You oversimplify the problem. It's not just "legitimate sharing good, illegitimate bad". I personally don't need music or movies. I can go for months without listening to new music or watching new movies (with the exception of some big releases, like LOTR, SW or Matrix that I watch in movie theatres). I don't need that stuff. It is worth ~0$ to me. Not precisely zero, but very little.
Now when I have access to flat rate broadband, I can get movies for free. Suddenly, it becomes worthwhile to get them and watch them. But I do not represent a lost sale for the studios. I sit on the very far right end of the demand curve (very close to 0$ price), while studios are only interested in the left ones, those higher on the graph, those who can pay at least a few bucks for the movie. They can't sell to me. There is no way I will pay 10$ for a movie, there is simply not enough value for me there. Either I get it for free or I don't watch it at all.
I might be an outlier, but if you understand the general principle, you will see that it applies to many users. Only some people (N%) are willing to pay X$ for a product. The remaining (100-N)% are not. If you make the product available on P2P for free, many of these (100-N)% will get it, but they do not cause any damage to the producers. And I belive it is not immoral and should not be illegal, because they are not causing any harm to anybody.
Some of the N% might also decide to get a free copy instead of paying, but if the producers play their cards right, this won't be a big problem. If a person is already willing to spend 15$ on a new DVD, it shouldn't be very difficult to sell it to him. Do the same thing you already do to compete with other products. Make a better packaging, throw in some extras, show some ads, provide convenient way to buy it and voila! +15$
I know that is crazy, but what if a sharer sends the file and immediately erases the parts it sent from his disk? This isn't making a copy, is it? It should be legal, shouldn't it?
What if after that he used an unerase utility and scavenged the deleted file from the disk? This isn't copying, is it? It should be legal, shouldn't it?
Randall is not a typical case. He makes quality erotica, which thanks to Internet (P2P and not only it) is available to everyone, including people who would never purchase high-quality and expensive porn.
If you are getting a porn pic for free, it makes sense to copy the best one (since copying a 100Kb JPEG costs absolutely the same regardless of content). So you will save to your HDD (and may be share with others) only the best porn. But most of these pictures will go to people who wouldn't otherwise bought them, so no lost sales for Suze.
Here is an analogy. Imagine that any drink can be copied and distributed for free. Which drinks will be pirated most? My guess is that would be high-quality alcohol that costs 1000$ per bottle today. Because if everything costs the same ($0), you will get the best quality product. Who will be drinking it? Everyone, including rednecks, hobos and you, an unemployed IT worker.:) Are most of these people potential customers today? No. Will there be any lost sales. Yes, but probably not much. Will APAA (Alcohol Producers Association of America) be bitching and threatening everyone with lawsuits? Sure thing.
You haven't answered the question. Am I responsible for copyright violation if I leave CDs in an unlocked car? Can I be sued? If no, then why can't I run an HTTP server with MP3s so that I can listen to music I bought from any Internet-cafe?
Your point is valid if we are talking about custom-built software, intended for thousands of users, among which you can spread your costs. But please note that Microsoft operating systems have a user base comparable to the userbase of Intel CPUs. They also have an extreme profit margin that is more than enough to support any amount of R&D into optimisation.
Another important thing is that quality programming seems to solve all problems together, increasing speed, decresing system requirements, providing extra security, stability, compatibility, expandability, upgradability and customizability, not to mention utility and overall user satisfaction...
Finally, if Microsoft wants the customers to buy a new OS as often as a new CPU (PC), why don't they make the same progress? Intel Pentium IV is several thousand times better than the CP-1610 processor and about thousand times better than CPUs from the first IBM PCs. Is Windows (or Linux, or MacOS for that matter) a 1000 times better than DOS? I doubt it.
And it's even more questionable when you compare 386 CPU with Pentium IV. The latter is a hundred times better, while Windows XP is definitely not 100 times better than Windows 3.11.
Someone commented that IntyOS doesn't have to support different audio and video cards, but Windows also doesn't have to do that. Or, at least, not directly. Instead Windows supports the driver architecture where another program (written by the manufacturer, not by MS programmers) serves and an interface between the OS and the device. It is entirely feasible to rewrite the OS from scratch and have the compatibility with existent drivers (may be through an extra wrapper layer). Compatibility with the applications is a bit different, but if Windows programs can be run in MacOS or in Linux, they certainly can be run on Windows: Rewritten.
