 is a 767 replacement). The 787 is capable of international flight, so the emission limitations that are on the domestic 787 will be on the international 787 as well. Therefore Airline B that flies exclusively international travel will be restricted by Kyoto by default. This same thing is true of Airbus aircraft. There are the two largest commercial aviation producers, and their aircraft that are designed for both domestic and international flights.
Sure, some airlines will move their less efficient aircraft to international routes, but how long will that last before they are replaced due to the high fuel costs of flying these gas guzzlers? I would wager not long.
There is a distinct difference between art held in a gallery and art put on public display. When this distinction is blurred we run into the issue of putting an unfair limitation on photographers. If the display is on public lands and the upkeep is paid for from public funds then there should be no legal impediment to it being photographed.
If we begin going down this road then all sculptures put on any public land could be subject to this taxation. We could sit here follow the slippery slope fallacy with this, but I think the point is made. This is an outrageous move on the part of the city of Chicago. They might want to look to the city of Loveland, Colorado and the large sculpture garden they have to understand how to run a public art exhibit of this nature.
As has been pointed out by several others, students do have rights within a public school, but they also have some responsibility. We as a society have failed the education system. Not just the primary and secondary schools, but all public schools (including universities). Funding is an issue in almost every school. Left without funds, teachers fight an uphill battle to present information in a manner that students who have been educated by the "soundbite" nature of the television will pay attention to.
I deal with the "professor is out to get me" attitude constantly. It appears to be a product of the no-blame society we live in.
"My computer got a virus, it's Microsoft and Symantec's fault for not protecting me."
"My child failed because they didn't show up for class, it's the fault of the professor for not taking role properly."
I'm not saying that RFID is necessarly a good thing, but I can see where it might fit in the overall scheme of things. Everyone has to accept some of the blame for this.
*Taxpayers need to fork over enough money to improve schools and help high school graduates pay for college.
*Parents need to be active in the education of their children.
*Students need to be shown the benefits of education and take it seriously.
*Educators need to teach without dumbing it down. How many of us were taught something in middle school only to be told that was only half true when we were in high school?
I don't support your decision and I think the world would be a better place if abortions were forced upon you.
Nice. Might I point out that this sounds a lot like the Eugenics laws passed by Nazi Germany. If you don't do it for the good of the Volk you need not do it. It's not just 19-year-olds that might neglect children. http://www.sptimes.com/2005/02/09/Citrus/Accused_c ouple_stayed.shtml A 50-year-old couple tortured thier children. Further your stereotyping of children of single parents (don't just assume there are only single mothers) sounds to me like a nice availability heuristic. It might help to educate yourself some more.
Is there protection in Canada's anti-hate speech legislation that protects academics engaged in scholarly writing that might fall into the hate speech designation that you quoted? For instance, a study on rhetoric surrounding homosexual unions might (especially if it includes anything from the conservative portions of the US) violate the letter of the law. So does that legislation rein in academic discussions? Just wondering. :-P
Actually, nuclear power's bad wrap has come more from the scientific communities poor understanding of how the public views risk and hazard (yes, those are mutually exclusive items at least in the field of risk communication). It took years to move the public from a mushroom cloud image of nuclear power to a cooling tower image. Then along comes TMI and Chernobyl. In all reality TMI was handled well by the NRC risk communication teams, but Chernobyl had a devestating impact on the public's view of nuclear power. Nevermind that the USSR design and the US design are completely different. The fact remains that too often the scientific community fails to understand just how much outrage the public has for nuclear power and has not properly communicated with the public in a way that "Joe Six Pack" can understand.
While I see the validity of your arguement, and agree with you in principle, there is at least one case that comes to mind where a $400 video card makes sense. Video editing.
Granted the number of people using these expensive and powerful cards for this purpose is small, it still represents a powerful buying force and a big reason for cards like the ATI All-In-Wonder Radeons still occupy shelf space at computer parts stores.
I am, first off, happy as can be to see this post, as I am working on the same thing for much the same reason, SPACE!
Dorm rooms and apartments are the devil to have a big boxy TV in. You have this monster, let's take the first 20" TV I saw on the Best Buy website, it has a 437 in^2 footprint. That doesn't sound like much, but in a small apartment that's HUGE!
So, if you can limit it to one giant box and run everything through it, you are saving major space. Even better if you end up being able to afford a wall mountable flat screen.
Thank you FilmSmith. I was going to say much the same thing. I find it is the mentality displayed by the first post that makes so many people view engineers and scientists as unapproachable narcissistic jerks. I find my friends that are studying the liberal arts to be much more intellecually stimulating conversationalists than any engineer or scientist I've known.