Personally, it seems like the author just wants to blame coders for any and all security issues. The black hats exploit "holes" and "bugs" for a reason-they're unintentional/unnoticed flaws in programs that the devs didn't catch. Simple human error, or people who were too busy, or didn't have enough time to check everything. That's human nature, and it happens with nearly all human endeavors. NASA forgets to convert a few measurements from metric, Ford has a problem with the tires on a certain model, Dell's batteries like to explode, etc. The IT industry doesn't purposely create these flaws so that anti-virus companies can make money. It seems rather presumptuous to claim "as long as IT security is a separate industry, there will be companies making money based on insecurity -- companies who will lose money if the internet becomes more secure." This is a rather obvious claim, yet the author twists the meaning to make it look like software developers intentionally create flawed programs so that other companies can make money. Indeed, the more powerful incentive for developers is to make their products more secure. If MS released a version of Windows that was completely invulnerable to malicious code, they would make even more money. Such a mythical operating system will likely never exist, because users continually push for more functionality, the operating system becomes increasingly complicated, and backwards-compatibility still needs to be maintained. Inevitably, some cracker with too much time on his/her hands will find some flaw, however small, and devise a way to exploit it. Then, the IT security industry needs to quickly devise a way to fix the problem and protect users from the attack. Not always the easiest task.
<p>Yes, it's a pain in the ass to protect systems, but it's going to be a necessary task; now and in the future. Whining about how we really don't need a security industry doesn't solve anything. Not only is it obvious to all that we need more secure software, but it should also be obvious that we need a security industry once the inevitable problems do arise. Things break, especially if there are people who purposely <i>try</i> to break them; and someone needs to be able to fix them quickly. It's time-consuming and annoying to have to deal with, but it's a fact of life. Get over it.</p>
First, I would like to address the charge of "you are all apathetic"
There are quite a number of people who are taking proactive steps to stem the tide and regain their rights. However, they are ignored at best or suppressed at worst. As you said, you have witnessed protesters voices being violently silenced, which is nothing new. How many people remember the treatment of John Lennon and others, and how many people would be willing to stick to their principles in such situations? Most people are apathetic because they believe they will a)be ignored b)suffer negative consequences for their actions c)are more absorbed in their daily lives than politics d)are gullible enough to believe they are being protected by a benevolent government. As sad as it is, George Bush was elected for a second time by an actual majority (unlike the 2000 election). Enough people were petrified of the terrorists, and they believed that Bush would defend them from the "evil arabs" who formed the "Axis of Evil".
Clearly, many of the people in both the US and the UK are willing to lose some of their rights in exchange for a feeling of safety. Right or wrong, they accept the Patriot Act, ever-present surveillance of staggering proportions, and don't worry at all. It may not be a conspiracy, but it's a damn-well orchestrated scheme to give even more control to those in power. Mass political action can be effective, but only if the number of people involved is great enough. I don't know about the UK, but in the US the "unwashed masses" tend to get all their information from mass-media television news. As Anti-Flag says, "Have the media broadcast only the ruling party's information. This can be done through state run media. Remember, in times of conflict all for-profit media repeats the ruling party's information, therefore all for-profit media is state-run." CNN, Fox, NBC and their ilk aren't interested in distributing "dissident" information, since their goal (higher profits) is more easily obtained by supporting the government's mindset.
Increasingly, I find that I don't trust any news source to give me unbiased information concerning foreign relations (especially with the Middle-East) or national security. It's hard to operate and make accurate decisions in such an environment. Furthermore, I find that most people really don't give a damn what happens in other countries, as long as their own little corner of the world isn't being bombed and their relatives aren't the ones being killed. My best friend is about to go fight a war that he believes is unjust, against people he cannot consider enemies. All because the military is the only way he could feasibly afford a college education (lower-class background, poor credit rating, etc.) However, there isn't anything either of us can do that will affect significant change, simply because we would have to rely on other people. Coincidentally, these are the people who care more about the newest episode of 24 or Lost than "boring politics" and would only watch the State of the Union address if they were paid.
