Yes, currently (till they figure out how to make food inorganicly) life feeds on life. But that doesn't mean all forms of feeding are equal.
Last I checked, plants (especially lone beans) don't have a brain or a central nervous system capable of feeling pain or terror; regardless of the "oh plants like it when we sing to them" bull there is no sentience in plant life. Contrast that the very real terror cattle experience as they are slaughtered, especially when someone fucks up and doesn't get a clean kill.
I'm not a vegitarian but the "oh, plants are living too" BS is just that. If someone prefers to not partake in meat, dairy, or egg products because they feel they don't want to be part of the system that causes that sort of torture to living creatures actually capable of feeling terror and reacting to pain, that's their choice. And it's an honorable one as long as they don't spend the rest of their life rubbing it in our faces.
I wonder how many gungho "I've hunted and killed for food before" bullshiters would still be "carnivores" if they spent a week working in a slaughter house.
Most of the problem is due to the confusion of ethics, morality, and the concept of good and evil as being one big mashup. (As you have done)
For instance many people believe that following God's will is "G"ood and disobeying it is "B"ad.
If this is the case, then you don't care what is moral or ethical other than if it's against God's will. Remember, Abraham was willing to sacrifice his child to God, and that was "G"ood. The wandering Hebrews were willing to commit genocide on the then current inhabitants of Israel, because that was "G"ood. I doubt anyone would have argued those were ethical or moral choices. Yet people will fall into the trap of attempting to defend them as such by explaining that it was "God's will".
For most of us the mappings of ethics, morals, and "good vs. evil" are not one to one, or even necessarily parallel. It's entirely possible for an act to be immoral yet ethical, unethical yet good.
However, because none of us are actually all on the same page in regards to what maps to what, and instead only agree in broad generalities, it's hard to pose choices which expose these intricacies in video games without making a choice of alienating someone.
As a result, we make a game where the real choice is "Am I a colossus jerk or a goody two shoes". See Fable 2 and Knights of the Old Republic for good examples.
Does anyone read To Kill a Mockingbird or Scarlet Letter for entertainment? Hardly.
I did. I imagine many of the people who picked those books up for reasons other than 10th grade reading assignments also read them for entertainment.
And I read many of the so called classics for the same purpose. That didn't mean I laughed at the end of many of them, entertainment (for some of us apparently) isn't just about what makes us laugh. But I certainly wasn't looking for the answers to the question of life.
Honestly, if you are reading fiction, the only insight you should really be looking for is how the author themselves viewed human nature. Because that's really all you are being shown. The worlds are constructed, the situations preset, the outcomes preordained, all to the specification on one (usually) person.
If I want insightful reading, I'll read an autobiography.
Games are the same, only normally without the advantage and disadvantage of being tied to just one person's worldview.
It's more about the theme of the movie. It was about action rather than sci-fi. Star Trek explored issues in the future in a way that causes people to reflect upon the present.
Maybe on TV, but on the big screen the "good" Star Trek movies have always about Action with the capital A. Khan wasn't on screen to tout the benefits of the rich Corinthian leather his open chested jacket was made of. First Contact might have had some introspection, but if you re-examine it you'll notice that it's fairly true that that introspection was wedged between action sequences after action sequence (including senseless ones like the holodeck scene).
Actually they claimed they hadn't moved to Doom. The it was Unreal -> inhouse -> rumored doom. What they did confirm is they changed physics engines...
And if it actually was an inhouse engine, they might actually have something worth open sourcing even if they have to pull out huge chunks of licensed code.
There already is a provision for this, it's called liquidation. Except, instead of just being 'thrown' away (and yes I'm a supporter of open source and the public domain, but I'm also a supporter of the folk a company owes money to getting as much of that back as possible), assets are sold to the highest bidder.
No, he's claiming the idea that it's malfunctioning specifically because of the reasons Murdoch has claimed (and thus provided a solution for) appears more wishful thinking on the part of a man who deeply believes the world should work the way he wishes it to than it does actual reason and fact.
Or in other words, this isn't likely to solve anything as the real problem hasn't be addressed, primarily that few online news sites offer content that people are willing to pay for when it's very much the case that everyone is simply recycling the same news from the same sources. Most online news sites are largely simply regurgitated AP and Reuters stories with a locality specific faceplate attached.
On the other hand, there is a large market for carbon black. If you remove the carbon and sell it, while getting the energy from the hydrogen, your biogas is now carbon-negative, which is even better.
I long for the day when we'll get tax credits for being carbon-positive...
I think the idea is, if it's known as swine flu among people who believe that contact with a swine makes one unclean, those who become ill with it will be less likely to seek treatment and more likely to be ostracized for contracting it.
