People, societies, companies and humanity in general will only cooperate/compete fairly when it is beneficial for everyone to do so...
I think what you mean to say here is "People, societies, companies and humanity in general will only cooperate/compete fairly when it is the most beneficial for people in power to do so..."
There are two important differences here I am trying to highlight. First it's not a mater of being beneficial to all of humanity, because if there is a way for people to benefit themselves more than those around them they will. The whole judgment of quality of life is how we compare ourselves to our neighbors. Secondly it doesn't mater what people want unless they are the ones in power. I'm not saying that if you are currently in power you should sit on you hands and wait for the end to come, but I am saying that if "the people" want what is beneficial to them they would need to seize power.
I could argue the benefits cooperative societal structures but this doesn't seem the right place.
I think you are way of on the amount of crossover. Of my direct associates greater than 50% own HDTVs already and have been looking forward to more HD content. Most of those with HDTVs are gamers (or have gamer children) as well. For gamers with HDTVs there really is no better choice, from what we know so far, than the PS3. You end up with a comparable Game machine (best or near best in terms of raw power and game publisher/developer support) plus a 1/2 priced Hi Definition video player (Blu-Ray). For the portion of us that are also Software developers (a significant number) you also get Linux as well as new architecture (that may or may not have future applications), and this is a significant factor to many technologically savvy consumers.
So to sum it up. if you are a Software Developer (or hobbyist programmer) with and HDTV and are a gamer (or have gamers in your family) then the functionality of the PS3 is a great fit, even more so of the relatively low cost. I don't have hard statistics but I would say that is a fairly significant demographic, at least as significant as the "slashdot reader" demographic.
As much as you are correct about file systems, I would argue that what you are saying is just an excuse for poor OS and File System Design. Wether you want to make automatic de-fragmentation a part of the File System or the OS I really don't care, but the user should NEVER have to manually trigger de-fragmentation of a storage device. This can be accomplished in multiple ways. The easy solution for backwards compatibility with antiquated file systems would be to have the OS use idle cycles to handle de-fragmentation (Rarely is someone using all their systems, cpu or otherwise, cycles for long periods of time. ). I don't like that solution but it would work. The better solution would be to devise a file system algorithm were fragmentation of files does not degrade seek time or over all system performance.
These problems all stem from the usual numerous layers of abstraction added to todays computer design, the root of which is the constant pessimization in software design.
Why is you OS "fragging" your storage. I always thought "frag" was a bad thing when it happened to you, but for some reason Windows users find it acceptable that there OS is "fragging" them regularly. I just chose to use a OS that either does not "frag" my system, or is stable enough that being "fragged" doesn't have any noticeable effect.
Yes I know what fragmentation is, but haven't had a fragmentation problem since I stopped using Windows (specifically FAT, though NTFS isn't that much better).
I must be the only one left that thinks the traditional handheld design is superior to something like the DS. Folding out is a pain in the ass, just make the screen more durable. Stylus and touch screen might have its place, but I can't see why you would need a second screen rather than one screen large enough to be split if needed,make the whole thing touch screen but never require touch screen. Honestly your hands should never have to move their location on the device to play a game.
I don't think the PSP is the end-all-be-all of handheld design, but if I travelled regularly I would much rather have a PSP than a DS, from a purely design perspective. The addition of a second analog stick and potentially more use of the 6 other figures I have available would certainly make it even more user friendly.
I was trying to avoid getting into details on why each of the listed technologies failed or succeeded. After all Sony was bound to be a big winner in the VCR wars regardless of which format won since VHS was based in part on technology licensed from Sony. In the end, all the technologies I listed, were replaced because of the ambiguity of their competing products not on any core competency. I mean after all in the history of VCRs there was a period of time where BetaMax actually had a longer recording time than VHS, but it didn't help.
I'm not going to speculate wether the PS3 is going to succeed or fail, but I will point out a few things that people often miss.
Sony is not a new company, and regardless of the focus on their failures these days, they have had some very successful product lines. I remember when Sony's Walkman brand was synonymous with portable music players, and this was from the early 80s until the rise in popularity of MP3 players. PlayStation all but replaced the phrase "Game Console" in it's first two incarnations. That may be an extreem, but by market share in number of households, no other console comes close world wide (Note I said console not handheld). Sony ruled the MMORPG space for a few years prior to the inroads made by Blizzard. On top of all that they still have a successful cell phone, television and car audio business, which are nothing to balk at.
