My question to you is, why are all of your posts towards me regarding the so-called decorum of posting here while none of them are discussing the actual content of the thread?
Because I believe that we should use reasoned debate to get across our points rather than invective. Contrary to your view, I do not believe that you have to fight fire with fire. You will not convince your "opponent" with aggression (fire), but you might persuade many people who are reading both sides to your own by not doing so. In view of that, I wished to point out the inconsistency in what you were saying.
However, you do have a point in that I haven't contributed anything to the subject matter so I'll state my opinion now. We will have to agree to disagree however, as it isn't in line with your own.
The poster that you originally replied to said that a tv series would dilute the "myth" because we would see the same plots being recycled. I think this is likely to be true because (a) Lucas and crew will have limited ideas and (b) if the characters are not going to change much over the course of the series, which would mess up the cannon, then you keep having to return them to their starting position / character.
When you have created something good then you stop and let it be. You don't keep hawking it forever until the original value is buried in needless detail.
You raised the issue of midichlorians. The original poster that you accused of having a limited imagination on the subject had not previously mentioned them. But in your defense of them you listed several possible justifications of them. All of these justifications seemed to have little foundation in the movies. Yes - you can use them, but without their support in the films, you are loaning the film some credibility. A good story shouldn't depend on the viewer helping to prop it up.
All that I saw in EpI, was the Force go from something mysterious and universal to a measurable genetic trait. The problem with this is that previously, the Force seems in some way part of a person's essential being, and now it is something that I could probably get in a blood transfusion. Essentially, it removes the characters' responsibility by making what was previously an important part of them, merely a birthright.
Your opinion may vary, of course, but I hope mine doesn't interfere with your enjoyment. Equally, I hope you can see where I'm coming from.
You say they'll just offshore to the next cheapest country, well it's not that simple, language and education are huge barriers. The Indians have the language thanks to the British Empire and they have the education,
The British Empire has been and gone and to illustrate, there are plenty of Indians who speak German, French, Spanish (or Chinese). The modern knowledge of English has more to do with the US's economic power than and legacy of Empire.
There are two important differences between the US outsourcing to India and India outsourcing to China. Firstly, India has much more of a "buffer" of poor people in their own country, so why outsource abroad? Secondly, it may prove that the businessmen of India care more about their own country than those of the US do about theirs.
US capitalist values are not all encompasing yet; and if the Indians can maintain some love of country in the presence of wealth, then they may become a mighty nation indeed.
Aren't you the pleasant one? The thing is that you can tell anyone to sit down on/. and still not have any power over them to make them do it, whatsoever. All you can do to make the readers of/. agree with you is to use reasoned debate.
So tell me, how do you reconcile telling someone to sit down (i.e. shut up) with "I didn't say the grandparent didn't have the right to say something." Or how do reconcile that with "he doesn't get to trash SW" and "rebuking" him for doing so? All your words.
So you see mate, I can follow the threads quite adequately thank you. And I believe I have used reasoned debate quite effectively also.
Which as I pointed out at the beginning, is a great deal more effective in winning people to my side than telling people to "sit down,"
Then your defense of the parent poster is equally idiotic. He had his say, I confounded it. You are merely a peanut gallery poster. Sit down, elephant.
Important logical difference between your argument and his. He stated his opinion. You stated that he should keep his opinion to himself. Putting up your own opinion in contrast to someone else, is different to saying someone elses is invalid.
"I suppose people think that I am . . . over the top!"
The correct line began (delivered into a microphone with full on God base echo effect) "If knowledge is power, then truly a god AM I!" followed by a cheerful - "was that over the top? I can never tell."
Jim Carey was one of two good things in that film, the other being the U2 soundtrack. Everything else in it was dire.
what is the threshold of use that determines whether you should have to pay for software?
The threshold is found at the high-point of the graph of piracy vs. social benefit.
