No argument. I just think it is a battle that is won. The amount of energy that goes into driving it into the ground is what scares me. Is the next step to outlaw tobacco? What comes after that? Do we start to outlaw potential threats? I'd just like to see the virtual communities run their course a little before we slam them up in the rule books.
Not sure that the insecurity of it isn't offset by some of the practices of our current system though. Bussing in voters, massive contributions to losing candidates just to draw support from the real potentials, etc. Paper will always be more secure, much more prone to error and much less efficient. Not really proposing a solution here, just acknowledging that there needs to be one.
Re:Lobbyists are neither anonymous or powerless
on
Lawmakers Game The System
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
This is a little (ok maybe a lot) off topic but I'll come back around. I promise.
I don't think Big Tobacco really fits the role here. They are in defensive mode now. We have managed to strip them of most of the benefits of a capitalist system and still manage to vilify them.
Trust me, there are plenty of people who would put the gaming industry in the same department. What we are ultimately talking about here is freedom. We know the limitations of the political/legal systems. I think some of us just had higher hopes in terms of net-based realities. I would like to think that if we just push the game industry a little bit we can keep this more open for a while.
Doesn't sound too much different from the real world. People that are the most unhappy will always be the most vocal. We just have to make sure that they are rarely the people in charge.
No. I think this is truly important. We have an opportunity here that we are taking too lightly. These Massively Multiplayer games are probably the best models of theoretical societies that we have ever seen. We have an obligation, as interested parties, to see that there is some validity in their existence. I truly believe that there will come a time when the theories and practices as viewed in these virtual worlds will influence the physical world as we know it. Mr. Ludlow was banned from a virtual existence for espousing real beliefs. Let us not allow this to be the trend of a medium that most of us have fought to keep free.
Am I missing something? Who is it that we are describing that have the skill to write the malicious code but not find necessary access to the net? I say open the world to communication, then develop the safeguards. Isn't that the model we have been working with to date?
Slashdot Mirror
No argument. I just think it is a battle that is won. The amount of energy that goes into driving it into the ground is what scares me. Is the next step to outlaw tobacco? What comes after that? Do we start to outlaw potential threats? I'd just like to see the virtual communities run their course a little before we slam them up in the rule books.
Not sure that the insecurity of it isn't offset by some of the practices of our current system though. Bussing in voters, massive contributions to losing candidates just to draw support from the real potentials, etc. Paper will always be more secure, much more prone to error and much less efficient. Not really proposing a solution here, just acknowledging that there needs to be one.
I don't think Big Tobacco really fits the role here. They are in defensive mode now. We have managed to strip them of most of the benefits of a capitalist system and still manage to vilify them.
Trust me, there are plenty of people who would put the gaming industry in the same department. What we are ultimately talking about here is freedom. We know the limitations of the political/legal systems. I think some of us just had higher hopes in terms of net-based realities. I would like to think that if we just push the game industry a little bit we can keep this more open for a while.
Doesn't sound too much different from the real world. People that are the most unhappy will always be the most vocal. We just have to make sure that they are rarely the people in charge.
No. I think this is truly important. We have an opportunity here that we are taking too lightly. These Massively Multiplayer games are probably the best models of theoretical societies that we have ever seen. We have an obligation, as interested parties, to see that there is some validity in their existence. I truly believe that there will come a time when the theories and practices as viewed in these virtual worlds will influence the physical world as we know it. Mr. Ludlow was banned from a virtual existence for espousing real beliefs. Let us not allow this to be the trend of a medium that most of us have fought to keep free.
Am I missing something? Who is it that we are describing that have the skill to write the malicious code but not find necessary access to the net? I say open the world to communication, then develop the safeguards. Isn't that the model we have been working with to date?