Now where I really differ from the common slashbot is the idea of quality of choice. Sony has historically be a driving force in many superior technologies that ultimately failed, not because of quality but because the, all be it sometimes justified, fear of monopolies. BetaMax was superior in quality to VHS, MiniDisk Was superior to CD and now BlueRay is superior to HD-DVD (though that has yet to be shown in the real world). And as much as people argue it, the PS2 was the only previous generation game console capable of 1080i resolution, and certainly the only console to actually have a game released that was capable of such resolution. And also, as much as it has slipped some over the years, Sony's quality control for the games released for their consoles has been better than any other manufacturer.
So take what you hear or read with a grain of salt, even from me, because the majority of the populous doesn't know what DRM is, they don't care if you can't read from graphic memory at a high rate (and really who would), and a $600 price tag, to shut up their kids for a while, is a very small price to pay since it's still far cheaper than a go-cart, minibike, ATV, Decent TV, laptop, swimming pool, car, or any of the numerous other childhood extravagances people pay good money for.
I don't think that comparisons between Online RPGs and Table Top RPGS is really relevant, and it's said that we are even trying to make the comparison. Online RPGs are really pigeon-holed into having some sort of hard and fast rules behind their character design and development, which is only further hampered by the concepts of PvP, Pay for use, and utter lack of consequence (as in "altered snakes of"). It's great to show the history of RPGs and transitions to and from skill and class based systems, or hybrids there of, but this hides the even better lose and open ended systems such as Atlas Games "Over the Edge". "Over the Edge" has no set list of classes or skills and encourages the player to come up with new and unique ids, and in a world were anything is possible, this can lead to some very creative thinking. But a system like this in unfeasible in an Online RPG, which is too bad, and one of the reasons I avoid Online RPGs.
To even call most MMORPGs (not all) RPGs is really stretching the term (or translating it Roll Playing and not Role Playing). The argument would be a mote point it the comparison between TT and Online were actually comparable, since the game would not continually devolve into one long dungeon crawl with chat capability.
For every "X is more reliable than Y" story out there you will find a "Y is more reliable than X." Now I can't say my XBox is more or less reliable than my PS1, PSOne or PS2, but that's only because I have never owned an XBox (and won't until they make a far superior system with games I'm actually interested in playing). But What I can say is that I agree Sony makes crappy Optical drives, always have, but oddly enough of my sony products, only one failed (my day one PS2), which failed 3 years after purchasing and was fixed free of charge, leaving me without it for less than a week. Searching the web has shown the the biggest problem the PS2 had was fixable in 10 minutes with a screwdriver.
So far, my experiences with Sony and Microsoft show me that sony is more likely to actually take care of there clients/consumers, where on the other hand, microsoft will tell you to fuck off and charge you while doing it.
If only all the Libertarians... and all other people lacking in self motivation... just moved into a virtual world to create their wet dream survival of the fittest dystopias and let us decent people build something better together in reality.
I always snicker a little when people think that all inventions where brought about by monetary motivation. The number of altruistic inventors is to long to list, but names like Carver, Turing, Torvalds, Cierva, Hadley, Lun, Einstein, Tesla, Archimedes and Pythagoras would certainly be there. Most inventions stem from the motivation of making life easier or better, be it for oneself or others. Heck the computers we are all using to type these post came from that same motivation. Computers where considered toys no one would pay for, for quite some time.
If you are cynical and lazy then you will see money as the only motivator. Good thing the brightest tend to be or optimistic than that.
I went to an EB Games once to pick up a game first day and they said I had to have a pre order. So I walked to the other end of the mall, bought the game I was looking for, walked back and informed the manager of EB I would not be purchasing anything from his store in the future. I have stuck to that to this day and that was a few years ago. I'm not a capitalist at heart, but I know how to vote with my money and word of mouth.
You may need a little background on Sam Vaknin before you can fully understand his point of view and Bias. Vaknin wrote a very informative book of the subject of Pathological Narcissism and Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Vaknin's research of Pathological Narcissism has lead him to be, in some peoples eyes, one of the worlds most knowledgeable experts on the subject. Vaknin is not a Psychologist, but he is a self proclaimed Narcissist. If you believe his proclamation of having Narcissistic Personality Disorder you have to take any of his opinions as being potentially suspect. His complaint against wikipedia came up when he potentially violated the No Original Research rule by adding his own personal modifications to the DSM criteria. Interestingly enough, Vaknin, who claims to suffer from Narcissistic Personality Disorder, proposed adding "lying" to the DSM Criteria for Diagnosis of NPD. I'm not at all saying that Vaknin is right or wrong, but it seems to me his motivations are very self driven and have little if anything to do with the reality of wikipedia.
Please don't take my words as gospel truth and do your own research on Sam Vaknin.