No, it's not a rational issue, but then how often are people rational, especially those living in areas most likely to be hit by an uncontrolled outbreak of this.
Yes, because when your world is falling down, it's simple to shield the kids from seeing it. And after all, since these things are all planned out, all you really need to do is make sure they aren't watching when it happens, right?
I wasn't a kid when 9/11 hit, but I was when Challenger exploded. We were in school and the teachers were in a panic when it happened because they were televising it to the older students live (one of the crew was a school teacher and NASA thought it'd be cool). They didn't mean to show their emotions, they were doing their level best to act professional and not let on anything had happened, but we knew. And we knew it was bad enough that they were scared of telling us.
I don't know today, which would have been better, if they had just gone and told us or not. But I do know that I was shaking when I got home, expecting the end of the world.
And having spoken before seeing the link to the coloring book, I see that I'm wrong in part. I assumed due to the summary and the linked article that this was a 9/11 specific coloring book and thus that it was no longer relevant.
Now that I've read it and see it's a general "any disater" book that simply has two pictures that one would assume were the 9/11 attacks on the twin towers, I wouldn't have even supported removing it due to it's relevance.
The people putting pressure on FEMA to remove it are idiots, and FEMA is a bit silly for removing it just to please them.
The coloring book was a well thought out resource then for allowing toddlers work out their emotions from that event.
Honestly, can you imagine how scary it would have been to be a 4 year old during 9/11? We adults, the folk they looked to for guidance, were primarily broken. Most of the people I knew back then were completely at a loss on how to act, what to think, or even what to say, they just sat there organically BSOD'ed.
Now imagine you are a kid and your parents are doing this, and the TV is saying we are under attack, showing buildings falling and people jumping out. Over and over again.
The kids back then needed something to help them cope, and giving them the opportunity to draw it in a coloring book, as much as it sounds counter intuitive, is pretty much the standard "coping technique" any child psychologist will suggest for children who've experienced a tramatic event.
On the other hand, I really don't see it being as useful today. I would have supported removing it, not because of 'negative pressure' but simply because it was no longer relevant or useful for the purpose it was created.
Nope. That's not how it works. And if you reread the quote, you'll notice that it's the defendant that is normally charged with the job of sending out notices. Yes, failing to notice, or being missed on the notification, can greatly impact you. Which is why you will find many posts out there on the 'webs' where people bitch about having missed out on the 'fun' when a class action is enacted.
A "Book" is a written or printed work that meets the following three conditions on or before January 5, 2009:
* It was published or distributed to the public or made available on sheets of paper bound together in hard copy form for public access under the authorization of the work's U.S. copyright owner; and
* It was registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, UNLESS the work is not a "United States work" under the U.S. Copyright Act, in which case such registration is not required; and
* It is subject to a U.S. copyright interest (either through ownership, joint ownership, or an exclusive license) implicated by a use authorized, or for which compensation could be payable, by the Settlement.
You want to work it out? Read. Ask questions, listen.
You want to spout off crap that is uninformed and stated as if you felt it was fact rather than an opinion and wild shot in the dark it is, get used to people being jerks to you.
Why do we need to keep repeating the same information over and over again before people actually pay attention.
No one is disputing the legal rights of the copyright holders. No one is taking those rights from them.
What IS happening is a lawsuit is being brought on behalf of all the rightsholders in question and therefore the resolution of said lawsuit is binding to all of them. Except for the ones that opt out of the class action by the new September date.
It doesn't matter if the holder is the publisher, or the author, or their estate, or Santa Claus. This is how class action lawsuits work. You find something you think is a problem. You find out it's a problem for a lot of people, you ask a judge to declare this group of people a class and then the problem gets resolved one way or another for the whole group.
It doesn't matter what is on the boiler plate pages of the book. The point of the settlement is that since the class action is being brought on behalf of the rightsholders, the lawyers on that side of the argument have the authority to negotiate a license for Google to reprint those books. In other words, they have the permission required.
The only questions remaining are who exactly is covered, which should only be the group of people who held rights to books in the libraries Google has scanned, and whether or not the settlement will actually get approved or if it'll be blocked and need to be reworked.
Your first statement is directly contradicted by the remainder of your comment. So no, I don't believe I'll be pissing in the wind for you any time soon.
In fact, the statement "here is no class-action lawsuit because there is a settlement" pretty much indicates a complete failure of understanding of even fundamental legal issues, much less understanding a class action.
That, unlike the rest of your arguments in this thread about the legal standing of the Authors Guild, is actually a valid concern. It'll be interesting to see how it turns out given nothing is set in stone or even runny jello yet.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, currently (till they figure out how to make food inorganicly) life feeds on life. But that doesn't mean all forms of feeding are equal.