Mel Brooks probably said it best:
You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons.
Well, if you're homeless, then by all means, go mug someone. I hear that's all homeless people are interested in. They tell me that they're just too lazy to get a real job, and it's all their fault. -end sarcasm--
I dunno, I've often wondered what kind of "evidence" the US has against those lovely guantanamo bay "detainees". (Side note: has anyone ever called them anything less euphemistic?) Did they just have a funny look about them, or did they not smell so good? Given the number of parallel trends in the two countries, it wouldn't surprise me at all if people were already being detained based on evidence just as weak as lip-reading cameras.
While I agree that the UK fares worse than the US in these regards, that still does not mean that there is a vast "conspiracy" afoot in the US. However, it is clear that, slowly but surely, personal liberty is gradually being suppressed in favor of security in the US. While the parent may be a tinfoil-hatter, that doesn't make his point invalid. The patriot act, guantanamo bay, warrantless wiretapping, etc. could all be called unconstitutional. So, while an unwritten constitution provides less protection than a written one, either can be usurped when the individuals in power find that their personal interests are best protected by "unconstitutional measures".
Succinctly put, citizens can't depend on their governments to provide them with rights. They must demand these rights for themselves. In both the US and the UK, the respective protections of personal liberty were not created by the government, they were created by dissident groups who managed to establish said rights, often with the opposition of the ruling parties. The truly terrifying thing is that few seem committed to any sort of positive action. Everyone bemoans the degradation of these rights, but there are few groups actively doing anything about it; and the groups that are doing something (ACLU, EFF, etc.) are subjects of public scorn. So, rather than relying on political systems (The Constitution, the courts) as you suggest, more emphasis needs to be placed on collective action.
And yes, I know that 99% of the people in any given population are far too apathetic to actually do anything.
Wait juuuust a second: did you say that "people who search"="a small demographic"??? It took me 2 years to convince my mom that she could type www.weather.com into the bar at the top. For 2 years her homepage was set to Google and she would navigate via Google searches. Once she was done checking the weather, she would close the browser, start another session, and do another Google search. So no, it's not a small demographic. It is, almost literally, everyone who uses the web. At some point or another, nearly everyone who uses the web will use one search engine or another. Since Google is the most popular search engine, it follows that Google has reams upon reams of data that advertisers find highly desirable.
Well yes, there still is a conflict of interest, but only if they sell the services of the Performics team. They can still keep this team, using them in much the same way companies use white hat hackers-to purposely game the system, then hand the results over to Google. It's a conflict of interest if they continue to offer Doubleclick's Performics services, but it's an invaluable tool if they use it properly.
The problem is that big-box retailers are a terribly convenient way to purchase music for most people. If they don't have a lot of emotional investment in what they listen to. I'm not implying that they're shallow, or sheeples. I'm just saying that its just music to them, not a personal affirmation of identity. If they just listen to top-40 hit radio, then any song they're exposed to will certainly be available at the nearest Wal-Mart, Target, or K-Mart. The people who care enough about musical diversity to be angry about this will still seek out new music from record stores, online, friends, etc. TFA seems to claim that big-box retailers will destroy musical diversity. This is giving them far too much credit. As long as there are people who care enough, new indendent music will be created. It may not be what the masses listen to, but this isn't always a bad thing. Top-40 radio has become what it currently is because of how many people listen to it. It is run by large corporations that, because of their size, are inherently conservative. These corporations would prefer to distribute music that won't disturb the status quo. Smaller, independent music isn't restrained by these conditions; however, it would be provided it became popular enough.
Simply put, people who care enough will seek out new music from alternate sources; either to pander to their sense of individuality or through another social/politial motivation. People without this emotional/politial investment will seek out new music from a more convenient source such as big box retailers. This may be through laziness, or due to caring more about other things. In the end, neither side loses much, and capitalism is served.