"Race", on itself, does not even apply to humans (exept as a whole 'the human race') in a true scientific context.
This is highly debated in scientific circles, as was clearly shown in the wikipedia articles I linked to. Some scientist, biological and anthropological, believe that there are separate "races" of humans, and there may even be sub species. The point is the term "redneck" can be interpreted as racist based on modern english definition and science, so to say that it is not racist is an incorrect statement. If the statement was that "redneck" does not need to be used in a racist way I might give a little, but in fact it was used at the beginning of this thread to reference a government lead by a ex-resident of "the southern part of the USA".
Thus, once one agrees that 'redneck' is not solely confined to location of the southern part of the USA, nor to one country, nor to one common history...- then logic dictates 'redneck' can not be considered a racist term.
But this goes back to what I have said already about it's comparison to the word "nigger" (damn I have not used that word as much in my whole life as I have in this thread). In current usage "nigger" has been used as a reference to a close friend, as in "my nigger", regardless of race. Does this mean the word "nigger" is not racist? (It doesn't matter if you pronounce it with a hard "r" or an "a" the only official word is "nigger" not "nigga"). "Nigger" is also used to reference many people with dark skin, not just those of a particular geographic area. Read the prior wikipedia articles and you will see that, of the scientists that define race, only one group considers Africans and aboriginal Australians to be of the same race.
I don't disagree that this is entirely a semantic issue. But I think this issue is really not with an understanding of "Redneck" but instead with the understanding of race. If you look back a few posts you will see I reprinted one of the definitions of race from, also from dictionary.com. Which is "A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution." If we put this together with the definition of racism that you provided we get:
Discrimination or prejudice based on a group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution.
My point is that you could probably find a definition that made even the word "nigger" a non-racist term (in some definitions of race it is not racist because it can be used to refer to all people of dark skin regardless of race), but that would be looking at a very narrow definition and would miss the larger meaning. Just because "blue" can be used to mean "low in spirits" it doesn't mean that the sky is not blue.
According to wikipedia (which may or may not be a definitive source):
In modern usage, the term redneck predominantly refers to a particular stereotype of individuals living in Appalachia, the Southern United States, the Ozarks, and later the Rocky Mountain States.
"Rednecks" are largely descendants of the Ulster-Scots and Lowland Scots immigrants who travelled to North America from Northern Ireland and Scotland in the late 17th and 18th centuries.
"Redneck", like the word nigger, has two general uses: firstly, as a pejorative for outsiders, and secondly as a term used by members within that group. To outsiders, generally, it is a term for those of Southern or Appalachian rural poor backgrounds, or more loosely, rural poor to working-class persons of rural extraction.
I would say, descendant from scotland and ireland, is more geographically similar than descendant from Algeria, Ethiopia, Egypt, Arabia, Australia (yes there are native people of black skin in Australia), some smaller island nations and the rest of africa
Just because you and some others do not know the meaning of the word does not mean that it is not racist.
Since you refused to read the articles I posted reference to, I figure it may be easier for you to understand if I cut and pasted one of the many definitions of race directly from The American Heritage Dictionary:
2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution.
Anyone with even basic understanding of english will see that the term race can be used to reference any group of people that have similar traits be it physical, regional or even historical. The is no scientific consensus as to what makes up a race among humans, or if there even are different races among humans. Personally I don't make much distinction between one form of discrimination and another, but if you are going to argue semantics with people it is best to actually know all the officially accepted meanings of the words you are using.
I have also seen many white people call other white people "nigger" but that doesn't make the word any less racist.
Who uses the term redneck to describe rednecks? WHITE PEOPLE. How the fuck can a white person be racist against a white person?
So what you are saying is that "nigger" is not a racist term. I mean after all "Who uses the term nigger to describe niggers? BLACK PEOPLE. How the fuck can a black person be racist against a black person?"
You are confusing "race" with "color." Here are a couple references you might do well to read.
If the current US administration is behind creating new WMDs then they are probably just trying to figure out how to get them to kill only people with brown skin.
That explains why your arguments for or against the copyright system are so much more understandable than the others else where in this thread. My knowledge of copyright is mostly in games and music, so my comments on other sectors are based on the understanding I have from those. I know that in performing arts the design (be it play-writing, music composition, etc...) can be covered by separate copyright than the performance (which is seen in the fact that lyrics and musical records are registered separately with the US copyright office). This would lead to the assumption that an actors performance can be protected by copyright as much as a writer or directory, if the letter of the law where to be upheld.