When measures to prevent piracy are more damaging to us then the allowance of piracy then we stop and accept a level of piracy. I'm thinking of obvious things like DRM, but also less obvious things such as a company getting too powerful and restricting choice.
Where the line is drawn is open to fine dispute, but that is the principle. Someone could discover a universal cure for cancer tomorrow and decide not to sell it at all, or only to their friends. Some people here on/. would argue it is their right, but most would say society had every right to kick his door down and take it. In fact this situation exists - it's the US pharmaceuticals industries vs. poorer countries. A good example of the principle we use to draw your threshold.
You could also look at setting this threshold according to need. If you regard MS Office as a luxury item, then there is no threshold. But if you regard understanding of how to use it as a need in the modern world, then maybe you would say that those who can't afford it do have a right to pirate it. Losing out on an education because you're poor is not a good statement about society.
Just illustrating ideas about where you would define the threshold.
Banks is still alive and churning them slowly out. If you haven't read any, then you'd probably enjoy them very much. They err on the side of low-key though. Also, the first one is poor but he improved rapidly. He's a sci-fi writer who can do both ideas and people.
I think I'd be very afraid of a film treatment however. A faithful adaptation would be mostly like the first of the Aliens movies, without the Alien bits - lots of talking, lots of beautiful sweeping shots, interspersed with battles that would make Star Wars look sedate and some hideously smart but funny AI's.
I'm not sure why so many people bag on 'I, Robot' so much.
Because it was written for the absolutely lowest common denominator. It was very predictable, very dull, the plot made little sense, the product placement was so badly done as to actually undermine the characterisation and thematically it contradicted itself.
In reply to the parent, regarding it encouraging people to take up Asimov, if I were ignorant of his work, this film would have put me off. Contact, as you mention it, I saw first and read the book because of the film. I enjoyed both immensely.
But yeah, you're right in that this is all about trying to capitalize on the success of a plot idea in one medium, by hoping it will translate into success in another.
Actually my point was more along the lines of why do they need to pay huge fees to Microsoft for ideas that are common Sci-Fi standards. They don't need to.
I think the previous poster was right - they are paying solely for brand recognition. I just disagree that this is in any way worth 10% of takings and millions in advance. Instead, they could just make a good film and reviews and word of mouth would be worth ten times that.
If there's any marketing / advertising person at imdb who has to analyse the hits for various movies, I'd love to see them trying to puzzle out the/. anomalies.
"Hmmm... 2:10 EST, sudden massive spikes on Street Fighter and House of the Dead. What does it MEEEAANNN!!!!"
So what is so original about this game that a studio needs to pay for the rights rather than do a sci-fi movie from scratch?
My (very) vague knowledge of the game is that it is set in an ring-like orbital. Maybe they'd get a cheaper deal off Iain M. Banks as he has plenty of these in his Culture novels. That's assuming any sci-fi author is still willing to sell rights after 'I, Robot.':)
The easiest way to engineer a population of the willing is to sell the idea that the system functions as a democracy.
No, there is one easier way to get a population of the willing - stop fucking with people and let them do what they want. It's a myth that people can't govern themselves. With modern education, communications technology and organisational techniques we're perfectly able to make the government near redundant.
Top-down management is inefficient - distributed intelligence is where it's at.
I'm not overly concerned with children seeing violence or sex. I'm concerned with the dubious morality that goes with it.
In the Star Wars prequels (haven't seen the Ep.III), we see Jedi controlling people's minds to rob them (sell me the components I need), and murdering countless people. And this is shown as acceptable by virtue of them being the Good Guys (aka "our side").
There are many more subtle examples, but this is the concern, not that there is violence, but that it is the way to solve disputes. The hero is the hero because he is stronger than the bad guy. Wrong message.
Seriously though, the most effective form of government is a dictatorship. Any government based on freedom is bound to be (at least somewhat) inept and inefficient.