Another problem with subscription systems is the choice of music. If I'm paying for a monthly subcription, I want that subscription to cover ALL my music costs. The reason I would pay for a subscription would be so I wouldn't have to buy any CDs. The problem is, am I going to be able to find Tiger Army, Sick of it All, and Thelonious Monk songs that haven't been re-released on CD? Would I be able to listen to them in my car without some fussy adapter?
The reason I would buy non-DRM songs would be so I could burn them to CDs, listen to them in my car, lend them to friends occasionally, etc. If I use a subscription service, I listen to music under conditions demanded by the service. The company I rent my music from demands that I listen to the music using my PC, or a mp3 player (which needs to be reconnected every month to verify the subscription status). That is simply too much of a sacrifice to be worth it to me.
So yes, it would be more convenient to get my music from a subcription. I wouldn't have to leave the house, and I could listen to new music without spending any additional money. However, this model is incompatible with the way I, personally, listen to music. It takes more time, and I listen to less "new" music, but I appreciate the music I do listen to more thoroughly. If I buy one or two new albums a month, I will listen to them very often. If I download the equivalent of twenty albums a month, I only give the music a cursory listen. I find that I have simply acquired too much music to listen to. I don't have enough time to absorb all the content, to listen to it enough to actually enjoy it. That's why I spend more money, and more time, buying music at record stores than downloading/pirating/subscribing to it online.
I think the real question is "Why did the GH developers decide that the thing that really gets the crowd goin' is pounding the tremolo bar like an insane man? Is there a precedent for this in real life?"
Or, let's say you paid to subscribe to Slashdot and the New York Times. Sure, you get extra features from each site that are worth the money (for some people), but you still see ads. Quite annoying, but that's how capitalism is *supposed* to work.
Well, while I understand your reluctance to let your kids play more realistic modern games depicting violence, I don't know if better graphics make the games more detrimental to your children's mental health. When you were killing aliens and monsters in Doom and Wolfenstein, you knew exactly what you were doing. It didn't look anything like real life, but you were still running around shooting things with a gun. I don't think more realistic graphics can change the argument-If it was a safe activity for you when you were a kid, it should be as safe for your kids now. When I first got Doom, my mother was fairly upset. Even though the graphics left much up to the imagination, the sight of pixellated blood flying about disturbed her. It wasn't the realism of the graphics that disturbed her; rather, it was the intent behind her child's actions that disturbed her.
I'm not advocating that you change the way you raise your kids, I'm just making a point
Well yes, but you can 'buy' a house after <10 years of work. It might not be paid off in ten years, but you can be living in your 'own' home before then.
Yeah, it's old, but so what? That's all he needs, provided he isn't doing anything too intensive. If it's a home desktop that isn't a gaming machine, why pay for more hardware than you need? If $200 buys you the computer you need, why spend 700? Now, mind you, most people buying Dells and such are paying for more hardware than they actually need, but that's neither here nor there.
I'm buying several sheets to send letters to a friend in Iraq. Nothing more embarrassing than being a soldier who plays WoW and gets letters with Star Wars stamps.
*evil laugh*
Personally, I think something like this would be fairly easy to do. The average pedestrian NPC's in GTA react to shootings in a perfectly sane manner-they scream and run away. Yes, it would involve a lot of pvp warfare, but that's the whole point of such a game. If there were different character classes-I.E. bodyguards, crooked cops, hitmen, etc., it would keep things fairly well balanced. If there were multiple 'gangs' in a city, the territory each gang controlled could be controlled by how much money they made from whatever illegal enterprises they controlled and how well they did in PvP warfare. Also, the quest system would be as viable as any other MMO. For instance, how many people are upset that when they are questing in, say, wow, everybody seems to be doing the same thing. In quests that involve helping some prisoner escape, or collecting a certain number of items for a NPC, it doesn't make any logical sense that the NPC would want to escape multiple times, or would need millions of a certain item, but it happens anyway. I have been waiting quite a while for a full-fledged MMO GTA, and I don't see any serious problems hindering the development of such a game.