The fact that a person can be considered an employee with out a written employment agreement is probably a flaw in contract law or employment law (if such a thing exists). I personally have not held a job with any copyrightable aspect with out having a written employment agreement clearly outlining what is or is not a work for hire and what rights of intellectual property I transfer to the employer (I have turned down jobs for restrictive intellectual property clauses). Here my personal experience may be way out of bounds of what most employees deal with in their jobs.
But honestly I never intended to argue the details of copyright law, just the validity and necessity of it in a capitalist society and therefor the need to protect a persons means of economic security. I have previously argued that the anti-copyright movement is going to cause there to be even more stringent rules around property, making all easily replicated works licensed for use rather than purchased. I do honestly see it happening as it has already happened in software and will soon happen in games and potentially music. When it does you can throw copyright law out the window since you will have to abide by a specific contract agreement with the content provider not any general law that protects all members society equally. But again this doesn't really bother me since I only enjoy work of artists I am willing to pay the price they or their agents want for it.
I appriciate that you have admited that your issues with copyright are entirely self intrest, unlike many others that think it is somehow for the betterment of society. I am not entirely against self interest since it is the root of survival in an a capitalist system, my only point was that with out this self intrest we would not have the amount of art that we have available today. Oh and not all members of society are self interested, just so happens that most succesful memebers of capitalist societies are self interested. (as if this is even worth debating)
And I pointed out that it has never been easier for pirates than authors, whatever the level of technology was at any point in time.
I guess that is true if you do not take economics into account. Historically it was only economically viable to create copies of works if you were able to pay for very larger scale replications. With current technology it cost less than a minimum wage workers week of pay to mass reproduce digital works. When the printing press first came out it took highly skilled individuals and wealthy families resources to mass reproduce written works. Today it takes a $100 or less scanner/copier and a copy of "[this or that] for dummies".
...but don't forget that the system has to please the public too.
No it doesn't, and you would be niave to beleive so. The system only needs to please those that control the wealth and economic systems. It doesn't mater if a 100 million minimum wage workers are pleased with the system, as long as the spend happy middle class is. I don't have any statistics to show who is or is not happen, but you can see historically that the public does not need to be satisfied by any system.
It's rare to be able to have a contract that creates a work made for hire situation.
You have a very narrow view of copyright and works for hire. Every software developer, a large industry, or designer of a manufactured item is producing a work for hire under copyright law. Us Copyright law defines a work for hire as, among other things, "a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment." This is the majority of all copyrighted work in the United states. Every time your sign an employement agreement you are agreeing to a contract that creates a work for hire situation. Technically without an employement agreement you have not transfered (or if you prefer, agreed to give up) any copyright. This is very much applicable to the Video Game industry. Also most other artistic industries, Music and Video for example, also include contracts that transfer copyrights to the commisioning organization. This is what keeps actors from remainging the copyright holders of their performaces.
My familiarty with copyright and intelectually property law is pretty extensive, for not being in the legal profesion, and I would be willing to find you many quotes and case law to back up my statements if I need to.
Everyone always seems to forget that ownership of capital by labor...is completely different from government socialism.
Lets not say completely. Governmental socialism, if such a thing exists, is similar in may respects to Libertarian Socialism, or Anarcho-syndiclism, both of which are systems where in labor controls resource (I can't say labor controling capital since both denounce the idea of capital). Both Libretarian Socialism also does not specifically support to complete removal of government, only that the will of the people determines the direction of government.
Just trying to clear it up for people who think Authoritarianism and Socialism have to go hand and hand.
I finally understand why this argument is going no where, and probably never will. Personally I'm not going to argue ethics, those are to be left up to religions and philosopher. My argument is one of human well being and that all humans have a right to survive on their skills and work.
That being said I'll make a few economic arguments and leave it alone from here.
I would not presume to tell anyone why the produce art, but I also do not think that we should enforce a single way of handling it. Interestingly enough the US copyright system allows for a person, if they so chose, to release any work they create into the public domain for free copying by all people. If an artist choses to do so then I support that whole heartedly, but they should not be required to do so. If you think all people should release works into the public domain, don't infringe the rights of those that don't, just chose to not support them.
The cost of making an artistic work known to a wide audiance is still expensive, even in the internet age. Most musicians still receive there widest audiance from radio, free or other wise, not from the internet. It is possible with lots of searching to find decent independant artists on internet, I do it regularly, but not nearly as easy as listening to the radio. I would being willing to bet that Word of mouth is still more effective in spreading knowledge of new artists than the the internet (word of mouth including any form or personal communication).
