Where is this outlined? I didn't see anything in the body of the article to suggest why this is so.
This part of his paper is using phrases from the larger debate about content protection and "Digital Rights Management" (DRM) in general. If you don't follow this stuff avidly, I can see why you might feel like this statement of his is hyperbole.
However, it is not. Fundamentally, DRM and content protection is impossible. Simply because no matter how the super-encrypted, SSL-delivered, digitally-signed content is secured, it must be experienced in an analog form that humans can perceive (usually through lights and sound, though not necessarily). And once in this analog form, any control you may have had over its distribution is now gone. Another term for this is "the analog hole."
Therefore, so long as human anatomy remains unchanged and people still perceive things physically, what the content/media-distribution industry is asking from hardware and software manufacturers IS impossible and DOES violate the laws of physics.
Here's a link to the actual paper referenced in the article.
I would post the entire paper, but it's too large. Here are some notable excerpts:
However, one important point that
must be kept in mind when reading this document is that in order to work,
Vista's content protection must be able to violate the laws of physics,
something that's unlikely to happen no matter how much the content industry
wishes it were possible. This conundrum is displayed over and over again in
the Windows content-protection specs, with manufacturers being given no hard-
and-fast guidelines but instead being instructed that they need to display as
much dedication as possible to the party line. The documentation is peppered
with sentences like:
"It is recommended that a graphics manufacturer go beyond the strict letter
of the specification and provide additional content-protection features,
because this demonstrates their strong intent to protect premium content".
This is an exceedingly strange way to write technical specifications, but is
dictated by the fact that what the spec is trying to achieve is fundamentally
impossible. Readers should keep this requirement to display appropriate
levels of dedication in mind when reading the following analysis.
Vista's content protection mechanism only allows protected content to be sent
over interfaces that also have content-protection facilities built in... Since S/PDIF doesn't provide any content protection, Vista requires that it be disabled when playing protected content. In other words if you've invested a pile of money into a high-end audio setup fed from a digital output, you won't be able to use it with protected content. Similarly, component (YPbPr) video will be disabled by Vista's content protection, so the same applies to a high-end video setup fed from component video.
Alongside the all-or-nothing approach of disabling output, Vista requires that
any interface that provides high-quality output degrade the signal quality that passes through it. This is done through a "constrictor" that downgrades the signal to a much lower-quality one, then up-scales it again back to the original spec, but with a significant loss in quality... Amusingly, the Vista content protection docs say that it'll be left to graphics chip manufacturers to differentiate their product based on (deliberately degraded) video quality. This seems a bit like breaking the legs of Olympic athletes and then rating them based on how fast they can hobble on crutches.
Vista's content protection requires that devices (hardware and software
drivers) set so-called "tilt bits" if they detect anything unusual. For
example if there are unusual voltage fluctuations, maybe some jitter on bus
signals, a slightly funny return code from a function call, a device register
that doesn't contain quite the value that was expected, or anything similar, a
tilt bit gets set. Such occurrences aren't too uncommon in a typical computer
(for example starting up or plugging in a bus-powered device may cause a small
glitch in power supply voltages, or drivers may not quite manage device state
as precisely as they think). Previously this was no problem - the system was
designed with a bit of resilience, and things will function as normal... With the introduction of tilt bits, all of this designed-in resilience is
gone. Every little (normally unnoticeable) glitch is suddenly surfaced
because it could be a sign of a hack attack. The effect that this will have
on system reliability should require no further explanation.
Content-protection "features" like tilt bits also have worrying denial-of-
service (DoS) implications. It's probably a good thing that modern malware is
created by programmers with the commercial interests of the phishing and spam
industries in mind rather than just creating as much havoc as possible
No where in the instructions does it say that you should ever let go of the remote. Honestly, if you can't hold onto the thing, maybe you should practice a little more self-restraint and control.
What's next? Does Nintendo have to include a helmet for the possibility that someone might hit themselves in the head?
What research done so far on interrogation techniques shows, is that the more pressure you put on people, the more they say the things they think the interrogator wants to hear. Which might or might not be the truth. So if you want that people to confirm the image you have in your mind, go ahead and put them under pressure, or even torture them when you are morally challenged. You will hear a lot, but most of it will be noise, not useful information. Hard interrogation techniques quite plainly cannot be used for truth finding.
I've heard this type of argument against torture often lately, and I can't help but feel that this is not only the wrong approach to take on the issue but also factually incorrect.
First of all, I've seen nothing in classical psychology experiments that indicate that there is no reason why torture couldn't work. What experiments I have seen usually do the following: 1) Conduct coercive interrogations in a rather limited, ham-fisted way. 2) Conclude from the results that torture is ineffective.
The biggest critique of torture is that people will lie when under pressure. But, honestly, how is that even relevant given that someone could do the same without torture? Why is it automatically assumed that friendly banter is more reliable than those made under duress? Moreover, where do people get this mistake notion that lying cannot be countered or dealt with in an efficient, rational manner?
It seems to me that any effective interrogation technique should always keep facts into three separate categories: 1) what is known to be true 2) what might be true 3) what is known to be false. From there alone you can begin to classify the subject's responses. By randomly interjecting facts known to false into leading questions, one could easily begin to ascertain the reliability of the subject's other information. You could also gauge the reliability of a subject's story simply by its internal consistency. Furthermore, to make interrogations more effective you could cross-reference the results of interrogations of multiple suspects. If the interrogator combined this level of analysis with reinforcing stimuli (both punishment and rewards), there is no scientific reason to believe that humans couldn't be psychologically conditioned to tell the truth.