There is a clear benefit in having versatile devices. If they are done well. I use an old Palm IIIxe, a cheap, almost featureless, cell phone. I don't have any portable music player, dictophone (used to have one some time ago) or a camera.
The reason for my slowness in adopting these technologies is that I don't want the Batman belt. I agree to carry with me only one (maximum two, if the second one is in my backpack) electronic device. Today it is my Palm IIIxe.
New Palms (or Clies, or PocketPCs) are simply not verstile enough for me. Not yet. But I will upgrade my Palm the moment when all possible features I want (with sufficient quality) are fitted inside one device. PDA, wireless Internet, voice phone + recorder, decent digital camera and MP3 player. And something else like a GPS.
I am not crazy.:) And I have enough experience with all these gadgets to understand what functionality I need and how I can interact with a device. I know that what I want to be done is technically possible, so I am just waiting for someone to cram enough features into 200 grams.
About 25% of the people are complete morons (literally imbeciles). They DO NOT know what is good for them, they don't know ANYTHING. This is a fact. Even those who are not total idiots are still quite dumb and they are unlikely to know what is good or bad for them. Can you plan the Walmart layout (down to where individual products are placed)? Probably not, but you are the client, aren't you? But somehow designing a public plaza is a very simple thing, something that an average Joe can do (and I am not talking about technical skills, but about knowing what to do and how to do it)...
Good design should always be reality checked and should always take into account the users. But it should almost never be oriented towards users' perception of how things should be done.
Sometimes it's hard to do even when you have the money in your pocket... But seriously, try online publishing or just giving it away online for free if you don't need money.:)
Don't overestimate the problem. There are several important points to consider.
1) It's not like the evil guvmint will mandate these "hairdriers" tomorrow and force everyone to become cogs in the corporate machine. 2) Learning new concepts is useful. If there is no overall benefit to using this, it will not be used or will be used only temporarely. If there is overall benefit for certain people, why not let them use it? 3) It's reversible.
False dichotomy, stupid. Most of the companies who don't defend their trademarks do not lose them. You can probably count the cases when a trademark was actually lost on your two hands.
If Blizzard ignored FreeCraft and tomorrow some company EvilSoftware actually made WarCraft RTS and started selling it, any judge would rule that it's illegal. And any attempts by EvilSoftware lawyers to say "But FreeCraft is distributed, so WarCraft trademark is no longer valid" would be immediately dismissed by the court as BullShit (tm).
It would take much more to make Bilzzard lose their WarCraft trademark, like general public starting to call any RTS "Warcraft" and doing it for a couple of years.
It's complete bullshit. There is no rule "If you don't defend your trademark/copyright, you lose it". No matter how often this lie is repeated, it doesn't change to truth.
The correct version of the rule is "If you lose your trademark/copyright to public domain, tough shit". When general public will no longer associate WarCraft and StarCraft with Blizzard, then they can no longer own these trademarks. This is obviously not going to happen soon.
Embrago doesn't mean you can't buy stuff, it means that noone (in the countries that support the embrago) can't sell you stuff. So Iraq is not violating any International laws.
The US, on the other hand, did violate them in both the letter and the spirit. That's why everyone bitches about US.
Two things. First, I am actually a communist (in a good sense, don't believe the imperialist propaganda, tovarisch).:-) I also believe that planned economy has the potential to be more effective than capitalist economy (and I am well enough informed).:-)
And second, even if we forget about my personal views for a moment, the point 2 says it all. Care about long-term value of the brand. I don't remember how IP managers call it (may be evergreen property), but it is much better to have a good valuable, long-term property in your portfolio, like SW or HP, than to make a quick profit from it.
Not long ago (in March or in April probably) there was a great case study in Harvard Business Review about some toy (some cute female doll) and the best strategy to maximize it's value over its lifetime (by negotiating movie deals, fast food deals, etc.).
And here are some separate replies more specifically to your post (in addition to my ideas on changes and nanotech in another post).