The last thing I have to say is I can't see how reducing the duration of copyright from 5-10 years will have much effect. I'm not against it at all, but the pirates and others looking to infringe copyright will be unaffected by it. Most copying of copyrighted materials happens in the first year, let alon 5-10, after which they are mostly forgoten and the artists or publishers are not expecting much further return on their initial investment. I am agian willing to bet that the effect of such change would be negligable on the music and game industries, since after 10 years there are usually enough used copies floating around that no one is buying new copys anyway, if the publisher is even making new copies.
I like all your points, and I don't feel they are against what I am saying. One of the big thing that all copyright abolishment supporters forget is that it is possible for artistic works to be released to the public domain through licensing. If this form of licensing is benefitial to the artist then people will use it. If you look around you will seen that some artists have done so, mostly writers, but usually for select works and not every work the artist has produced.
I have never said that a person should be forced to protect ther work through copyright, but that they should be allowed the choice to do so under the current system of economics. Most of these arguments are against the MPAA and the RIAA. I have never known an artist who had no choice but to work through or with members of these associations. I know artists that release independant works, they all still maintain their own copyrights, but they have chosen to do so individually. The RIAA and MPAA are not some fascist regime that controls all media in this or any country. Blame the artists if you don't like the way they use the system, but the system itself is not out to hurt anyone.
I can burn a CD, but it takes a few minutes and the discs cost a few cents. Publishers that are making tens of thousands of CDs will just get them stamped out at a factory for a much lower cost, taking advantage of economies of scale; it would be more costly for them to burn them.
Again, I agree on every point, but as usual there is information missing. When you , at your own home, copy a CD, you have only paid for the cost of the media and the machine to make the copy., nothing at all has gone to the artist, the producer, the engineer, the original master, the recording studio, or anything else involved in the original recording, not to mention the costs involved in the publicity needed for you to even know the recording exists. Yes, all these others have been paid for by a publisher, but a publisher will not continue to do so if they can not make even the slightest profit on future recordings. Most people who support unauthorized copying of works, or the abolishment of copyright law, usually have no clue what cost in resources have already been paid out just to get that original copy in their hands.
... even if there were no copyright applicable (and in fact, there wasn't for quite a while) the artist is still doing better if he can manage to sell even one record. One is better than zero.
This is only true if the single copy is sold at or above the cost to produce the original copy. As time has gone on the ability to produce moderate quality works has come way down, since it can be done on a simple home computer and some fairly cheap software. Producing high quality audio records, not to mention the cost of video games and movies, cost a lot more than a person is willing to spend on a single copy, if they could even find a buyer.
No, because merely ordering a commission doesn't involve any transfer of the copyright.
This is true, there are many differen terms to contractual agreements for works for hire, or other comissioned works. But this brings up my point about different arts being treated differently. Recorded arts and digital arts (music, games and movies) are nearly always a work for hire with transfer of copyright (music is often somewhere in between). Publishers own the copyrights to may artists works, that is how they make the resources they need to continue the publication of works.
Oh and just as a note, archaic may have be an incorect word to use, not because of it's actual meaning but because of modern interpretation of the word.
Slashdot Mirror
There are two important differences here I am trying to highlight. First it's not a mater of being beneficial to all of humanity, because if there is a way for people to benefit themselves more than those around them they will. The whole judgment of quality of life is how we compare ourselves to our neighbors. Secondly it doesn't mater what people want unless they are the ones in power. I'm not saying that if you are currently in power you should sit on you hands and wait for the end to come, but I am saying that if "the people" want what is beneficial to them they would need to seize power.
I could argue the benefits cooperative societal structures but this doesn't seem the right place.
I think you are way of on the amount of crossover. Of my direct associates greater than 50% own HDTVs already and have been looking forward to more HD content. Most of those with HDTVs are gamers (or have gamer children) as well. For gamers with HDTVs there really is no better choice, from what we know so far, than the PS3. You end up with a comparable Game machine (best or near best in terms of raw power and game publisher/developer support) plus a 1/2 priced Hi Definition video player (Blu-Ray). For the portion of us that are also Software developers (a significant number) you also get Linux as well as new architecture (that may or may not have future applications), and this is a significant factor to many technologically savvy consumers.
So to sum it up. if you are a Software Developer (or hobbyist programmer) with and HDTV and are a gamer (or have gamers in your family) then the functionality of the PS3 is a great fit, even more so of the relatively low cost. I don't have hard statistics but I would say that is a fairly significant demographic, at least as significant as the "slashdot reader" demographic.