Given that deception can be dealt with, there is no reason to believe that torture, done skillfully would not be effective. To claim otherwise, in fact would be in complete denial of all of countless classical conditioning experiments. What those advocating the ban of torture based upon its alleged ineffectiveness need to ask themselves is: if it turned out that torture is effective, should we then use it?
I believe most of them would reply with a resounding no.
Therefore, I think that a much stronger argument against torture is based upon not only human rights but also the probably harmful effects it has upon the practitioner or (!) a society that allows it to legally take place.
I remember when Battlefield 2 came out, the blackhawk helicopter was ridiculously imbalanced. Engineers could repair it when in the air and the miniguns on it were way too powerful. On many ranked servers, it got to the point where, if you weren't U.S., it was impossible to win. Everywhere you went, the bodies of Chinese and Middle Easterners would be strewn in the streets while white American soldiers killed from above with virtual impunity. Did anyone call this racist? NO! Why? Because it's a video game! The race of the teams was incidental at best and served only to reinforce what very thin plot-line there was.
I'm inclined to think there's another reason why people didn't call BF2 racist: because accusing racism didn't serve anyone's agenda. This myopic view of equality has become the chief weapon through which Americans serve to politically bludgeon those who disagree with them. And I for one am tired of it. Not only is it a slap in the face to the REAL Civil Rights movement (by implicitly associating political bullshit with justice) but it's an emotional appeal that's literally no better than "THINK-OF-THE-CHILDREN!"
That being said. The game in question is, by most reputable accounts, stupid and not very fun. Does it really deserve the exposure it's gotten by being on the front page of slashdot?
In a world of reason, there are facts, evidence, and proof, with which we can (in principle) persuade each other to converge on a single, objective knowledge... and hence, there is no need to kill each other.
Since when, in recorded history, have people acted with the peaceful rationality you attribute to them?
Furthemore, there are different brands of logic and rational approaches to situations which could (with or without religion) lead to conflict. Religious violence may occur in dramatic affairs, but I say that the logic of personal interest has caused just as much, if not more bloodshed. If you doubt this, consider how many people, from the dawn of time have been individually killed for food, money, land, possesions, and so on.
Never doubt that in a world without religion that people would still kill eachother in similar numbers and level of senselessness.
It doesn't matter if you didn't receive financial compensation, you're still "profiting" off of the song's distribution via the barter system; you 'need' to upload a song in order to download, say, 3 other songs. This applies especially to torrent sites that mandate ratios.
But the barter system falls apart when dealing with intangibles because, unlike physical objects, they are non-discrete, difficult to define, and, in some cases, replicated at virtually no cost. As such, there's no way to determine a fair trade. Would it make sense for me to trade you four apples for three copies of the same song? Why not four or five--or 1,000? Why then would you jump to the conclusion that me taking one copy of a song is worth an exactly definable amount (eg. 1000 songs)?
There's quite a bit of caselaw surrounding this.
I don't doubt that there is quite a bit of caselaw with regard to barter, given its prevalence in the past. However, that is irrelevant because it isn't applicable to copyright law which is distinctly different from property law.
Another example would be if a car is valued at $10,000 and is somehow damaged or stolen, the raw value of goods stolen or damaged is $10,000, the cost of the car, not some arbitrary amount set by law.
I argue that the greatest victory of the content industry, contrary to what most would say, was not extending copyrights to 75 years or establishing the draconian protections of the DMCA. Rather, the their greatest triumph has been to define the terms of the debate.
Instead of talking about temporary monopolies, we talk about "intellectual property." Instead of focusing on the "promotion [of] the progress of science and useful arts" (both the wording and the intent of constitution), we exclusively consider the so-called "property rights" of the creator(s).
And because of this, the content industry is able to conflate established property law with completely unrelated areas of law: plagiarism and government-granted monopolies. The result is not surprisingly inconsistent and the source of confusion all-around. Illegal downloaders are labeled as "thieves" instead of what they really are, copyright infringers. The public domain is not viewed as a benefit to society but as a loss of potential profits.
And they even manage to benefit both ways. They can accuse downloaders of theft, BUT THEN use the strict penalties of copyright infringement (originally intended to punish commercial infringement) against non-commercial and non-profiting individuals.
The entire issue is the ultimate triumph of sophistry over justice. Due process is violated when the punishment ($750 per song) doesn't match the crime (non-commercial copyright infringement). The intent of the constitution lays at the wayside when our arts and sciences are actually hurt because of the increased cost and difficulty of actually bringing a product or innovation to the market. The right to free speech is trampled upon when the DMCA is used inappropriately to take down embarrassing internal memos or other evidence of public fraud/deception(ex. Diebold voting machine code).
You ignore everything he said about non-islamic suicide bombers, which, frankly, invalidades your point. Just because something is guided and organized does not make it less of an act of passion or desperation.
I didn't address it because it wasn't relevant. He (and you) are conflating two different things: namely, the selfless acts of military personnel against military personnel in the context of battle and suicide terrorism perpetrated against civilians as a form of coercion against democratic states.