I agree that it is important to consider the causes for failures of earlier civilisation. Unfortunately, I think not enough attention is paid to that and we do not have a clear understanding yet of why every one of them failed except for the modern European (later Western) societies and whether there are some risks that we should pay special attention to.
I want to note that any actions or inactions that you take in regards to your kids are a choice you make. Children are not "what they are", they are what the genes and environment (parents and society) make of them. Their predispositions are not something external and independent from the environment. If you don't push them to be non-conformists, you effectively push them into the opposite direction, to become cogs in a corporate machine or something like that:-)
Thank you also for the generous compliments.:) Yes, I do think that I am special, thanks to the exceptional parents, grandparents, teachers and an ample amount of sheer luck. But in this context it's not my abilities that are important, it's the unique combination of life choices that I made. They are unusual (I am indeed happen to be a non-conformist, just because the choices that I consider to be the right ones usually aren't really popular), but they are available to everyone. Unfortunately, it seems that people have little voice in that matter, the choice is made when they are young by the books they are reading, by their peers, by their parents, etc. At some stage their world view is determined quite rigidly and tends to reinforce itself. There is little chance that they will learn something new that will change their life...
Regarding your final comment, could you clarify what I am "not the target audience" for? But as for your final words, as much as I would like to believe that I can change the world alone, I sadly realise that it is extremely unlikely. Then I face a difficult choice - to decide whether the future is going to be good or bad (regardless of what I do). This choice is to a certain extent irrational, because you cannot rigorously prove one choice or another, but I think that there are certain important indicators that optimism is the right choice. I think (I honestly do) that I understand societal, economical, scientific and technical trends well enough (for a human, who is not an big expert in any of these fields) to make an informed judgement about the future (as far as it humanly possible). The key foundations of my optimistic outlook are probably marxist view on history and understanding of nanotech and AI possibilities. And of course many other ideas are also important. This allows me to be optimistic about "the momentum of the masses" with more or less confidence.
Thanks for an interesting and though-stimulating post. It encouraged me to enjoy my carefree life, get out of the house and have a white night walk, to think (again) about nanotech and changes and structure my thoughts a little bit.
Changes in the past and present
1. It is a fact that humans haven't changed much in the past 10 thousand years. As I understand, we have essentially same physical and intellectual capability as our remote ancestors had. Our brains and bodies haven't changed much. So the basic human nature (disregarding social aspects) is similar.
2. There have been considerable social progress, especially in the past few centuries and especially in the past decades. Although still partly controlled by reptilian parts in our brains (and while our brains are unchanged, there can still be wars, inequality, lies, greed, etc.), the society has advanced dramatically. Looking at the bright sides, we have pretty tolerant and egalitarian society that respects knowledge and scientific method, that cares about young, old and disabled, that guarantees everyone a certain minimum subsistence level (food, shelter, medical aid, access to information, etc.). While there are certain problems (and they will remain until we radically change the education and upbringing systems or redisign our brains), we can't deny the progress that happened in our socities (not everywhere, I admit).
3. There is a very large amount of accumulated knowledge and it grows ever faster. There is also nearly universal and mostly unrestricted access to all this information. We have never been so close to answering the deepest questions of the universe. We also unprecedented technical capabilities, which is growing at an amazing rate. And finally we, humans, come to a realisation that we can achieve pretty much everything that we can think about. In several last decades the transhumanist ideas began spreading (slowly, but at the same time exponentially).
4. Because of productivity gains, people can now have a significant amount of free time, that they can use for personal growth and development. In the past only elite few could afford leading the kind of life I can lead today (this was complicated by the fact that these few demanded an excessive and grossly unproportional share of wealth). 40-hour work week is a relatively new invention. And even that was not sufficient to truly liberate the general public. But today it is finally possible to effectively work 10-20 hours a week and remain well-provided for (not for everyone and not everywhere yet, I admit).
Combine these factors and you will see that the present society gives people unprecedented amount of freedom, safety and comfort for the first time in our history. Of course, as I already said, this still depends on the individual. If the attitude is as you so concisely put it "same as my dad did, and same as my kids will":) the person will not have the chance to experience this new lifestyle. This is the question of priorities - most of my friends and acquaintances (of different ages and occupations), just like people in general (pretty much everywhere), still value the family, money and career most. My observation is that they are trapped in the decisions that they made and in the societal limitations of yesterday and so see only limited choices at present.