As much as you are correct about file systems, I would argue that what you are saying is just an excuse for poor OS and File System Design. Wether you want to make automatic de-fragmentation a part of the File System or the OS I really don't care, but the user should NEVER have to manually trigger de-fragmentation of a storage device. This can be accomplished in multiple ways. The easy solution for backwards compatibility with antiquated file systems would be to have the OS use idle cycles to handle de-fragmentation (Rarely is someone using all their systems, cpu or otherwise, cycles for long periods of time. ). I don't like that solution but it would work. The better solution would be to devise a file system algorithm were fragmentation of files does not degrade seek time or over all system performance.
These problems all stem from the usual numerous layers of abstraction added to todays computer design, the root of which is the constant pessimization in software design.
Why is you OS "fragging" your storage. I always thought "frag" was a bad thing when it happened to you, but for some reason Windows users find it acceptable that there OS is "fragging" them regularly. I just chose to use a OS that either does not "frag" my system, or is stable enough that being "fragged" doesn't have any noticeable effect.
Yes I know what fragmentation is, but haven't had a fragmentation problem since I stopped using Windows (specifically FAT, though NTFS isn't that much better).
Union
I must be the only one left that thinks the traditional handheld design is superior to something like the DS. Folding out is a pain in the ass, just make the screen more durable. Stylus and touch screen might have its place, but I can't see why you would need a second screen rather than one screen large enough to be split if needed,make the whole thing touch screen but never require touch screen. Honestly your hands should never have to move their location on the device to play a game.
I don't think the PSP is the end-all-be-all of handheld design, but if I travelled regularly I would much rather have a PSP than a DS, from a purely design perspective. The addition of a second analog stick and potentially more use of the 6 other figures I have available would certainly make it even more user friendly.
I was trying to avoid getting into details on why each of the listed technologies failed or succeeded. After all Sony was bound to be a big winner in the VCR wars regardless of which format won since VHS was based in part on technology licensed from Sony. In the end, all the technologies I listed, were replaced because of the ambiguity of their competing products not on any core competency. I mean after all in the history of VCRs there was a period of time where BetaMax actually had a longer recording time than VHS, but it didn't help.
I'm not going to speculate wether the PS3 is going to succeed or fail, but I will point out a few things that people often miss.
Sony is not a new company, and regardless of the focus on their failures these days, they have had some very successful product lines. I remember when Sony's Walkman brand was synonymous with portable music players, and this was from the early 80s until the rise in popularity of MP3 players. PlayStation all but replaced the phrase "Game Console" in it's first two incarnations. That may be an extreem, but by market share in number of households, no other console comes close world wide (Note I said console not handheld). Sony ruled the MMORPG space for a few years prior to the inroads made by Blizzard. On top of all that they still have a successful cell phone, television and car audio business, which are nothing to balk at.
Now where I really differ from the common slashbot is the idea of quality of choice. Sony has historically be a driving force in many superior technologies that ultimately failed, not because of quality but because the, all be it sometimes justified, fear of monopolies. BetaMax was superior in quality to VHS, MiniDisk Was superior to CD and now BlueRay is superior to HD-DVD (though that has yet to be shown in the real world). And as much as people argue it, the PS2 was the only previous generation game console capable of 1080i resolution, and certainly the only console to actually have a game released that was capable of such resolution. And also, as much as it has slipped some over the years, Sony's quality control for the games released for their consoles has been better than any other manufacturer.
So take what you hear or read with a grain of salt, even from me, because the majority of the populous doesn't know what DRM is, they don't care if you can't read from graphic memory at a high rate (and really who would), and a $600 price tag, to shut up their kids for a while, is a very small price to pay since it's still far cheaper than a go-cart, minibike, ATV, Decent TV, laptop, swimming pool, car, or any of the numerous other childhood extravagances people pay good money for.
I don't think that comparisons between Online RPGs and Table Top RPGS is really relevant, and it's said that we are even trying to make the comparison. Online RPGs are really pigeon-holed into having some sort of hard and fast rules behind their character design and development, which is only further hampered by the concepts of PvP, Pay for use, and utter lack of consequence (as in "altered snakes of"). It's great to show the history of RPGs and transitions to and from skill and class based systems, or hybrids there of, but this hides the even better lose and open ended systems such as Atlas Games "Over the Edge". "Over the Edge" has no set list of classes or skills and encourages the player to come up with new and unique ids, and in a world were anything is possible, this can lead to some very creative thinking. But a system like this in unfeasible in an Online RPG, which is too bad, and one of the reasons I avoid Online RPGs.
To even call most MMORPGs (not all) RPGs is really stretching the term (or translating it Roll Playing and not Role Playing). The argument would be a mote point it the comparison between TT and Online were actually comparable, since the game would not continually devolve into one long dungeon crawl with chat capability.