Just take a look at the tactical leader of the 9/11 operations, Mohammad Atta. He was wealthy, educated in Germany, and neither he nor his family could ever be considered victims of Western aggression. And yet, you'd have us believe that his act of suicide terrorism was one of desperation and passion and--more importantly--something that could have been prevented via appeasement. It wasn't.
And Mr. Atta is quite the norm in this regard as well. I highly suggest you read the book I linked because the author actually profiles all of the September 11th hijackers in this way. He even created a database of all the suicide bombing incidents to occur in the 20 years up until the book was published and uses that database to see what the bombers have in common. The result totally debunks this ridiculous and ill-conceived notion that suicide bombers as emotionally unstable individuals who have been personally affected by the conflicts in which they participate.
"And there you have it. In my estimation, it is desperate people - outgunned, with no hope of a "fair fight" - that perform these attacks. The most effective way to stop the attacks is to make them less desperate (ie. by not massacring their loved ones, setting up checkpoints, toppling their democracies, etc)."
This is a common misconception about suicide bombers that just isn't true. Namely that the actors are disparate, tortured souls personally affected by the conflict. I suggest you read Dying to Win by Robert Pape which profiles suicide terrorists and the timing/events surrounding suicide attacks. The results are surprising.
Once you look at the data, it becomes obvious that suicide terrorism is not an act of passion or desperation at all. What seems abhorrent and unthinkable to us is just another form of coercion for the Islamic extremists. In fact, Mr. Pape's point makes perfect sense. If suicide terrorism was simply an act of revenge, why is it that negotiations with group leaders can lead to cease-fires? Moreover, why haven't we seen suicide terrorist attacks employed against totalitarian or media-restricted states?
What does this mean? Well, once you get around the fact that this is another form of coercion you can start to address it as such. Don't intend to occupy Islamic states and not encounter suicide bombers. Contrary to what you say, you wouldn't allow unrestricted borders with Islamic states.
While I agree with you on the state of the law with regard to Marijuana, I really have to question your implicit assumption that ALL drugs should be legal. It's interesting that on that long list of yours that you omitted drugs like PCP or LSD, because these drugs can make some people become violent, self-destructive, and dangerous to others.
For those drugs, it would become a huge public health issue if they were legal. Which raises another question: in this way, couldn't ALL IV drugs be considered a public health issue because of the spread of Hepatitis B and AIDS? Of course, the response to that is free needle exchange programs, but if the act of using drugs is some rational act, why shouldn't the onus be on the drug user to use clean needles? The answer to this is, of course, that these people are addicted and, more generally, that drug use isn't the voluntary, intellectual act that most advocates paint it as.
Regardless, I would prefer a goverment that kept things in perspective. Is drug abuse a problem? Yes. But certainly not to the point of declaring a "War on Drugs" or imprisoning millions of people--particularly when you consider the compulsory nature of their crime. Shouldn't we be helping these people instead of throwing away the key? Bah.
Unfortunately, compromise and rationality seem to be the last thing on either party's talking points.
But marketshare is everything. On what do you think those 1% of potential buyers who are upset with Sony's business practices are going to spend their money? Probably a Wii or Xbox 360.
Furthemore, ask yourself, who is the type of person that is going to care so much as to take a stand like you describe? Knowledgeable people, which others probably look to for buying advice. Sure the beancounters may think they're maximizng profit by screwing over 1% of their custmoers, but what if that 1% are game reviewers, gamestore clerks, vocal bloggers, or just helpful friends of casual gamers?
It's easy to just throw up your hands in despair when it coems to things like this, but the fact is: everything you do matters--even if you never realize just how. If it means that much to you and you think you're right, take a stand. You never know what might happen.
That isn't true under all circumstances. You'll still get invaded if you have no credible 2nd strike capability (ie. I'll nuke your nukes).
Second Strike capability is really a bit of a misnomer, because things like nuclear counter-attack submarines are simply a gaurentee of retaliation but not actually a requirement for retaliation to take place.
Take Cuba, for instance, during the Cuban Missile Crisis. It had no second strike capability. And yet, the defense estimates at the time suggested that even after a massive carpet bombing campaign unparallleled in history which would produce similar devestation to multiple nuclear weapons, Cuba would still be likely to retaliate and hit at least one major American city with one of its nukes.
All it takes is one hidden missile silo or the survival of a single a mobile launcher. Would you be willing to risk it? JFK wasn't--and because of that, he probably saved a lot of people's lives.
Again, lack of critical thinking skills. First, why Dateline? Because it has no credibility as serious investigative journalism. Thus, a strawman designed to make your argument, which you are setting up to shoot down, seem even more outlandish. Not very honest of you.
It's a hypothetical example, and the news program itself is ultimately irrelevant to my point. Would you prefer 20/20? Okay... 20/20 it is.
Second, an actual decent analogy would be the news organization getting a document without knowing where it came from. Maybe it came from your dream. Or maybe you gave it to them anonymously to avoid prison/retribution. In any case, in the worst case it does nothing to impugn other evidence they have. Engage brain. Consider the evidence completely exclusive of the 'fake' document. Other evidence cannot be made fake by vitue of this fake document.
I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. Sure... the content of the anonymous doucment may still be true, but without a credible origin or authoritative source for the document, it might as well be made-up because it's no better than a rumor.