But economical and societal factors determine (in general population) people's goals and priorities. There are clearly visible trends - family becomes less important or not important at all, money cease to be a motivation, replaced by interesting (first and foremost) work (not job) and career is replaced by personal growth. The transition is far from complete, but the tendencies are evident now.
Nanotechnology and future changes
Nanotech is going to have a profound impact in all the four areas listed above. IMNSHO, this impact is going to exceed everything that has happened in the human history (although it depends on how to calculate it).
It is strange that nobody mentioned Star Wars. I think it is a brilliant example of movies - games synergy and provides at least one recipe for success. Make a large, rich and consistant universe. Explore many different aspects of it using various mediums. Make an effort, because you should not diminish the value of the brand.
Now that we see these important characteristic of the most successful movies-games symbiosis, we can explore other examples and their strengths and shortcomings. The best examples would be LOTR, HP and the Matrix. In all these cases we have some pretty decent products, which IMHO can be explained by this richness of the universes and correctly using different approaches to exploring them. We have some serious problems as well, which (again, IMHO) are because no attention was paid to the long-term value of the brand and games were rushed in to cash on the recent success of the movies.
So to sum it up. How to make a good game based on the movies (can work vice versa and also with other mediums):
Have a rich universe
Care about the long-term value of the brand
Realise that different mediums should explore the universe in different ways
I think this is a disturbing trend to replace real actual funny jokes with keywords that are known to generate a typical response in a certain demographic. Instead of thinking of something original and then presenting it to other you cheat.
But if this is indeed the current standard of Slashdot (implied joke here - Slashdot users are stupid - ha-ha) I might as well try it. Imagine a Beowulf cluster (implied joke) of unfunny (implied joke) jokes.
Now moderate this into oblivion (implied modappeal), I have karma to burn (implied modappeal). And in case the article gets Slashdotted, here is the Google cache (implied informativeness of the post).
P.S. BTW, I was actually born in Soviet Russia (implicitly funny like a clownfish).
The change is not a matter of fact, it's a matter of perception. Essentially, nothing changed in this world during the last 14 or so billion years. After the laws of nature formed, nothing ever changed and I don't expect any changes for another 10^N years, until protons start decaying. Even talking about human life, knowing the history of technology well, one may argue that nothing really changed. Yeah, there have been fast food joints in Babylon (honest) and may be your grand-grand-...-grandfather was flipping the Babylonian analogue of burgers there (I don't imply here that you work in McDonalds).
The problem is that unless we both agree about what constitutes significant change and what doesn't, any discussion on that topic is pointless. But I can only pity you for your 9-5 work pattern. I, on the other hand, am basically free to do what I am interested in. I don't have to work much, because one year of work (in relatively undeveloped Russia) is enough to support me very well for the next 1-2 years. I have access to a large fraction of human knowledge. I live in good environment, with sufficiently high quality of life, nice people around me (now it's not Russia), etc. Note: all that is not because I inherited a fortune or won it in a lottery.
Is this enough of a change for you? They say that change can only come to you from within and I can see how true it is. Unless you change the way you live, nothing will happen. You are right, even when advanced nanotech will become reality, some people will probably not notice that and continue working 9-5, while others will become posthumans.:)
And don't push your working philosophy on your kids. Instead help them become creative, intellegent, inquisitive and free people.
What about "that article"? I've read that interview when it was posted here earlier. There is nothing in there that shows RIAA in a good light. If you think there is, could you provide the relevant quotes.
Note: I really started regarding the RIAA as an Evil(tm) organization when I read what they said themselves and learned about facts of what they actually do. And I don't see how one can claim that RIAA doesn't want to make backups illegal when they try to introduce copy-protected CDs that cannot be played on PC and use DMCA to prevent you from defeating this copy-protection... Well, if they don't want that, who forces them? Certainly not consumers...
I wonder if something like Purist Edit of TTT would eventually be made legal. After all, there can be no legal objective definition of "filth" - it's also in the eye of the beholder. And if the court would say "A" in this case, they have to say "B" next...
