i love what you are saying. not only does it not make anything better, even in the terms of the system, it costs taxpayers more to keep people in prison, and it scapesgoats the "criminals," which frequently means that actual solutions (and fixes) aren't explored.
Authentication for 1.6 happens (i am pretty sure) through Steam. 1.5 is (as far as i can tell) totally out of Steam's purview. If i'm wrong someone please tell me...
BTW, i am fully appreciative of free gaming, but Steam has even got me pretty frustrated. it is *incredibly* buggy.
absolutely. who can say whether something is appropriate for a given context more than the people who share that context? that seems totally right to me.
on the mega-level, this story is about two huge things: 1) the connection between virtuality and reality ("rape in cyberspace" has been mentioned before - still interesting) - this is also the ongoing question about gaming "causing" violence, and porn "causing" violence against women - and
2) who determines what rules are used for given group of people
this is part of the question. "filtering for young people" who counts as young? filtering for what? what is the point of filtering things that people have to deal with in meat space? how does controlling information affect growth and development?
i'm not arguing for anything here except less simplistic suggestions.
with a credit card, but to me the significant thing is speed. just like people are now expected to have cel phones and be accessible all the time, expectations will change with the ability to do things faster... we will be expected to do more things ("things" in this case being work, of course).
mod this up please. of course, part of the reason that there are fewer talanted teachers is cause they don't get paid, they have to deal with crazy bureaucracy, they don't have authority frequently over how they teach... etc. etc.
sometimes make sense and sometimes don't. "the media" (at least to me) refers to corporate-owned mouthpieces of international big-business (is that redundant or what?).
i believe that there are reporters and editors who are ethical and well-intentioned, but that they are usually constrained and/or censored by the people over them in the hierarchy.
http://www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/newsflash.html
and i like whores. they're the most honest of workers in a capitalist system.
i think this is an interesting article, and i like how he is trying to come up with a principle...
but the only reason he posits for people being upset at "heretical" statements is that people are afraid they might be true. Another reason is that people are hugely impacted by those statements. I am not personally affected by someone talking about how women are not capable of whatever since i have faith in my capacities and those of other women, but that doesn't mean that decisions that make my life worse don't get made based on that fucked up belief.
the other problem (connected to the first of course) is context, which has been left out of a lot of the posts here about language.
and the third problem, is that everyone who reads these articles always thinks that they (we) are the ones who are brave and heretical. there's an inherent weakness in there somewhere.
black americans (especially the sort who usually use the word "nigger" for each other) are not in a position (usually) to make decisions that will affect many people.
i just wanted to thank you for posting about the dibell article. i just read it and sent it to a bunch of people. we're all interested in creatively dealing with trangressors/transgressions so this article was totally on point and philosophically completely fascinating.
so, thanks.
in similar terms, but they're pretty different - autonomically speaking. the point of the practice is to have an automatic reaction - you start playing a particular piece on the piano and the mechanics are automatic, so that the player can focus on the emotion of the piece. Martial arts is the same way, someone attacks you like this, than your body does this without thought, so that you can be figuring out what to do next...
very different from the mechanics of keyboard strokes and mouse twitches translating into "go to car, get real gun (very different UI), pull trigger).
and i think people are right to realize that the scariest part of this story is the "friends" aspect.
another one of those examples from actual societies. In The Gift,lewis hyde describes societies where the point of the gift is the giving; objects are seen to have power and if they stay in one place too long than bad things start happening to the holders of the object, so passing it around keeps things in balance.
sigh.
is how is this any different (in quality) from the other ways that rich people get things that poor people have/need? how is it different (again, qualitatively) from women having kids for wealthy couples? okay, so the poor woman could have more kids, but it taxes her body (no pun intended). this is a capitalist society, folks. it isn't even necessary to say that rich people "prey on" anybody. it's just how the system works. poor people don't get what they need. rich people get more than they need.
(pop) culture and advertising? not a rhetorical question.
i share people's irritation with advertisements showing up everywhere, but what we consume as entertainment is always selling us something. Talking about that is a good thing. I would trust a geek conversation about it more than one in most other populations...
in the sense that tech could allow a different level of participation to viewers. Watchers could interact with the game (presumably not in real time, but who knows...).
"The technology industry must simplify its vocabulary so that consumers around the world can better understand the benefits technology can bring to their lives,"
i.e., they're not selling enough. and the media (doing its job of fronting for business) finds that important enough to write about.
The reason these kinds of law exist is not because the media are making money, but because a large number of people may read what they print.
that's funny. isn't there a connection between making money and presumed size of audience?
the government, intimately connected to big business, has many options to allow it to reduce competition. requirements that have unequal impacts on small and big producers is one of those.
running for office takes money and connections. electoral candidates get money and connections (directly and indirectly) through corporate money.
there is no real choice involved in elections, just different directions/takes on business and profit/exploitation.