While the executive enforces the laws, the executive branch is responsible to the judicial branch, which can "compel" the executive branch to obey the laws. Technically, Bush does have the power to ignore any law he wants to, but in the real world he is compelled to enforce the laws by the judicial and legislative branches.
Where the hell did I say I've shown porn to kids? Did I say anything that would lead you to conclude that I am, in fact, a peddler of smut to kids? You are mistaken sir. It is you who are the moron. If and when I have kids, they will receive a frank, honest, informative talk about sex. This does not mean I give porn to other people's kids, or that I will give porn to my own kids. I won't punish them for possessing pornography, nor will I treat sex as a vile, evil act.
Furthermore, kids have an inherent understanding of the consequences of violence because parents/society have taught them these consequences (through the existence of jails, police, etc.). However, kids can also have an inherent understanding of the negative consequences of sex if they are so taught.
Finally, to engage in philosophical/semantics debate, most people have no inherent understanding of anything. I didn't have an inherent understanding of the danger of fire when I was born. Most people have this understanding, either through personal experience or education. However, if nobody has told you that fire can harm you, and you haven't been burned yet, you have no comprehension of the dangers that await you.
Not to be inflammatory, but I sincerely cannot accept the validity of your point. Clearly, unless your child is a prodigy, he/she is incapable of surfing the internet. At such a young age, he/she is only exposed to whatever influences you deem appropriate. No school kids are pressuring him to smoke, drink, do drugs, etc. Your child is only exposed to media you deem appropriate to present to him. In my case, I didn't start surfing the internet until I was in fourth or fifth grade (concidentally, the time when most boys begin puberty). At this age, most boys will willingly seek out pornography out of curiosity or peer pressure. Banning online pornography will not stop them from trying to seek out pornography, be it through television, magazines, or the neighbor girl's window. I believe a frank talk between parents and children will do more good to "protect" the children than censorship. Children, and humans in general, are drawn to the unknown, and censorship only increases that attraction. Therefore, the "hush-hush" stigma surrounding sexuality and censorship actually do more harm than good to children and adults.
Why is it that movies that depict extremely graphic, senseless murder receive PG-13 and R ratings, while full-frontal nudity can easily doom a movie with the forbidden NC-17 rating? Surely murder is worse than sex, so why does society seem to stomach murder more easily than sex? In my lifetime, I have seen more people murdered (on television, movies, etc.) than I have seen naked men/women. It is fairly evident that modern culture feels violence is less harmful to children (for example, how many times does Wile E Coyote get injured/killed?) than sex (how often does said coyote get laid?). Far from protecting children, we are desensitizing them to violence and creating negative thoughts surrounding sex. In my lifetime, I have never murdered, hospitalized, or even physically fought another person; but I have had sex multiple times. Why, then, does the media and the culture surrounding it not reflect the actual reality of the persons consuming the media?
And yes, I also oppose censorship because, as a young college student, I and my peers are apt to consume pornography. So that self-interest may color my opinions, but the logic of the argument still stands.
The real question I've always had is: Why is porn bad for kids? Seriously, I can't come up with any reason at all. Unless it's ultra-violent rape porn or something, porn is typically far less disturbing to a kid than the evening news.
Case in point: I'm sure Tom Cruise, Ben Afflec, etc, would be perfectly capable of being garbage men. But how many garbage men would be able to do their jobs? Although some refuse to recognize it, there are quite a few fairly complex skills actors have to master to be good. This is where the 'honesty' thing comes in. Acting is, essentially, dishonest; but it's the honesty of the performance that actors are worried about. They are paid to act, and if a computer can do half of the acting for them, then what are they supposed to do??
Which, when you think about it, may not in fact be all that great. We are already struggling with overpopulation, so the last thing we need is even more kids. Think about it. If every family had 4 kids, then in about 18 years or so there are 12 billion people on the planet. Sounds like a good idea to me.