Slashdot Mirror
You oversimplify the problem. It's not just "legitimate sharing good, illegitimate bad". I personally don't need music or movies. I can go for months without listening to new music or watching new movies (with the exception of some big releases, like LOTR, SW or Matrix that I watch in movie theatres). I don't need that stuff. It is worth ~0$ to me. Not precisely zero, but very little.
Now when I have access to flat rate broadband, I can get movies for free. Suddenly, it becomes worthwhile to get them and watch them. But I do not represent a lost sale for the studios. I sit on the very far right end of the demand curve (very close to 0$ price), while studios are only interested in the left ones, those higher on the graph, those who can pay at least a few bucks for the movie. They can't sell to me. There is no way I will pay 10$ for a movie, there is simply not enough value for me there. Either I get it for free or I don't watch it at all.
I might be an outlier, but if you understand the general principle, you will see that it applies to many users. Only some people (N%) are willing to pay X$ for a product. The remaining (100-N)% are not. If you make the product available on P2P for free, many of these (100-N)% will get it, but they do not cause any damage to the producers. And I belive it is not immoral and should not be illegal, because they are not causing any harm to anybody.
Some of the N% might also decide to get a free copy instead of paying, but if the producers play their cards right, this won't be a big problem. If a person is already willing to spend 15$ on a new DVD, it shouldn't be very difficult to sell it to him. Do the same thing you already do to compete with other products. Make a better packaging, throw in some extras, show some ads, provide convenient way to buy it and voila! +15$
I know that is crazy, but what if a sharer sends the file and immediately erases the parts it sent from his disk? This isn't making a copy, is it? It should be legal, shouldn't it?
What if after that he used an unerase utility and scavenged the deleted file from the disk? This isn't copying, is it? It should be legal, shouldn't it?
According to RIAA wisdom, you have the license to the use of those specific CDs.
Randall is not a typical case. He makes quality erotica, which thanks to Internet (P2P and not only it) is available to everyone, including people who would never purchase high-quality and expensive porn.
:) Are most of these people potential customers today? No. Will there be any lost sales. Yes, but probably not much. Will APAA (Alcohol Producers Association of America) be bitching and threatening everyone with lawsuits? Sure thing.
If you are getting a porn pic for free, it makes sense to copy the best one (since copying a 100Kb JPEG costs absolutely the same regardless of content). So you will save to your HDD (and may be share with others) only the best porn. But most of these pictures will go to people who wouldn't otherwise bought them, so no lost sales for Suze.
Here is an analogy. Imagine that any drink can be copied and distributed for free. Which drinks will be pirated most? My guess is that would be high-quality alcohol that costs 1000$ per bottle today. Because if everything costs the same ($0), you will get the best quality product. Who will be drinking it? Everyone, including rednecks, hobos and you, an unemployed IT worker.
You haven't answered the question. Am I responsible for copyright violation if I leave CDs in an unlocked car? Can I be sued? If no, then why can't I run an HTTP server with MP3s so that I can listen to music I bought from any Internet-cafe?
Your point is valid if we are talking about custom-built software, intended for thousands of users, among which you can spread your costs. But please note that Microsoft operating systems have a user base comparable to the userbase of Intel CPUs. They also have an extreme profit margin that is more than enough to support any amount of R&D into optimisation.
Another important thing is that quality programming seems to solve all problems together, increasing speed, decresing system requirements, providing extra security, stability, compatibility, expandability, upgradability and customizability, not to mention utility and overall user satisfaction...
Finally, if Microsoft wants the customers to buy a new OS as often as a new CPU (PC), why don't they make the same progress? Intel Pentium IV is several thousand times better than the CP-1610 processor and about thousand times better than CPUs from the first IBM PCs. Is Windows (or Linux, or MacOS for that matter) a 1000 times better than DOS? I doubt it.
And it's even more questionable when you compare 386 CPU with Pentium IV. The latter is a hundred times better, while Windows XP is definitely not 100 times better than Windows 3.11.