And while a journalistic investigation may begin with a rumor, it certainly shouldn't end with one being the centerpiece of one's story.
You obviously have a strong opinion on this document. So tell us, where is this document from? Where was it printed? Who is the source of it? I'll save you the trouble: "I don't know", "I don't know", "I don't know". Yet you make many assumptions about its contents. Pretty sad, my brother.
I honestly don't. George W. Bush probably did goof off 40 years ago. I honestly couldn't give a shit about that or John Kerry's swift boat.
I do, however, have a strong opinion about journalistic integrity, and the effect of its absence in our news organizations has hurt our nation. If you feel a major news organization should send to print any and everything that seems true at the time, fine. But I don't--let's save that crap for the entertainment magazines.
You are proving my point with your inability to read and think logically. The fact is that the document was printed recently, but this means nothing about whether the contents are accurate or not. The contents could be made up, or retyped verbatim from an original, or some mix of the two.
But that's not how they presented it. Dan Rather didn't say "Oh here's a document that was transcribed from a carving on the wall made by the man who read the original." They presnted the document as the original, or at least a direct photo-copy of the original when it wasn't.
This document was evidence that corroborated the story that several eyewitnesses reported.
The Rather-gate document not evidence of anything. Or at least the type of evidence that you think it means. Being that it is of dubious origin and authenticity, it's no better than heresy, regardless of whether or not the contents are true.
Let's try a little thought experiment. If I had a dream of still, secret meeting between Dick Cheny and the Energy companies in 2001 and typed up a transcript and submitted it to the Dateline, should they be able to use that as evidence? Now what if that transcript by chance alone just so happened to be entirely accurate, should they be able to use it?
So... Democrats who are always talking about election reform... and the need for clean elections... We should "doubt upon the party's position" when they "repeatedly demonstrated that, privately, such values aren't important to them"?
Exactly. You'll get no argument from me here. Given their lackluster history on this issue, the democratic party shouldn't be trusted when running on a platform of electoral reform either. By sheer chance alone, I think you've stumbled upon my position in this matter. Congratulations.
This is a complete and utter fallacy. It's guilt by association. So what if you have TEAM A saying they support Y? Then it turns out a MEMBER of team A did something AGAINST "Y"... According to your faulty logic, ALL of team were "open for the label of hypocrits". This is an astounding position to take and a classic example of guilt by association fallacy. Why you refuse to accept this is beyond belief -- unless we condlude that you suffer from some ideology induced selective blindness.
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I'm not saying that every republican is a hypocrite. Indeed, that would be a logical fallacy. What I'm saying is that time after time, high-profile republicans, which run on a platforms of traditional values, have repeatedly demonstrated that, privately, such values aren't important to them at all. This should cast doubt upon the party's position that it is a beacon of morality in American politics.
Newt Gingrich was caught abusing prescription drugs after being quite active in the "War on Drugs." Tom Delay recently resigned as a result of his involvement in the Abramoff money scam, with federal indictments still pending. I even linked a video of the co-sponser for the 10 commandments bill who couldn't even name more than two of the commandments when asked. And then we have Foley... These are all a blackeye for the GOP. I don't see how you can view it any other way.
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THOSE BELIEFS ARE if they impair your ability to think critically.
Now you're just being ridiculous. You're saying that my critical thinking is flawed. Fine. It' not like that's something I can rationally dispute. But aren't you jumping to a conclusion when you say my ideology is to blame? How do you know it is impairing my judgement--particularly if you can neither define my beliefs or how they apply to this issue? That whole line about my ideology blinding my judgement was a cheapshot, and you know it. The fact that you can't drop it or apologize says something.
Last I checked there aren't a "list" of ideologies with little check boxes by them from which you can choose. You've a set of world views -- your ideology -- which you are allowing to cloud your critical thinking abilities. "Ideology" is an abstraction -- not a finite list of "things".
I didn't ask for a definition of ideology in general or how it can affect one's perception. This response did not answer my questions. Unless you can--even in general terms--define what my ideology is, how can you make the claim that it's "blinding" my judgement?
Let's be honest. Given that you can't even provide simple descriptors as to what I believe, you haven't the slightest clue as to what my ideology is. You just disagree with me, and you were just trying to disqualify what I had to say right off the bat without going through the effort of actually addressing it.
But it is. So... Because William Jefferson (D) takes bribes and undermines the rule of law, all democrats are therefor targets for some whacked out 'guilt by association' games? And this makes logical sense to you?
If William Jefferson had sponsored anti-bribery bills, then I'd call him a hypocrite too. And if there was a controversy about his party's leadership covering up that bribery, I similarly expect the media to at least label him correctly as a democrat. And if the democrats had run on an anti-bribery platform to the same extent that republicans have run on under "traditional values," then I would say that they were opening themselves up to the label of hypocrites as well.
That tells me you think it is worse to be a hypocrite than it is to have sex with a minor.
Nice of you to put words in my mouth. How about we do a little thought exercise: If a politican who didn't support anti-pedophile legislation or claim to represent "traditional values" did the exact same thing as what Foley did, which one is worse?
Clearly, both would be pedophiles, but Foley is a pedophile and a hypocrite.
And until you have an actually good idea of how much that is, it's irresponsible to imply they did anything wrong (as the Democrats have been doing nonstop)....