For every "X is more reliable than Y" story out there you will find a "Y is more reliable than X." Now I can't say my XBox is more or less reliable than my PS1, PSOne or PS2, but that's only because I have never owned an XBox (and won't until they make a far superior system with games I'm actually interested in playing). But What I can say is that I agree Sony makes crappy Optical drives, always have, but oddly enough of my sony products, only one failed (my day one PS2), which failed 3 years after purchasing and was fixed free of charge, leaving me without it for less than a week. Searching the web has shown the the biggest problem the PS2 had was fixable in 10 minutes with a screwdriver.
So far, my experiences with Sony and Microsoft show me that sony is more likely to actually take care of there clients/consumers, where on the other hand, microsoft will tell you to fuck off and charge you while doing it.
If only all the Libertarians... and all other people lacking in self motivation... just moved into a virtual world to create their wet dream survival of the fittest dystopias and let us decent people build something better together in reality.
I always snicker a little when people think that all inventions where brought about by monetary motivation. The number of altruistic inventors is to long to list, but names like Carver, Turing, Torvalds, Cierva, Hadley, Lun, Einstein, Tesla, Archimedes and Pythagoras would certainly be there. Most inventions stem from the motivation of making life easier or better, be it for oneself or others. Heck the computers we are all using to type these post came from that same motivation. Computers where considered toys no one would pay for, for quite some time.
If you are cynical and lazy then you will see money as the only motivator. Good thing the brightest tend to be or optimistic than that.
I went to an EB Games once to pick up a game first day and they said I had to have a pre order. So I walked to the other end of the mall, bought the game I was looking for, walked back and informed the manager of EB I would not be purchasing anything from his store in the future. I have stuck to that to this day and that was a few years ago. I'm not a capitalist at heart, but I know how to vote with my money and word of mouth.
You may need a little background on Sam Vaknin before you can fully understand his point of view and Bias. Vaknin wrote a very informative book of the subject of Pathological Narcissism and Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Vaknin's research of Pathological Narcissism has lead him to be, in some peoples eyes, one of the worlds most knowledgeable experts on the subject. Vaknin is not a Psychologist, but he is a self proclaimed Narcissist. If you believe his proclamation of having Narcissistic Personality Disorder you have to take any of his opinions as being potentially suspect. His complaint against wikipedia came up when he potentially violated the No Original Research rule by adding his own personal modifications to the DSM criteria. Interestingly enough, Vaknin, who claims to suffer from Narcissistic Personality Disorder, proposed adding "lying" to the DSM Criteria for Diagnosis of NPD. I'm not at all saying that Vaknin is right or wrong, but it seems to me his motivations are very self driven and have little if anything to do with the reality of wikipedia.
Please don't take my words as gospel truth and do your own research on Sam Vaknin.
Just because you and some others do not know the meaning of the word does not mean that it is not racist.
- 2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution.
Anyone with even basic understanding of english will see that the term race can be used to reference any group of people that have similar traits be it physical, regional or even historical. The is no scientific consensus as to what makes up a race among humans, or if there even are different races among humans. Personally I don't make much distinction between one form of discrimination and another, but if you are going to argue semantics with people it is best to actually know all the officially accepted meanings of the words you are using.I have also seen many white people call other white people "nigger" but that doesn't make the word any less racist.
You are confusing "race" with "color." Here are a couple references you might do well to read.
If the current US administration is behind creating new WMDs then they are probably just trying to figure out how to get them to kill only people with brown skin.
The fact that a person can be considered an employee with out a written employment agreement is probably a flaw in contract law or employment law (if such a thing exists). I personally have not held a job with any copyrightable aspect with out having a written employment agreement clearly outlining what is or is not a work for hire and what rights of intellectual property I transfer to the employer (I have turned down jobs for restrictive intellectual property clauses). Here my personal experience may be way out of bounds of what most employees deal with in their jobs.
But honestly I never intended to argue the details of copyright law, just the validity and necessity of it in a capitalist society and therefor the need to protect a persons means of economic security. I have previously argued that the anti-copyright movement is going to cause there to be even more stringent rules around property, making all easily replicated works licensed for use rather than purchased. I do honestly see it happening as it has already happened in software and will soon happen in games and potentially music. When it does you can throw copyright law out the window since you will have to abide by a specific contract agreement with the content provider not any general law that protects all members society equally. But again this doesn't really bother me since I only enjoy work of artists I am willing to pay the price they or their agents want for it.