Someone commented that IntyOS doesn't have to support different audio and video cards, but Windows also doesn't have to do that. Or, at least, not directly. Instead Windows supports the driver architecture where another program (written by the manufacturer, not by MS programmers) serves and an interface between the OS and the device. It is entirely feasible to rewrite the OS from scratch and have the compatibility with existent drivers (may be through an extra wrapper layer). Compatibility with the applications is a bit different, but if Windows programs can be run in MacOS or in Linux, they certainly can be run on Windows: Rewritten.
There is a clear benefit in having versatile devices. If they are done well. I use an old Palm IIIxe, a cheap, almost featureless, cell phone. I don't have any portable music player, dictophone (used to have one some time ago) or a camera.
:) And I have enough experience with all these gadgets to understand what functionality I need and how I can interact with a device. I know that what I want to be done is technically possible, so I am just waiting for someone to cram enough features into 200 grams.
The reason for my slowness in adopting these technologies is that I don't want the Batman belt. I agree to carry with me only one (maximum two, if the second one is in my backpack) electronic device. Today it is my Palm IIIxe.
New Palms (or Clies, or PocketPCs) are simply not verstile enough for me. Not yet. But I will upgrade my Palm the moment when all possible features I want (with sufficient quality) are fitted inside one device. PDA, wireless Internet, voice phone + recorder, decent digital camera and MP3 player. And something else like a GPS.
I am not crazy.
About 25% of the people are complete morons (literally imbeciles). They DO NOT know what is good for them, they don't know ANYTHING. This is a fact. Even those who are not total idiots are still quite dumb and they are unlikely to know what is good or bad for them. Can you plan the Walmart layout (down to where individual products are placed)? Probably not, but you are the client, aren't you? But somehow designing a public plaza is a very simple thing, something that an average Joe can do (and I am not talking about technical skills, but about knowing what to do and how to do it)...
Good design should always be reality checked and should always take into account the users. But it should almost never be oriented towards users' perception of how things should be done.
Then make mobile NYT articles in a form of streamed audio or synthesized speech.
Sometimes it's hard to do even when you have the money in your pocket... But seriously, try online publishing or just giving it away online for free if you don't need money. :)
Heh. You don't even need to know how to add four numbers correctly to be moderated "Informative" on Slashdot.
56 + 32 = 98 (Hint! Hint!)
Intelligence, like the world, is not a zero-sum game. If everyone is made smarter, the world will become a much better place.
Don't overestimate the problem. There are several important points to consider.
1) It's not like the evil guvmint will mandate these "hairdriers" tomorrow and force everyone to become cogs in the corporate machine.
2) Learning new concepts is useful. If there is no overall benefit to using this, it will not be used or will be used only temporarely. If there is overall benefit for certain people, why not let them use it?
3) It's reversible.
False dichotomy, stupid. Most of the companies who don't defend their trademarks do not lose them. You can probably count the cases when a trademark was actually lost on your two hands.
If Blizzard ignored FreeCraft and tomorrow some company EvilSoftware actually made WarCraft RTS and started selling it, any judge would rule that it's illegal. And any attempts by EvilSoftware lawyers to say "But FreeCraft is distributed, so WarCraft trademark is no longer valid" would be immediately dismissed by the court as BullShit (tm).
It would take much more to make Bilzzard lose their WarCraft trademark, like general public starting to call any RTS "Warcraft" and doing it for a couple of years.
It's complete bullshit. There is no rule "If you don't defend your trademark/copyright, you lose it". No matter how often this lie is repeated, it doesn't change to truth.
The correct version of the rule is "If you lose your trademark/copyright to public domain, tough shit". When general public will no longer associate WarCraft and StarCraft with Blizzard, then they can no longer own these trademarks. This is obviously not going to happen soon.
Embrago doesn't mean you can't buy stuff, it means that noone (in the countries that support the embrago) can't sell you stuff. So Iraq is not violating any International laws.
The US, on the other hand, did violate them in both the letter and the spirit. That's why everyone bitches about US.
HTH.
Two things. First, I am actually a communist (in a good sense, don't believe the imperialist propaganda, tovarisch). :-) I also believe that planned economy has the potential to be more effective than capitalist economy (and I am well enough informed). :-)
And second, even if we forget about my personal views for a moment, the point 2 says it all. Care about long-term value of the brand. I don't remember how IP managers call it (may be evergreen property), but it is much better to have a good valuable, long-term property in your portfolio, like SW or HP, than to make a quick profit from it.