And let's say the Democrats knew this for some time and sprung it as an October surprise (not saying they did, but someone (you? I forget) brought it up): doesn't that mean the DEMOCRATS themselves would be culpable for knowing he was doing this, and letting pages serve under him in the weeks/months since they found out? Hm...
Going by what you just said, isn't it "irresponsible" for you to even be suggesting such things without proof?
"I never claimed you were a democrat... or anything other than being blinde by your ideology. Ideology does not mean democrat."
I assumed that you intended to mean liberal/Democratic ideology, since that would be the most contextually appropriate. But since you've resorted to sematics, then you tell me: What ideology am I subscribing to and how am I being blinded by it?
You say "suspected" here. Yet before, you [didn't]"
Okay, for the sake of the arguement, let's assume you're right: it wasn't crystal clear in my post that such accusations might turn out to be incorrect. Even in this case, the fact that Foley is a republican is still relevant because the controversy surrounding the extent to which his party's leadership was involved. The presence of a controversy is unrelated to the factual basis of the controversy itself. An analgous situation might be when Kanye West claimed that Bush blew up the New Orlean's dams because he "doesn't care about black people." Sure, such accusations are clearly false, but it is still news and completely relevant.
The republicans are not alone in page-related sex scandals. Nor this a problem with the HoR alone. It is a PARTY NEUTRAL issue.
But it's not... Again, the republicans call themselves the "Moral Majority" and are the primary backers of anti-paedophile laws. They've profited greatly by doing this, but have opened themselves up to this brand of criticism in doing so.
"I'm glad your sorry, but it's understandable. You are blinded by your own ideology."
There's no point in being rude. Besdies, even in your personal attack, you are incorrect. I am not a democrat or supporter of the democratic party. Read my post history if you don't believe me.
What I am is a former fan of the O'Reilly Factor that is familiar with the importance of the show to the FNN's lineup and the production process that goes into each episode. This knowledge combined with the context of the mistake, leads me to doubt that this was a genuine error.
"You make it sound as if there's a post-production team that runs through the show making sure there's no gaffs."
But there is! You don't think those talking points or transition animations appear by themselves do you? Sure they may not do re-shoots, but they most certainly can pan-and-scan a boom out of frame or simply use a different camera angle. Not only that, but there is a group of dedicated fact-checkers for the O'Reilly factor whose sole purpose is to catch these things.
"His party affiliation has as little to do with the story than did Gary Condit's party affiliation had to do with his scandals."
So, on the eve of one of the most contested congressional elections to occur in decades, you don't think that his party affiliation is even relevant?
"The "republican leadership" covered this up? Please contact the DC authorities and provide your sources because you are the only one making that claim as a fact -- so I'm sure you MUST have some inside information -- RIGHT?"
Have you been under a rock for the past week or something? It's all over the damn news that the republican leadership is suspected to be involved. I couldn't make this up if I tried.
Furthermore, I'm not claiming that the republican leadership ordered Fox to incorrectly label Foley. I suspect that at least one person sympathetic to the republicans intentionally overlooked the mistaken label before the show went to air.
"These are corrupt PEOPLE... not corrupt IDEOLOGIES."
But if the Republicans want to label themselves as the "Moral Majority" shouldn't their member's behavior be consistent with this regard? Furthermore, Foley's conduct is just more proof that many of these "traditional values" bills are created by hypocrites. It's like how the co-sponser for the bill that would require a copy of the Ten commandments in every court house couldn't even name more than a couple of the commandments when asked in an interview. It's ridiculous and should be alarming to anyone that actually does believe in traditional values and intended to vote to that effect.
Slashdot Mirror
This part of his paper is using phrases from the larger debate about content protection and "Digital Rights Management" (DRM) in general. If you don't follow this stuff avidly, I can see why you might feel like this statement of his is hyperbole.
However, it is not. Fundamentally, DRM and content protection is impossible. Simply because no matter how the super-encrypted, SSL-delivered, digitally-signed content is secured, it must be experienced in an analog form that humans can perceive (usually through lights and sound, though not necessarily). And once in this analog form, any control you may have had over its distribution is now gone. Another term for this is "the analog hole."
Therefore, so long as human anatomy remains unchanged and people still perceive things physically, what the content/media-distribution industry is asking from hardware and software manufacturers IS impossible and DOES violate the laws of physics.
-Grym
Here's a link to the actual paper referenced in the article.
I would post the entire paper, but it's too large. Here are some notable excerpts:
No where in the instructions does it say that you should ever let go of the remote. Honestly, if you can't hold onto the thing, maybe you should practice a little more self-restraint and control.
What's next? Does Nintendo have to include a helmet for the possibility that someone might hit themselves in the head?
-Grym
I've heard this type of argument against torture often lately, and I can't help but feel that this is not only the wrong approach to take on the issue but also factually incorrect.
First of all, I've seen nothing in classical psychology experiments that indicate that there is no reason why torture couldn't work. What experiments I have seen usually do the following: 1) Conduct coercive interrogations in a rather limited, ham-fisted way. 2) Conclude from the results that torture is ineffective.
The biggest critique of torture is that people will lie when under pressure. But, honestly, how is that even relevant given that someone could do the same without torture? Why is it automatically assumed that friendly banter is more reliable than those made under duress? Moreover, where do people get this mistake notion that lying cannot be countered or dealt with in an efficient, rational manner?