I guess that is true if you do not take economics into account. Historically it was only economically viable to create copies of works if you were able to pay for very larger scale replications. With current technology it cost less than a minimum wage workers week of pay to mass reproduce digital works. When the printing press first came out it took highly skilled individuals and wealthy families resources to mass reproduce written works. Today it takes a $100 or less scanner/copier and a copy of "[this or that] for dummies".
No it doesn't, and you would be niave to beleive so. The system only needs to please those that control the wealth and economic systems. It doesn't mater if a 100 million minimum wage workers are pleased with the system, as long as the spend happy middle class is. I don't have any statistics to show who is or is not happen, but you can see historically that the public does not need to be satisfied by any system.
You have a very narrow view of copyright and works for hire. Every software developer, a large industry, or designer of a manufactured item is producing a work for hire under copyright law. Us Copyright law defines a work for hire as, among other things, "a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment." This is the majority of all copyrighted work in the United states. Every time your sign an employement agreement you are agreeing to a contract that creates a work for hire situation. Technically without an employement agreement you have not transfered (or if you prefer, agreed to give up) any copyright. This is very much applicable to the Video Game industry. Also most other artistic industries, Music and Video for example, also include contracts that transfer copyrights to the commisioning organization. This is what keeps actors from remainging the copyright holders of their performaces.
My familiarty with copyright and intelectually property law is pretty extensive, for not being in the legal profesion, and I would be willing to find you many quotes and case law to back up my statements if I need to.
Just trying to clear it up for people who think Authoritarianism and Socialism have to go hand and hand.
I finally understand why this argument is going no where, and probably never will. Personally I'm not going to argue ethics, those are to be left up to religions and philosopher. My argument is one of human well being and that all humans have a right to survive on their skills and work.
That being said I'll make a few economic arguments and leave it alone from here.
I would not presume to tell anyone why the produce art, but I also do not think that we should enforce a single way of handling it. Interestingly enough the US copyright system allows for a person, if they so chose, to release any work they create into the public domain for free copying by all people. If an artist choses to do so then I support that whole heartedly, but they should not be required to do so. If you think all people should release works into the public domain, don't infringe the rights of those that don't, just chose to not support them.
The cost of making an artistic work known to a wide audiance is still expensive, even in the internet age. Most musicians still receive there widest audiance from radio, free or other wise, not from the internet. It is possible with lots of searching to find decent independant artists on internet, I do it regularly, but not nearly as easy as listening to the radio. I would being willing to bet that Word of mouth is still more effective in spreading knowledge of new artists than the the internet (word of mouth including any form or personal communication).
The last thing I have to say is I can't see how reducing the duration of copyright from 5-10 years will have much effect. I'm not against it at all, but the pirates and others looking to infringe copyright will be unaffected by it. Most copying of copyrighted materials happens in the first year, let alon 5-10, after which they are mostly forgoten and the artists or publishers are not expecting much further return on their initial investment. I am agian willing to bet that the effect of such change would be negligable on the music and game industries, since after 10 years there are usually enough used copies floating around that no one is buying new copys anyway, if the publisher is even making new copies.
I like all your points, and I don't feel they are against what I am saying. One of the big thing that all copyright abolishment supporters forget is that it is possible for artistic works to be released to the public domain through licensing. If this form of licensing is benefitial to the artist then people will use it. If you look around you will seen that some artists have done so, mostly writers, but usually for select works and not every work the artist has produced.
I have never said that a person should be forced to protect ther work through copyright, but that they should be allowed the choice to do so under the current system of economics. Most of these arguments are against the MPAA and the RIAA. I have never known an artist who had no choice but to work through or with members of these associations. I know artists that release independant works, they all still maintain their own copyrights, but they have chosen to do so individually. The RIAA and MPAA are not some fascist regime that controls all media in this or any country. Blame the artists if you don't like the way they use the system, but the system itself is not out to hurt anyone.
This is only true if the single copy is sold at or above the cost to produce the original copy. As time has gone on the ability to produce moderate quality works has come way down, since it can be done on a simple home computer and some fairly cheap software. Producing high quality audio records, not to mention the cost of video games and movies, cost a lot more than a person is willing to spend on a single copy, if they could even find a buyer.
This is true, there are many differen terms to contractual agreements for works for hire, or other comissioned works. But this brings up my point about different arts being treated differently. Recorded arts and digital arts (music, games and movies) are nearly always a work for hire with transfer of copyright (music is often somewhere in between). Publishers own the copyrights to may artists works, that is how they make the resources they need to continue the publication of works.
Oh and just as a note, archaic may have be an incorect word to use, not because of it's actual meaning but because of modern interpretation of the word.