The most effective form of government is that which needs to govern least. Think of the effort and resources that must go into maintaining control and compelling people's obediance. A nation of the willing is so much more powerful. But your statement of inefficiency has a presumptution of what the purpose of a nation is. From the point of view of the majority it is to live a happy and fulfilled life. A dictatorship most certainly is not the most efficient way of achieving this (assuming it were possible). If you're presumption is that industrial productivity, GDP, etc. are the purpose of a nation (which is what I'm inferrring), then I think that you are still wrong. The US is only recently becoming a non-free society and for most of its history has been stupendously successful.
That's why the Republic looks slow, inept and complicated; while the Empire looks efficient, directed and simple.
No, that's because it's fiction produced by someone who shares your worldview.:)
His Dark Materials is hardly Sci-Fi but does have the non-linear and moral depth that you're looking for.
I'd worry about it being made into a film however, for the simple reason that the books upset so many religious people (and inversely delighted many anarchists); therefore the temptation of any big US movie studio will be to dilute the message of the books.
I couldn't see which studio was making it - don't have imdb paid membership. I could see that the production company began with 'Nev' however.
I hate to reply to such a rambling stream of consciousness...
I hate to point out the obvious (well, I hate the need to), but all your quoting of US laws is a little redundant so far as he's currently held in the UK.
Of course he's very worried about extradition to the US, citing examples such as Guantanamo Bay as evidence that he can't trust the US legal system.
And on a related note, what accounts for the $1billion damages? I'd wager a large part of that is plugging security holes that should not have been there in the first place. Although it's stated in the article that fixing the problem and tracking him down cost £570,000 pounds.
In fact, reading the article, I can find no reference to $1 billion. It's estimated that he may be fined £900,000 (that figure makes so much sense), but if that equates to $1 billion at the current exchange rate then I think I better get over there and buy a town. Editors not reading the story?
The difference is that these troublesome drugs are self-administered. Legislate against that and you've a problem. But this is something that would be used on others.
Think - you're not going to apply this chemical to make you more trusting, it'll be used on others. It's a chemical assault and should be illegal.
An interesting place to find debate on this sort of stuff is here
Oh absolutely. I'm not going to argue details over whether your catalytic converter is good or bad from an environmental point of view - it would distract from the actual debate.
I do see your point and I agree that it's a question of what rules society sets. We differ on whether setting rules on something like your cat is the same in principle as setting rules on something like anonymity.
Differences are the following:
1. There is a confirmed and unvarying negative effect from your CAT (debate aside, we can substitute something else if you like). With anonymity it is a case of presumed guilt and punishment on the basis of a possible negative.
2. A limit on something like the CAT is not a limit on your freedom in the same sense that recording your behaviour in a giant database is, in that the latter is much more far reaching and is ill-defined in its effects. At least you know the consequences of tearing out your CAT. They say, "you did this, your punishment is that." It is under judicial control. A government profile on you is not. If someone is looking at you on a list and seeing that you visited politically sensitive sites and this is influencing their behaviour to you, then that is something that is outside of judicial control. Punishment by opinion, politics and power.
3. The CAT is something that affects the mass of humanity (again subsitute pissing in the resevoir or whatever if environmental damage from a CAT is in dispute). It is something with negative consequences for us all. Anonymity is a negative consequence for a select few (those in power). Should laws be instituted for the benefit of the mass of people or for the power elite? I firmly believe in the former and the category difference between the CAT and anonymity is clear to me.
I hope this clarifies my position and helps you see my point of view. You're point about society making the rules may be valid, but I believe it is a small (and rich) sub-group of society that is making these rules at the expense of the rest.
All this in the spirit of reasoned debate to arrive at the Truth, rather than for the sake of an argument.:)
-Harmony.
Slashdot Mirror
I would use preview but I can't get it to work in Pytunes.
Score a few more extra sales that Apple has made out of it.
Well, ditch the first point I made then.
Btw, ribbet?
I'm happy for people to disagree with me, so long as it is not because they haven't understood me or because they want to "win" regardless of truth.
And I believe that you have and you don't, so we'll leave it in amicable irreconcilability.