"The financial institutions (who you say will 'prop up' the dollar) always want more money pumped created so they can lend it out and make more money"
This is pretty much flat-out untrue. Financial institutions (e.g. banks) don't wait for the government to print more money so they can lend it out. While the U.S. government does print new money, most of the 'new' money that enters the economy is created by banks. Average Joe decides to buy a house, so he goes to the bank. The bank loans him money, and Joe buys his house. Wham! New money. That money didn't exist before, the bank just gave him money drawn from other people's accounts. So, while the bank is out this amount of money until Joe repays his loan, the bank doesn't tell the account holders that their money isn't in the bank, they need to wait for Joe's loan to be repaid. The bank simple hands them money out of the hard currency it has on hand. This effect is much more significant when banks loan large amounts of money to investors/corporations to create new businesses or expand existing ones. So, while the government does create some new money each year, most of the new dollars pumped into the economy come from banks.
While I agree that there are still walking opportunities in sprawled areas, walking is a less attractive decision. I currently live in an urban area, and the grocery store is about 8 blocks away. I don't drive to the store, because I would spend 2 minutes driving and 10 minutes finding a parking spot. However; I used to live in a 'sprawled' community where the grocery store was much, much farther away. Walking wasn't a viable option, because it would have taken about half an hour; so I spent 4 minutes driving to the store and 1 minute parking my car. The point is that urban communities force people to walk, whereas suburban communities 'invite' people to drive. So, while people living in sprawled areas can choose to walk, they most likely won't want to spend 1.5 hours walking to work each morning. And, conversely, in urban areas, people would rather walk 10 minutes to work instead of spending $5 and a half an hour driving to work.
Well, when you think about it, Bill Gates has probably done more to fight AIDS and world hunger than the entire slashdot community combined. It's still just easier to cry about how much MS sucks and how open source is better.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, it seems like the author just wants to blame coders for any and all security issues. The black hats exploit "holes" and "bugs" for a reason-they're unintentional/unnoticed flaws in programs that the devs didn't catch. Simple human error, or people who were too busy, or didn't have enough time to check everything. That's human nature, and it happens with nearly all human endeavors. NASA forgets to convert a few measurements from metric, Ford has a problem with the tires on a certain model, Dell's batteries like to explode, etc. The IT industry doesn't purposely create these flaws so that anti-virus companies can make money. It seems rather presumptuous to claim "as long as IT security is a separate industry, there will be companies making money based on insecurity -- companies who will lose money if the internet becomes more secure." This is a rather obvious claim, yet the author twists the meaning to make it look like software developers intentionally create flawed programs so that other companies can make money. Indeed, the more powerful incentive for developers is to make their products more secure. If MS released a version of Windows that was completely invulnerable to malicious code, they would make even more money. Such a mythical operating system will likely never exist, because users continually push for more functionality, the operating system becomes increasingly complicated, and backwards-compatibility still needs to be maintained. Inevitably, some cracker with too much time on his/her hands will find some flaw, however small, and devise a way to exploit it. Then, the IT security industry needs to quickly devise a way to fix the problem and protect users from the attack. Not always the easiest task.
<p>Yes, it's a pain in the ass to protect systems, but it's going to be a necessary task; now and in the future. Whining about how we really don't need a security industry doesn't solve anything. Not only is it obvious to all that we need more secure software, but it should also be obvious that we need a security industry once the inevitable problems do arise. Things break, especially if there are people who purposely <i>try</i> to break them; and someone needs to be able to fix them quickly. It's time-consuming and annoying to have to deal with, but it's a fact of life. Get over it.</p>
First, I would like to address the charge of "you are all apathetic"
There are quite a number of people who are taking proactive steps to stem the tide and regain their rights. However, they are ignored at best or suppressed at worst. As you said, you have witnessed protesters voices being violently silenced, which is nothing new. How many people remember the treatment of John Lennon and others, and how many people would be willing to stick to their principles in such situations? Most people are apathetic because they believe they will a)be ignored b)suffer negative consequences for their actions c)are more absorbed in their daily lives than politics d)are gullible enough to believe they are being protected by a benevolent government. As sad as it is, George Bush was elected for a second time by an actual majority (unlike the 2000 election). Enough people were petrified of the terrorists, and they believed that Bush would defend them from the "evil arabs" who formed the "Axis of Evil".