It seems to me that any effective interrogation technique should always keep facts into three separate categories: 1) what is known to be true 2) what might be true 3) what is known to be false. From there alone you can begin to classify the subject's responses. By randomly interjecting facts known to false into leading questions, one could easily begin to ascertain the reliability of the subject's other information. You could also gauge the reliability of a subject's story simply by its internal consistency. Furthermore, to make interrogations more effective you could cross-reference the results of interrogations of multiple suspects. If the interrogator combined this level of analysis with reinforcing stimuli (both punishment and rewards), there is no scientific reason to believe that humans couldn't be psychologically conditioned to tell the truth.
Given that deception can be dealt with, there is no reason to believe that torture, done skillfully would not be effective. To claim otherwise, in fact would be in complete denial of all of countless classical conditioning experiments. What those advocating the ban of torture based upon its alleged ineffectiveness need to ask themselves is: if it turned out that torture is effective, should we then use it?
I believe most of them would reply with a resounding no.
Therefore, I think that a much stronger argument against torture is based upon not only human rights but also the probably harmful effects it has upon the practitioner or (!) a society that allows it to legally take place.
-Grym
I remember when Battlefield 2 came out, the blackhawk helicopter was ridiculously imbalanced. Engineers could repair it when in the air and the miniguns on it were way too powerful. On many ranked servers, it got to the point where, if you weren't U.S., it was impossible to win. Everywhere you went, the bodies of Chinese and Middle Easterners would be strewn in the streets while white American soldiers killed from above with virtual impunity. Did anyone call this racist? NO! Why? Because it's a video game! The race of the teams was incidental at best and served only to reinforce what very thin plot-line there was.
I'm inclined to think there's another reason why people didn't call BF2 racist: because accusing racism didn't serve anyone's agenda. This myopic view of equality has become the chief weapon through which Americans serve to politically bludgeon those who disagree with them. And I for one am tired of it. Not only is it a slap in the face to the REAL Civil Rights movement (by implicitly associating political bullshit with justice) but it's an emotional appeal that's literally no better than "THINK-OF-THE-CHILDREN!"
That being said. The game in question is, by most reputable accounts, stupid and not very fun. Does it really deserve the exposure it's gotten by being on the front page of slashdot?
-Grym
Since when, in recorded history, have people acted with the peaceful rationality you attribute to them?
Furthemore, there are different brands of logic and rational approaches to situations which could (with or without religion) lead to conflict. Religious violence may occur in dramatic affairs, but I say that the logic of personal interest has caused just as much, if not more bloodshed. If you doubt this, consider how many people, from the dawn of time have been individually killed for food, money, land, possesions, and so on.
Never doubt that in a world without religion that people would still kill eachother in similar numbers and level of senselessness.
-Grym
What "worked" with Russia was a dangerous game of military/industrial brinkmanship that should never be repeated again.
-Grym
But the barter system falls apart when dealing with intangibles because, unlike physical objects, they are non-discrete, difficult to define, and, in some cases, replicated at virtually no cost. As such, there's no way to determine a fair trade. Would it make sense for me to trade you four apples for three copies of the same song? Why not four or five--or 1,000? Why then would you jump to the conclusion that me taking one copy of a song is worth an exactly definable amount (eg. 1000 songs)?
I don't doubt that there is quite a bit of caselaw with regard to barter, given its prevalence in the past. However, that is irrelevant because it isn't applicable to copyright law which is distinctly different from property law.
-Grym
I argue that the greatest victory of the content industry, contrary to what most would say, was not extending copyrights to 75 years or establishing the draconian protections of the DMCA. Rather, the their greatest triumph has been to define the terms of the debate.
Instead of talking about temporary monopolies, we talk about "intellectual property." Instead of focusing on the "promotion [of] the progress of science and useful arts" (both the wording and the intent of constitution), we exclusively consider the so-called "property rights" of the creator(s).
And because of this, the content industry is able to conflate established property law with completely unrelated areas of law: plagiarism and government-granted monopolies. The result is not surprisingly inconsistent and the source of confusion all-around. Illegal downloaders are labeled as "thieves" instead of what they really are, copyright infringers. The public domain is not viewed as a benefit to society but as a loss of potential profits.
And they even manage to benefit both ways. They can accuse downloaders of theft, BUT THEN use the strict penalties of copyright infringement (originally intended to punish commercial infringement) against non-commercial and non-profiting individuals.
The entire issue is the ultimate triumph of sophistry over justice. Due process is violated when the punishment ($750 per song) doesn't match the crime (non-commercial copyright infringement). The intent of the constitution lays at the wayside when our arts and sciences are actually hurt because of the increased cost and difficulty of actually bringing a product or innovation to the market. The right to free speech is trampled upon when the DMCA is used inappropriately to take down embarrassing internal memos or other evidence of public fraud/deception(ex. Diebold voting machine code).
-Grym
I didn't address it because it wasn't relevant. He (and you) are conflating two different things: namely, the selfless acts of military personnel against military personnel in the context of battle and suicide terrorism perpetrated against civilians as a form of coercion against democratic states.