Have a good evening,
-H.
My question to you is, why are all of your posts towards me regarding the so-called decorum of posting here while none of them are discussing the actual content of the thread?
Because I believe that we should use reasoned debate to get across our points rather than invective. Contrary to your view, I do not believe that you have to fight fire with fire. You will not convince your "opponent" with aggression (fire), but you might persuade many people who are reading both sides to your own by not doing so. In view of that, I wished to point out the inconsistency in what you were saying.
However, you do have a point in that I haven't contributed anything to the subject matter so I'll state my opinion now. We will have to agree to disagree however, as it isn't in line with your own.
The poster that you originally replied to said that a tv series would dilute the "myth" because we would see the same plots being recycled. I think this is likely to be true because (a) Lucas and crew will have limited ideas and (b) if the characters are not going to change much over the course of the series, which would mess up the cannon, then you keep having to return them to their starting position / character.
When you have created something good then you stop and let it be. You don't keep hawking it forever until the original value is buried in needless detail.
You raised the issue of midichlorians. The original poster that you accused of having a limited imagination on the subject had not previously mentioned them. But in your defense of them you listed several possible justifications of them. All of these justifications seemed to have little foundation in the movies. Yes - you can use them, but without their support in the films, you are loaning the film some credibility. A good story shouldn't depend on the viewer helping to prop it up.
All that I saw in EpI, was the Force go from something mysterious and universal to a measurable genetic trait. The problem with this is that previously, the Force seems in some way part of a person's essential being, and now it is something that I could probably get in a blood transfusion. Essentially, it removes the characters' responsibility by making what was previously an important part of them, merely a birthright.
Your opinion may vary, of course, but I hope mine doesn't interfere with your enjoyment. Equally, I hope you can see where I'm coming from.
You say they'll just offshore to the next cheapest country, well it's not that simple, language and education are huge barriers. The Indians have the language thanks to the British Empire and they have the education,
The British Empire has been and gone and to illustrate, there are plenty of Indians who speak German, French, Spanish (or Chinese). The modern knowledge of English has more to do with the US's economic power than and legacy of Empire.
There are two important differences between the US outsourcing to India and India outsourcing to China. Firstly, India has much more of a "buffer" of poor people in their own country, so why outsource abroad? Secondly, it may prove that the businessmen of India care more about their own country than those of the US do about theirs.
US capitalist values are not all encompasing yet; and if the Indians can maintain some love of country in the presence of wealth, then they may become a mighty nation indeed.
I told him to sit down. Now I tell you the same.
Aren't you the pleasant one? The thing is that you can tell anyone to sit down on
So tell me, how do you reconcile telling someone to sit down (i.e. shut up) with "I didn't say the grandparent didn't have the right to say something." Or how do reconcile that with "he doesn't get to trash SW" and "rebuking" him for doing so? All your words.
So you see mate, I can follow the threads quite adequately thank you. And I believe I have used reasoned debate quite effectively also.
Which as I pointed out at the beginning, is a great deal more effective in winning people to my side than telling people to "sit down,"
Then your defense of the parent poster is equally idiotic. He had his say, I confounded it. You are merely a peanut gallery poster. Sit down, elephant.
Important logical difference between your argument and his. He stated his opinion. You stated that he should keep his opinion to himself. Putting up your own opinion in contrast to someone else, is different to saying someone elses is invalid.
Disclaimer: I think Midichlorians are stupid.
"I suppose people think that I am . . . over the top!"
The correct line began (delivered into a microphone with full on God base echo effect) "If knowledge is power, then truly a god AM I!" followed by a cheerful - "was that over the top? I can never tell."
Jim Carey was one of two good things in that film, the other being the U2 soundtrack. Everything else in it was dire.
what is the threshold of use that determines whether you should have to pay for software?
/. would argue it is their right, but most would say society had every right to kick his door down and take it. In fact this situation exists - it's the US pharmaceuticals industries vs. poorer countries. A good example of the principle we use to draw your threshold.