Not long ago (in March or in April probably) there was a great case study in Harvard Business Review about some toy (some cute female doll) and the best strategy to maximize it's value over its lifetime (by negotiating movie deals, fast food deals, etc.).
And here are some separate replies more specifically to your post (in addition to my ideas on changes and nanotech in another post).
:-)
:) Yes, I do think that I am special, thanks to the exceptional parents, grandparents, teachers and an ample amount of sheer luck. But in this context it's not my abilities that are important, it's the unique combination of life choices that I made. They are unusual (I am indeed happen to be a non-conformist, just because the choices that I consider to be the right ones usually aren't really popular), but they are available to everyone. Unfortunately, it seems that people have little voice in that matter, the choice is made when they are young by the books they are reading, by their peers, by their parents, etc. At some stage their world view is determined quite rigidly and tends to reinforce itself. There is little chance that they will learn something new that will change their life...
I agree that it is important to consider the causes for failures of earlier civilisation. Unfortunately, I think not enough attention is paid to that and we do not have a clear understanding yet of why every one of them failed except for the modern European (later Western) societies and whether there are some risks that we should pay special attention to.
I want to note that any actions or inactions that you take in regards to your kids are a choice you make. Children are not "what they are", they are what the genes and environment (parents and society) make of them. Their predispositions are not something external and independent from the environment. If you don't push them to be non-conformists, you effectively push them into the opposite direction, to become cogs in a corporate machine or something like that
Thank you also for the generous compliments.
Regarding your final comment, could you clarify what I am "not the target audience" for? But as for your final words, as much as I would like to believe that I can change the world alone, I sadly realise that it is extremely unlikely. Then I face a difficult choice - to decide whether the future is going to be good or bad (regardless of what I do). This choice is to a certain extent irrational, because you cannot rigorously prove one choice or another, but I think that there are certain important indicators that optimism is the right choice. I think (I honestly do) that I understand societal, economical, scientific and technical trends well enough (for a human, who is not an big expert in any of these fields) to make an informed judgement about the future (as far as it humanly possible). The key foundations of my optimistic outlook are probably marxist view on history and understanding of nanotech and AI possibilities. And of course many other ideas are also important. This allows me to be optimistic about "the momentum of the masses" with more or less confidence.
Changes in the past and present
1. It is a fact that humans haven't changed much in the past 10 thousand years. As I understand, we have essentially same physical and intellectual capability as our remote ancestors had. Our brains and bodies haven't changed much. So the basic human nature (disregarding social aspects) is similar.
2. There have been considerable social progress, especially in the past few centuries and especially in the past decades. Although still partly controlled by reptilian parts in our brains (and while our brains are unchanged, there can still be wars, inequality, lies, greed, etc.), the society has advanced dramatically. Looking at the bright sides, we have pretty tolerant and egalitarian society that respects knowledge and scientific method, that cares about young, old and disabled, that guarantees everyone a certain minimum subsistence level (food, shelter, medical aid, access to information, etc.). While there are certain problems (and they will remain until we radically change the education and upbringing systems or redisign our brains), we can't deny the progress that happened in our socities (not everywhere, I admit).
3. There is a very large amount of accumulated knowledge and it grows ever faster. There is also nearly universal and mostly unrestricted access to all this information. We have never been so close to answering the deepest questions of the universe. We also unprecedented technical capabilities, which is growing at an amazing rate. And finally we, humans, come to a realisation that we can achieve pretty much everything that we can think about. In several last decades the transhumanist ideas began spreading (slowly, but at the same time exponentially).
4. Because of productivity gains, people can now have a significant amount of free time, that they can use for personal growth and development. In the past only elite few could afford leading the kind of life I can lead today (this was complicated by the fact that these few demanded an excessive and grossly unproportional share of wealth). 40-hour work week is a relatively new invention. And even that was not sufficient to truly liberate the general public. But today it is finally possible to effectively work 10-20 hours a week and remain well-provided for (not for everyone and not everywhere yet, I admit).