Last I checked, plants (especially lone beans) don't have a brain or a central nervous system capable of feeling pain or terror; regardless of the "oh plants like it when we sing to them" bull there is no sentience in plant life. Contrast that the very real terror cattle experience as they are slaughtered, especially when someone fucks up and doesn't get a clean kill.
I'm not a vegitarian but the "oh, plants are living too" BS is just that. If someone prefers to not partake in meat, dairy, or egg products because they feel they don't want to be part of the system that causes that sort of torture to living creatures actually capable of feeling terror and reacting to pain, that's their choice. And it's an honorable one as long as they don't spend the rest of their life rubbing it in our faces.
I wonder how many gungho "I've hunted and killed for food before" bullshiters would still be "carnivores" if they spent a week working in a slaughter house.
Most of the problem is due to the confusion of ethics, morality, and the concept of good and evil as being one big mashup. (As you have done)
For instance many people believe that following God's will is "G"ood and disobeying it is "B"ad.
If this is the case, then you don't care what is moral or ethical other than if it's against God's will. Remember, Abraham was willing to sacrifice his child to God, and that was "G"ood. The wandering Hebrews were willing to commit genocide on the then current inhabitants of Israel, because that was "G"ood. I doubt anyone would have argued those were ethical or moral choices. Yet people will fall into the trap of attempting to defend them as such by explaining that it was "God's will".
For most of us the mappings of ethics, morals, and "good vs. evil" are not one to one, or even necessarily parallel. It's entirely possible for an act to be immoral yet ethical, unethical yet good.
However, because none of us are actually all on the same page in regards to what maps to what, and instead only agree in broad generalities, it's hard to pose choices which expose these intricacies in video games without making a choice of alienating someone.
As a result, we make a game where the real choice is "Am I a colossus jerk or a goody two shoes". See Fable 2 and Knights of the Old Republic for good examples.
I did. I imagine many of the people who picked those books up for reasons other than 10th grade reading assignments also read them for entertainment.
And I read many of the so called classics for the same purpose. That didn't mean I laughed at the end of many of them, entertainment (for some of us apparently) isn't just about what makes us laugh. But I certainly wasn't looking for the answers to the question of life.
Honestly, if you are reading fiction, the only insight you should really be looking for is how the author themselves viewed human nature. Because that's really all you are being shown. The worlds are constructed, the situations preset, the outcomes preordained, all to the specification on one (usually) person.
If I want insightful reading, I'll read an autobiography.
Games are the same, only normally without the advantage and disadvantage of being tied to just one person's worldview.
Maybe on TV, but on the big screen the "good" Star Trek movies have always about Action with the capital A. Khan wasn't on screen to tout the benefits of the rich Corinthian leather his open chested jacket was made of. First Contact might have had some introspection, but if you re-examine it you'll notice that it's fairly true that that introspection was wedged between action sequences after action sequence (including senseless ones like the holodeck scene).
Actually they claimed they hadn't moved to Doom. The it was Unreal -> inhouse -> rumored doom. What they did confirm is they changed physics engines...
And if it actually was an inhouse engine, they might actually have something worth open sourcing even if they have to pull out huge chunks of licensed code.
There already is a provision for this, it's called liquidation. Except, instead of just being 'thrown' away (and yes I'm a supporter of open source and the public domain, but I'm also a supporter of the folk a company owes money to getting as much of that back as possible), assets are sold to the highest bidder.
No, he's claiming the idea that it's malfunctioning specifically because of the reasons Murdoch has claimed (and thus provided a solution for) appears more wishful thinking on the part of a man who deeply believes the world should work the way he wishes it to than it does actual reason and fact.
Or in other words, this isn't likely to solve anything as the real problem hasn't be addressed, primarily that few online news sites offer content that people are willing to pay for when it's very much the case that everyone is simply recycling the same news from the same sources. Most online news sites are largely simply regurgitated AP and Reuters stories with a locality specific faceplate attached.
Those who buy the trash in paper form are rapidly disappearing however, mostly because they can find the same level of garbage online, for free.
I long for the day when we'll get tax credits for being carbon-positive...
Sadly, you aren't just killing the irrational, but those who are under their control and who may be entirely rational.
Regardless of whether I agree with your sentiment, I prefer solutions which don't seem to promise a 10:1 friendly fire ratio.
I think the idea is, if it's known as swine flu among people who believe that contact with a swine makes one unclean, those who become ill with it will be less likely to seek treatment and more likely to be ostracized for contracting it.