Clearly, many of the people in both the US and the UK are willing to lose some of their rights in exchange for a feeling of safety. Right or wrong, they accept the Patriot Act, ever-present surveillance of staggering proportions, and don't worry at all. It may not be a conspiracy, but it's a damn-well orchestrated scheme to give even more control to those in power. Mass political action can be effective, but only if the number of people involved is great enough. I don't know about the UK, but in the US the "unwashed masses" tend to get all their information from mass-media television news. As Anti-Flag says, "Have the media broadcast only the ruling party's information. This can be done through state run media. Remember, in times of conflict all for-profit media repeats the ruling party's information, therefore all for-profit media is state-run." CNN, Fox, NBC and their ilk aren't interested in distributing "dissident" information, since their goal (higher profits) is more easily obtained by supporting the government's mindset.
Increasingly, I find that I don't trust any news source to give me unbiased information concerning foreign relations (especially with the Middle-East) or national security. It's hard to operate and make accurate decisions in such an environment. Furthermore, I find that most people really don't give a damn what happens in other countries, as long as their own little corner of the world isn't being bombed and their relatives aren't the ones being killed. My best friend is about to go fight a war that he believes is unjust, against people he cannot consider enemies. All because the military is the only way he could feasibly afford a college education (lower-class background, poor credit rating, etc.) However, there isn't anything either of us can do that will affect significant change, simply because we would have to rely on other people. Coincidentally, these are the people who care more about the newest episode of 24 or Lost than "boring politics" and would only watch the State of the Union address if they were paid.
Mel Brooks probably said it best:
You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons.Well, if you're homeless, then by all means, go mug someone. I hear that's all homeless people are interested in. They tell me that they're just too lazy to get a real job, and it's all their fault. -end sarcasm--
You could also try selling your computer, eh?
I dunno, I've often wondered what kind of "evidence" the US has against those lovely guantanamo bay "detainees". (Side note: has anyone ever called them anything less euphemistic?) Did they just have a funny look about them, or did they not smell so good? Given the number of parallel trends in the two countries, it wouldn't surprise me at all if people were already being detained based on evidence just as weak as lip-reading cameras.
While I agree that the UK fares worse than the US in these regards, that still does not mean that there is a vast "conspiracy" afoot in the US. However, it is clear that, slowly but surely, personal liberty is gradually being suppressed in favor of security in the US. While the parent may be a tinfoil-hatter, that doesn't make his point invalid. The patriot act, guantanamo bay, warrantless wiretapping, etc. could all be called unconstitutional. So, while an unwritten constitution provides less protection than a written one, either can be usurped when the individuals in power find that their personal interests are best protected by "unconstitutional measures".
Succinctly put, citizens can't depend on their governments to provide them with rights. They must demand these rights for themselves. In both the US and the UK, the respective protections of personal liberty were not created by the government, they were created by dissident groups who managed to establish said rights, often with the opposition of the ruling parties. The truly terrifying thing is that few seem committed to any sort of positive action. Everyone bemoans the degradation of these rights, but there are few groups actively doing anything about it; and the groups that are doing something (ACLU, EFF, etc.) are subjects of public scorn. So, rather than relying on political systems (The Constitution, the courts) as you suggest, more emphasis needs to be placed on collective action.
And yes, I know that 99% of the people in any given population are far too apathetic to actually do anything.