Slashdot Mirror
the laws continue to be about controlling us, only the rationale changes.
if you were a lawyer or not...
i love what you are saying. not only does it not make anything better, even in the terms of the system, it costs taxpayers more to keep people in prison, and it scapesgoats the "criminals," which frequently means that actual solutions (and fixes) aren't explored.
my gawd how often have i wanted to say this to people...
BTW, i am fully appreciative of free gaming, but Steam has even got me pretty frustrated. it is *incredibly* buggy.
on the mega-level, this story is about two huge things: 1) the connection between virtuality and reality ("rape in cyberspace" has been mentioned before - still interesting) - this is also the ongoing question about gaming "causing" violence, and porn "causing" violence against women - and
2) who determines what rules are used for given group of people
i'm not arguing for anything here except less simplistic suggestions.
surely you see the psychological and political and philosophical difference between swiping a card and swiping a hand/finger/eye.
with a credit card, but to me the significant thing is speed. just like people are now expected to have cel phones and be accessible all the time, expectations will change with the ability to do things faster... we will be expected to do more things ("things" in this case being work, of course).
mod this up please. of course, part of the reason that there are fewer talanted teachers is cause they don't get paid, they have to deal with crazy bureaucracy, they don't have authority frequently over how they teach... etc. etc.
sometimes make sense and sometimes don't. "the media" (at least to me) refers to corporate-owned mouthpieces of international big-business (is that redundant or what?). i believe that there are reporters and editors who are ethical and well-intentioned, but that they are usually constrained and/or censored by the people over them in the hierarchy. http://www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/newsflash .html
and i like whores. they're the most honest of workers in a capitalist system.
i think this is an interesting article, and i like how he is trying to come up with a principle... but the only reason he posits for people being upset at "heretical" statements is that people are afraid they might be true. Another reason is that people are hugely impacted by those statements. I am not personally affected by someone talking about how women are not capable of whatever since i have faith in my capacities and those of other women, but that doesn't mean that decisions that make my life worse don't get made based on that fucked up belief. the other problem (connected to the first of course) is context, which has been left out of a lot of the posts here about language. and the third problem, is that everyone who reads these articles always thinks that they (we) are the ones who are brave and heretical. there's an inherent weakness in there somewhere.
black americans (especially the sort who usually use the word "nigger" for each other) are not in a position (usually) to make decisions that will affect many people.
i just wanted to thank you for posting about the dibell article. i just read it and sent it to a bunch of people. we're all interested in creatively dealing with trangressors/transgressions so this article was totally on point and philosophically completely fascinating. so, thanks.
in similar terms, but they're pretty different - autonomically speaking. the point of the practice is to have an automatic reaction - you start playing a particular piece on the piano and the mechanics are automatic, so that the player can focus on the emotion of the piece. Martial arts is the same way, someone attacks you like this, than your body does this without thought, so that you can be figuring out what to do next... very different from the mechanics of keyboard strokes and mouse twitches translating into "go to car, get real gun (very different UI), pull trigger). and i think people are right to realize that the scariest part of this story is the "friends" aspect.
another one of those examples from actual societies. In The Gift,lewis hyde describes societies where the point of the gift is the giving; objects are seen to have power and if they stay in one place too long than bad things start happening to the holders of the object, so passing it around keeps things in balance. sigh.
is how is this any different (in quality) from the other ways that rich people get things that poor people have/need? how is it different (again, qualitatively) from women having kids for wealthy couples? okay, so the poor woman could have more kids, but it taxes her body (no pun intended). this is a capitalist society, folks. it isn't even necessary to say that rich people "prey on" anybody. it's just how the system works. poor people don't get what they need. rich people get more than they need.
believed that male-to-male love was the highest form of love. i don't think they were too worried about how many women were there.
turn down free money, but they are frequently non-linear in how they try to profit. Hence offers for "free" goods/services, etc.
due to overload - people still only pay attention to the data on or by "important people". glut can (and usually does) work the same as censorship...
(pop) culture and advertising? not a rhetorical question. i share people's irritation with advertisements showing up everywhere, but what we consume as entertainment is always selling us something. Talking about that is a good thing. I would trust a geek conversation about it more than one in most other populations...
in the sense that tech could allow a different level of participation to viewers. Watchers could interact with the game (presumably not in real time, but who knows...).
i.e., they're not selling enough. and the media (doing its job of fronting for business) finds that important enough to write about.
that's funny. isn't there a connection between making money and presumed size of audience?
the government, intimately connected to big business, has many options to allow it to reduce competition. requirements that have unequal impacts on small and big producers is one of those.
running for office takes money and connections. electoral candidates get money and connections (directly and indirectly) through corporate money. there is no real choice involved in elections, just different directions/takes on business and profit/exploitation.