Combine these factors and you will see that the present society gives people unprecedented amount of freedom, safety and comfort for the first time in our history. Of course, as I already said, this still depends on the individual. If the attitude is as you so concisely put it "same as my dad did, and same as my kids will" :) the person will not have the chance to experience this new lifestyle. This is the question of priorities - most of my friends and acquaintances (of different ages and occupations), just like people in general (pretty much everywhere), still value the family, money and career most. My observation is that they are trapped in the decisions that they made and in the societal limitations of yesterday and so see only limited choices at present.
But economical and societal factors determine (in general population) people's goals and priorities. There are clearly visible trends - family becomes less important or not important at all, money cease to be a motivation, replaced by interesting (first and foremost) work (not job) and career is replaced by personal growth. The transition is far from complete, but the tendencies are evident now.
Nanotechnology and future changes
Nanotech is going to have a profound impact in all the four areas listed above. IMNSHO, this impact is going to exceed everything that has happened in the human history (although it depends on how to calculate it).
1
Now that we see these important characteristic of the most successful movies-games symbiosis, we can explore other examples and their strengths and shortcomings. The best examples would be LOTR, HP and the Matrix. In all these cases we have some pretty decent products, which IMHO can be explained by this richness of the universes and correctly using different approaches to exploring them. We have some serious problems as well, which (again, IMHO) are because no attention was paid to the long-term value of the brand and games were rushed in to cash on the recent success of the movies.
So to sum it up. How to make a good game based on the movies (can work vice versa and also with other mediums):
I think this is a disturbing trend to replace real actual funny jokes with keywords that are known to generate a typical response in a certain demographic. Instead of thinking of something original and then presenting it to other you cheat.
But if this is indeed the current standard of Slashdot (implied joke here - Slashdot users are stupid - ha-ha) I might as well try it. Imagine a Beowulf cluster (implied joke) of unfunny (implied joke) jokes.
Now moderate this into oblivion (implied modappeal), I have karma to burn (implied modappeal). And in case the article gets Slashdotted, here is the Google cache (implied informativeness of the post).
P.S. BTW, I was actually born in Soviet Russia (implicitly funny like a clownfish).
The change is not a matter of fact, it's a matter of perception. Essentially, nothing changed in this world during the last 14 or so billion years. After the laws of nature formed, nothing ever changed and I don't expect any changes for another 10^N years, until protons start decaying. Even talking about human life, knowing the history of technology well, one may argue that nothing really changed. Yeah, there have been fast food joints in Babylon (honest) and may be your grand-grand-...-grandfather was flipping the Babylonian analogue of burgers there (I don't imply here that you work in McDonalds).
:)
The problem is that unless we both agree about what constitutes significant change and what doesn't, any discussion on that topic is pointless. But I can only pity you for your 9-5 work pattern. I, on the other hand, am basically free to do what I am interested in. I don't have to work much, because one year of work (in relatively undeveloped Russia) is enough to support me very well for the next 1-2 years. I have access to a large fraction of human knowledge. I live in good environment, with sufficiently high quality of life, nice people around me (now it's not Russia), etc.
Note: all that is not because I inherited a fortune or won it in a lottery.
Is this enough of a change for you? They say that change can only come to you from within and I can see how true it is. Unless you change the way you live, nothing will happen. You are right, even when advanced nanotech will become reality, some people will probably not notice that and continue working 9-5, while others will become posthumans.
And don't push your working philosophy on your kids. Instead help them become creative, intellegent, inquisitive and free people.
What about "that article"? I've read that interview when it was posted here earlier. There is nothing in there that shows RIAA in a good light. If you think there is, could you provide the relevant quotes.
Note: I really started regarding the RIAA as an Evil(tm) organization when I read what they said themselves and learned about facts of what they actually do. And I don't see how one can claim that RIAA doesn't want to make backups illegal when they try to introduce copy-protected CDs that cannot be played on PC and use DMCA to prevent you from defeating this copy-protection... Well, if they don't want that, who forces them? Certainly not consumers...
Actually, AFAIR, he haven't admitted his guilt and RIAA didn't insist on that, they were happy with the money.
I wonder if something like Purist Edit of TTT would eventually be made legal. After all, there can be no legal objective definition of "filth" - it's also in the eye of the beholder. And if the court would say "A" in this case, they have to say "B" next...