No, it's not a rational issue, but then how often are people rational, especially those living in areas most likely to be hit by an uncontrolled outbreak of this.
Yes, because when your world is falling down, it's simple to shield the kids from seeing it. And after all, since these things are all planned out, all you really need to do is make sure they aren't watching when it happens, right?
I wasn't a kid when 9/11 hit, but I was when Challenger exploded. We were in school and the teachers were in a panic when it happened because they were televising it to the older students live (one of the crew was a school teacher and NASA thought it'd be cool). They didn't mean to show their emotions, they were doing their level best to act professional and not let on anything had happened, but we knew. And we knew it was bad enough that they were scared of telling us.
I don't know today, which would have been better, if they had just gone and told us or not. But I do know that I was shaking when I got home, expecting the end of the world.
And having spoken before seeing the link to the coloring book, I see that I'm wrong in part. I assumed due to the summary and the linked article that this was a 9/11 specific coloring book and thus that it was no longer relevant.
Now that I've read it and see it's a general "any disater" book that simply has two pictures that one would assume were the 9/11 attacks on the twin towers, I wouldn't have even supported removing it due to it's relevance.
The people putting pressure on FEMA to remove it are idiots, and FEMA is a bit silly for removing it just to please them.
The coloring book was a well thought out resource then for allowing toddlers work out their emotions from that event.
Honestly, can you imagine how scary it would have been to be a 4 year old during 9/11? We adults, the folk they looked to for guidance, were primarily broken. Most of the people I knew back then were completely at a loss on how to act, what to think, or even what to say, they just sat there organically BSOD'ed.
Now imagine you are a kid and your parents are doing this, and the TV is saying we are under attack, showing buildings falling and people jumping out. Over and over again.
The kids back then needed something to help them cope, and giving them the opportunity to draw it in a coloring book, as much as it sounds counter intuitive, is pretty much the standard "coping technique" any child psychologist will suggest for children who've experienced a tramatic event.
On the other hand, I really don't see it being as useful today. I would have supported removing it, not because of 'negative pressure' but simply because it was no longer relevant or useful for the purpose it was created.
Nope. That's not how it works. And if you reread the quote, you'll notice that it's the defendant that is normally charged with the job of sending out notices. Yes, failing to notice, or being missed on the notification, can greatly impact you. Which is why you will find many posts out there on the 'webs' where people bitch about having missed out on the 'fun' when a class action is enacted.
There. Not their. *sigh*
They (WMG) seem thing they own it. See this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wMHcpMmV9g
Notice the reason why their is no audio...
From http://www.googlebooksettlement.com/help/bin/answer.py?answer=118722&hl=en#book
You want to work it out? Read. Ask questions, listen.
You want to spout off crap that is uninformed and stated as if you felt it was fact rather than an opinion and wild shot in the dark it is, get used to people being jerks to you.
Class Action.
CLASS Action
CLASS ACTION.
Why do we need to keep repeating the same information over and over again before people actually pay attention.
No one is disputing the legal rights of the copyright holders. No one is taking those rights from them.
What IS happening is a lawsuit is being brought on behalf of all the rightsholders in question and therefore the resolution of said lawsuit is binding to all of them. Except for the ones that opt out of the class action by the new September date.
It doesn't matter if the holder is the publisher, or the author, or their estate, or Santa Claus. This is how class action lawsuits work. You find something you think is a problem. You find out it's a problem for a lot of people, you ask a judge to declare this group of people a class and then the problem gets resolved one way or another for the whole group.
It doesn't matter what is on the boiler plate pages of the book. The point of the settlement is that since the class action is being brought on behalf of the rightsholders, the lawyers on that side of the argument have the authority to negotiate a license for Google to reprint those books. In other words, they have the permission required.
The only questions remaining are who exactly is covered, which should only be the group of people who held rights to books in the libraries Google has scanned, and whether or not the settlement will actually get approved or if it'll be blocked and need to be reworked.
Your first statement is directly contradicted by the remainder of your comment. So no, I don't believe I'll be pissing in the wind for you any time soon.
In fact, the statement "here is no class-action lawsuit because there is a settlement" pretty much indicates a complete failure of understanding of even fundamental legal issues, much less understanding a class action.
Uhm. No. The settlement provides no such thing, and this is why I get testy over the crowd of Googlephobics that are screaming.
That, unlike the rest of your arguments in this thread about the legal standing of the Authors Guild, is actually a valid concern. It'll be interesting to see how it turns out given nothing is set in stone or even runny jello yet.
If you have a license to reprint, how is reprinting a 'future violation'. Try again, this time will attention paid to what is actually going on.
No and... no. Read more. Talk less.