Just take a look at the tactical leader of the 9/11 operations, Mohammad Atta. He was wealthy, educated in Germany, and neither he nor his family could ever be considered victims of Western aggression. And yet, you'd have us believe that his act of suicide terrorism was one of desperation and passion and--more importantly--something that could have been prevented via appeasement. It wasn't.
And Mr. Atta is quite the norm in this regard as well. I highly suggest you read the book I linked because the author actually profiles all of the September 11th hijackers in this way. He even created a database of all the suicide bombing incidents to occur in the 20 years up until the book was published and uses that database to see what the bombers have in common. The result totally debunks this ridiculous and ill-conceived notion that suicide bombers as emotionally unstable individuals who have been personally affected by the conflicts in which they participate.
-Grym
This is a common misconception about suicide bombers that just isn't true. Namely that the actors are disparate, tortured souls personally affected by the conflict. I suggest you read Dying to Win by Robert Pape which profiles suicide terrorists and the timing/events surrounding suicide attacks. The results are surprising.
Once you look at the data, it becomes obvious that suicide terrorism is not an act of passion or desperation at all. What seems abhorrent and unthinkable to us is just another form of coercion for the Islamic extremists. In fact, Mr. Pape's point makes perfect sense. If suicide terrorism was simply an act of revenge, why is it that negotiations with group leaders can lead to cease-fires? Moreover, why haven't we seen suicide terrorist attacks employed against totalitarian or media-restricted states?
What does this mean? Well, once you get around the fact that this is another form of coercion you can start to address it as such. Don't intend to occupy Islamic states and not encounter suicide bombers. Contrary to what you say, you wouldn't allow unrestricted borders with Islamic states.
-Grym
My God! That'd be like 9/11 times 4.8921! We can't allow this to happen!
-Grym
While I agree with you on the state of the law with regard to Marijuana, I really have to question your implicit assumption that ALL drugs should be legal. It's interesting that on that long list of yours that you omitted drugs like PCP or LSD, because these drugs can make some people become violent, self-destructive, and dangerous to others.
For those drugs, it would become a huge public health issue if they were legal. Which raises another question: in this way, couldn't ALL IV drugs be considered a public health issue because of the spread of Hepatitis B and AIDS? Of course, the response to that is free needle exchange programs, but if the act of using drugs is some rational act, why shouldn't the onus be on the drug user to use clean needles? The answer to this is, of course, that these people are addicted and, more generally, that drug use isn't the voluntary, intellectual act that most advocates paint it as.
Regardless, I would prefer a goverment that kept things in perspective. Is drug abuse a problem? Yes. But certainly not to the point of declaring a "War on Drugs" or imprisoning millions of people--particularly when you consider the compulsory nature of their crime. Shouldn't we be helping these people instead of throwing away the key? Bah.
Unfortunately, compromise and rationality seem to be the last thing on either party's talking points.
-Grym
But marketshare is everything. On what do you think those 1% of potential buyers who are upset with Sony's business practices are going to spend their money? Probably a Wii or Xbox 360.
Furthemore, ask yourself, who is the type of person that is going to care so much as to take a stand like you describe? Knowledgeable people, which others probably look to for buying advice. Sure the beancounters may think they're maximizng profit by screwing over 1% of their custmoers, but what if that 1% are game reviewers, gamestore clerks, vocal bloggers, or just helpful friends of casual gamers?
It's easy to just throw up your hands in despair when it coems to things like this, but the fact is: everything you do matters--even if you never realize just how. If it means that much to you and you think you're right, take a stand. You never know what might happen.
-Grym
Crap.
-Grym
Second Strike capability is really a bit of a misnomer, because things like nuclear counter-attack submarines are simply a gaurentee of retaliation but not actually a requirement for retaliation to take place.
Take Cuba, for instance, during the Cuban Missile Crisis. It had no second strike capability. And yet, the defense estimates at the time suggested that even after a massive carpet bombing campaign unparallleled in history which would produce similar devestation to multiple nuclear weapons, Cuba would still be likely to retaliate and hit at least one major American city with one of its nukes.
All it takes is one hidden missile silo or the survival of a single a mobile launcher. Would you be willing to risk it? JFK wasn't--and because of that, he probably saved a lot of people's lives.
-Grym
It's a hypothetical example, and the news program itself is ultimately irrelevant to my point. Would you prefer 20/20? Okay... 20/20 it is.
I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. Sure... the content of the anonymous doucment may still be true, but without a credible origin or authoritative source for the document, it might as well be made-up because it's no better than a rumor.
And while a journalistic investigation may begin with a rumor, it certainly shouldn't end with one being the centerpiece of one's story.
I honestly don't. George W. Bush probably did goof off 40 years ago. I honestly couldn't give a shit about that or John Kerry's swift boat.
I do, however, have a strong opinion about journalistic integrity, and the effect of its absence in our news organizations has hurt our nation. If you feel a major news organization should send to print any and everything that seems true at the time, fine. But I don't--let's save that crap for the entertainment magazines.
-Grym
But that's not how they presented it. Dan Rather didn't say "Oh here's a document that was transcribed from a carving on the wall made by the man who read the original." They presnted the document as the original, or at least a direct photo-copy of the original when it wasn't.
The Rather-gate document not evidence of anything. Or at least the type of evidence that you think it means. Being that it is of dubious origin and authenticity, it's no better than heresy, regardless of whether or not the contents are true.