The threshold is found at the high-point of the graph of piracy vs. social benefit.
When measures to prevent piracy are more damaging to us then the allowance of piracy then we stop and accept a level of piracy. I'm thinking of obvious things like DRM, but also less obvious things such as a company getting too powerful and restricting choice.
Where the line is drawn is open to fine dispute, but that is the principle. Someone could discover a universal cure for cancer tomorrow and decide not to sell it at all, or only to their friends. Some people here on
You could also look at setting this threshold according to need. If you regard MS Office as a luxury item, then there is no threshold. But if you regard understanding of how to use it as a need in the modern world, then maybe you would say that those who can't afford it do have a right to pirate it. Losing out on an education because you're poor is not a good statement about society.
Just illustrating ideas about where you would define the threshold.
Banks is still alive and churning them slowly out. If you haven't read any, then you'd probably enjoy them very much. They err on the side of low-key though. Also, the first one is poor but he improved rapidly. He's a sci-fi writer who can do both ideas and people.
I think I'd be very afraid of a film treatment however. A faithful adaptation would be mostly like the first of the Aliens movies, without the Alien bits - lots of talking, lots of beautiful sweeping shots, interspersed with battles that would make Star Wars look sedate and some hideously smart but funny AI's.
I'm not sure why so many people bag on 'I, Robot' so much.
Because it was written for the absolutely lowest common denominator. It was very predictable, very dull, the plot made little sense, the product placement was so badly done as to actually undermine the characterisation and thematically it contradicted itself.
In reply to the parent, regarding it encouraging people to take up Asimov, if I were ignorant of his work, this film would have put me off. Contact, as you mention it, I saw first and read the book because of the film. I enjoyed both immensely.
But yeah, you're right in that this is all about trying to capitalize on the success of a plot idea in one medium, by hoping it will translate into success in another.
Actually my point was more along the lines of why do they need to pay huge fees to Microsoft for ideas that are common Sci-Fi standards. They don't need to.
I think the previous poster was right - they are paying solely for brand recognition. I just disagree that this is in any way worth 10% of takings and millions in advance. Instead, they could just make a good film and reviews and word of mouth would be worth ten times that.
In case you aren't aware, some of the
/. anomalies.
great
masterpieces
of the
modern
era
are based on video games.
If there's any marketing / advertising person at imdb who has to analyse the hits for various movies, I'd love to see them trying to puzzle out the
"Hmmm... 2:10 EST, sudden massive spikes on Street Fighter and House of the Dead. What does it MEEEAANNN!!!!"
So what is so original about this game that a studio needs to pay for the rights rather than do a sci-fi movie from scratch?
My (very) vague knowledge of the game is that it is set in an ring-like orbital. Maybe they'd get a cheaper deal off Iain M. Banks as he has plenty of these in his Culture novels. That's assuming any sci-fi author is still willing to sell rights after 'I, Robot.'
The easiest way to engineer a population of the willing is to sell the idea that the system functions as a democracy.
No, there is one easier way to get a population of the willing - stop fucking with people and let them do what they want. It's a myth that people can't govern themselves. With modern education, communications technology and organisational techniques we're perfectly able to make the government near redundant.
Top-down management is inefficient - distributed intelligence is where it's at.
Seems a little ironic that a project that provides anonymity should be hindred by patent infringements.
I'm not overly concerned with children seeing violence or sex. I'm concerned with the dubious morality that goes with it.
In the Star Wars prequels (haven't seen the Ep.III), we see Jedi controlling people's minds to rob them (sell me the components I need), and murdering countless people. And this is shown as acceptable by virtue of them being the Good Guys (aka "our side").
There are many more subtle examples, but this is the concern, not that there is violence, but that it is the way to solve disputes. The hero is the hero because he is stronger than the bad guy. Wrong message.
Seriously though, the most effective form of government is a dictatorship. Any government based on freedom is bound to be (at least somewhat) inept and inefficient.