Let's try a little thought experiment. If I had a dream of still, secret meeting between Dick Cheny and the Energy companies in 2001 and typed up a transcript and submitted it to the Dateline, should they be able to use that as evidence? Now what if that transcript by chance alone just so happened to be entirely accurate, should they be able to use it?
-Grym
Exactly. You'll get no argument from me here. Given their lackluster history on this issue, the democratic party shouldn't be trusted when running on a platform of electoral reform either. By sheer chance alone, I think you've stumbled upon my position in this matter. Congratulations.
-Grym
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I'm not saying that every republican is a hypocrite. Indeed, that would be a logical fallacy. What I'm saying is that time after time, high-profile republicans, which run on a platforms of traditional values, have repeatedly demonstrated that, privately, such values aren't important to them at all. This should cast doubt upon the party's position that it is a beacon of morality in American politics.
Newt Gingrich was caught abusing prescription drugs after being quite active in the "War on Drugs." Tom Delay recently resigned as a result of his involvement in the Abramoff money scam, with federal indictments still pending. I even linked a video of the co-sponser for the 10 commandments bill who couldn't even name more than two of the commandments when asked. And then we have Foley... These are all a blackeye for the GOP. I don't see how you can view it any other way.
Now you're just being ridiculous. You're saying that my critical thinking is flawed. Fine. It' not like that's something I can rationally dispute. But aren't you jumping to a conclusion when you say my ideology is to blame? How do you know it is impairing my judgement--particularly if you can neither define my beliefs or how they apply to this issue? That whole line about my ideology blinding my judgement was a cheapshot, and you know it. The fact that you can't drop it or apologize says something.
-Grym
I didn't ask for a definition of ideology in general or how it can affect one's perception. This response did not answer my questions. Unless you can--even in general terms--define what my ideology is, how can you make the claim that it's "blinding" my judgement?
Let's be honest. Given that you can't even provide simple descriptors as to what I believe, you haven't the slightest clue as to what my ideology is. You just disagree with me, and you were just trying to disqualify what I had to say right off the bat without going through the effort of actually addressing it.
If William Jefferson had sponsored anti-bribery bills, then I'd call him a hypocrite too. And if there was a controversy about his party's leadership covering up that bribery, I similarly expect the media to at least label him correctly as a democrat. And if the democrats had run on an anti-bribery platform to the same extent that republicans have run on under "traditional values," then I would say that they were opening themselves up to the label of hypocrites as well.
-Grym
Nice of you to put words in my mouth. How about we do a little thought exercise: If a politican who didn't support anti-pedophile legislation or claim to represent "traditional values" did the exact same thing as what Foley did, which one is worse?
Clearly, both would be pedophiles, but Foley is a pedophile and a hypocrite.
-Grym
Going by what you just said, isn't it "irresponsible" for you to even be suggesting such things without proof?
-Grym
I assumed that you intended to mean liberal/Democratic ideology, since that would be the most contextually appropriate. But since you've resorted to sematics, then you tell me: What ideology am I subscribing to and how am I being blinded by it?
Okay, for the sake of the arguement, let's assume you're right: it wasn't crystal clear in my post that such accusations might turn out to be incorrect. Even in this case, the fact that Foley is a republican is still relevant because the controversy surrounding the extent to which his party's leadership was involved. The presence of a controversy is unrelated to the factual basis of the controversy itself. An analgous situation might be when Kanye West claimed that Bush blew up the New Orlean's dams because he "doesn't care about black people." Sure, such accusations are clearly false, but it is still news and completely relevant.
But it's not... Again, the republicans call themselves the "Moral Majority" and are the primary backers of anti-paedophile laws. They've profited greatly by doing this, but have opened themselves up to this brand of criticism in doing so.
-Grym
There's no point in being rude. Besdies, even in your personal attack, you are incorrect. I am not a democrat or supporter of the democratic party. Read my post history if you don't believe me.
What I am is a former fan of the O'Reilly Factor that is familiar with the importance of the show to the FNN's lineup and the production process that goes into each episode. This knowledge combined with the context of the mistake, leads me to doubt that this was a genuine error.
But there is! You don't think those talking points or transition animations appear by themselves do you? Sure they may not do re-shoots, but they most certainly can pan-and-scan a boom out of frame or simply use a different camera angle. Not only that, but there is a group of dedicated fact-checkers for the O'Reilly factor whose sole purpose is to catch these things.
So, on the eve of one of the most contested congressional elections to occur in decades, you don't think that his party affiliation is even relevant?
Have you been under a rock for the past week or something? It's all over the damn news that the republican leadership is suspected to be involved. I couldn't make this up if I tried.
Furthermore, I'm not claiming that the republican leadership ordered Fox to incorrectly label Foley. I suspect that at least one person sympathetic to the republicans intentionally overlooked the mistaken label before the show went to air.
But if the Republicans want to label themselves as the "Moral Majority" shouldn't their member's behavior be consistent with this regard? Furthermore, Foley's conduct is just more proof that many of these "traditional values" bills are created by hypocrites. It's like how the co-sponser for the bill that would require a copy of the Ten commandments in every court house couldn't even name more than a couple of the commandments when asked in an interview. It's ridiculous and should be alarming to anyone that actually does believe in traditional values and intended to vote to that effect.
-Grym