The most effective form of government is that which needs to govern least. Think of the effort and resources that must go into maintaining control and compelling people's obediance. A nation of the willing is so much more powerful. But your statement of inefficiency has a presumptution of what the purpose of a nation is. From the point of view of the majority it is to live a happy and fulfilled life. A dictatorship most certainly is not the most efficient way of achieving this (assuming it were possible). If you're presumption is that industrial productivity, GDP, etc. are the purpose of a nation (which is what I'm inferrring), then I think that you are still wrong. The US is only recently becoming a non-free society and for most of its history has been stupendously successful.
That's why the Republic looks slow, inept and complicated; while the Empire looks efficient, directed and simple.
No, that's because it's fiction produced by someone who shares your worldview.
His Dark Materials is hardly Sci-Fi but does have the non-linear and moral depth that you're looking for.
I'd worry about it being made into a film however, for the simple reason that the books upset so many religious people (and inversely delighted many anarchists); therefore the temptation of any big US movie studio will be to dilute the message of the books.
I couldn't see which studio was making it - don't have imdb paid membership. I could see that the production company began with 'Nev' however.
By that logic, cowardly people are worth more than courageous people.
I hate to reply to such a rambling stream of consciousness...
I hate to point out the obvious (well, I hate the need to), but all your quoting of US laws is a little redundant so far as he's currently held in the UK.
Of course he's very worried about extradition to the US, citing examples such as Guantanamo Bay as evidence that he can't trust the US legal system.
And on a related note, what accounts for the $1billion damages? I'd wager a large part of that is plugging security holes that should not have been there in the first place. Although it's stated in the article that fixing the problem and tracking him down cost £570,000 pounds.
In fact, reading the article, I can find no reference to $1 billion. It's estimated that he may be fined £900,000 (that figure makes so much sense), but if that equates to $1 billion at the current exchange rate then I think I better get over there and buy a town. Editors not reading the story?
The difference is that these troublesome drugs are self-administered. Legislate against that and you've a problem. But this is something that would be used on others.
Think - you're not going to apply this chemical to make you more trusting, it'll be used on others. It's a chemical assault and should be illegal.
An interesting place to find debate on this sort of stuff is here
So people who like to do this, when they get their hands on the DNA version...
Eeek.
but you must understand what I mean.
Oh absolutely. I'm not going to argue details over whether your catalytic converter is good or bad from an environmental point of view - it would distract from the actual debate.
I do see your point and I agree that it's a question of what rules society sets. We differ on whether setting rules on something like your cat is the same in principle as setting rules on something like anonymity.
Differences are the following:
1. There is a confirmed and unvarying negative effect from your CAT (debate aside, we can substitute something else if you like). With anonymity it is a case of presumed guilt and punishment on the basis of a possible negative.
2. A limit on something like the CAT is not a limit on your freedom in the same sense that recording your behaviour in a giant database is, in that the latter is much more far reaching and is ill-defined in its effects. At least you know the consequences of tearing out your CAT. They say, "you did this, your punishment is that." It is under judicial control. A government profile on you is not. If someone is looking at you on a list and seeing that you visited politically sensitive sites and this is influencing their behaviour to you, then that is something that is outside of judicial control. Punishment by opinion, politics and power.
3. The CAT is something that affects the mass of humanity (again subsitute pissing in the resevoir or whatever if environmental damage from a CAT is in dispute). It is something with negative consequences for us all. Anonymity is a negative consequence for a select few (those in power). Should laws be instituted for the benefit of the mass of people or for the power elite? I firmly believe in the former and the category difference between the CAT and anonymity is clear to me.
I hope this clarifies my position and helps you see my point of view. You're point about society making the rules may be valid, but I believe it is a small (and rich) sub-group of society that is making these rules at the expense of the rest.
All this in the spirit of reasoned debate to arrive at the Truth, rather than for the sake of an argument.
-Harmony.