Wait juuuust a second: did you say that "people who search"="a small demographic"??? It took me 2 years to convince my mom that she could type www.weather.com into the bar at the top. For 2 years her homepage was set to Google and she would navigate via Google searches. Once she was done checking the weather, she would close the browser, start another session, and do another Google search. So no, it's not a small demographic. It is, almost literally, everyone who uses the web. At some point or another, nearly everyone who uses the web will use one search engine or another. Since Google is the most popular search engine, it follows that Google has reams upon reams of data that advertisers find highly desirable.
Well yes, there still is a conflict of interest, but only if they sell the services of the Performics team. They can still keep this team, using them in much the same way companies use white hat hackers-to purposely game the system, then hand the results over to Google. It's a conflict of interest if they continue to offer Doubleclick's Performics services, but it's an invaluable tool if they use it properly.
The problem is that big-box retailers are a terribly convenient way to purchase music for most people. If they don't have a lot of emotional investment in what they listen to. I'm not implying that they're shallow, or sheeples. I'm just saying that its just music to them, not a personal affirmation of identity. If they just listen to top-40 hit radio, then any song they're exposed to will certainly be available at the nearest Wal-Mart, Target, or K-Mart. The people who care enough about musical diversity to be angry about this will still seek out new music from record stores, online, friends, etc. TFA seems to claim that big-box retailers will destroy musical diversity. This is giving them far too much credit. As long as there are people who care enough, new indendent music will be created. It may not be what the masses listen to, but this isn't always a bad thing. Top-40 radio has become what it currently is because of how many people listen to it. It is run by large corporations that, because of their size, are inherently conservative. These corporations would prefer to distribute music that won't disturb the status quo. Smaller, independent music isn't restrained by these conditions; however, it would be provided it became popular enough.
Simply put, people who care enough will seek out new music from alternate sources; either to pander to their sense of individuality or through another social/politial motivation. People without this emotional/politial investment will seek out new music from a more convenient source such as big box retailers. This may be through laziness, or due to caring more about other things. In the end, neither side loses much, and capitalism is served.
Another problem with subscription systems is the choice of music. If I'm paying for a monthly subcription, I want that subscription to cover ALL my music costs. The reason I would pay for a subscription would be so I wouldn't have to buy any CDs. The problem is, am I going to be able to find Tiger Army, Sick of it All, and Thelonious Monk songs that haven't been re-released on CD? Would I be able to listen to them in my car without some fussy adapter?
The reason I would buy non-DRM songs would be so I could burn them to CDs, listen to them in my car, lend them to friends occasionally, etc. If I use a subscription service, I listen to music under conditions demanded by the service. The company I rent my music from demands that I listen to the music using my PC, or a mp3 player (which needs to be reconnected every month to verify the subscription status). That is simply too much of a sacrifice to be worth it to me.
So yes, it would be more convenient to get my music from a subcription. I wouldn't have to leave the house, and I could listen to new music without spending any additional money. However, this model is incompatible with the way I, personally, listen to music. It takes more time, and I listen to less "new" music, but I appreciate the music I do listen to more thoroughly. If I buy one or two new albums a month, I will listen to them very often. If I download the equivalent of twenty albums a month, I only give the music a cursory listen. I find that I have simply acquired too much music to listen to. I don't have enough time to absorb all the content, to listen to it enough to actually enjoy it. That's why I spend more money, and more time, buying music at record stores than downloading/pirating/subscribing to it online.
I think the real question is "Why did the GH developers decide that the thing that really gets the crowd goin' is pounding the tremolo bar like an insane man? Is there a precedent for this in real life?"
Or, let's say you paid to subscribe to Slashdot and the New York Times. Sure, you get extra features from each site that are worth the money (for some people), but you still see ads. Quite annoying, but that's how capitalism is *supposed* to work.
Well, while I understand your reluctance to let your kids play more realistic modern games depicting violence, I don't know if better graphics make the games more detrimental to your children's mental health. When you were killing aliens and monsters in Doom and Wolfenstein, you knew exactly what you were doing. It didn't look anything like real life, but you were still running around shooting things with a gun. I don't think more realistic graphics can change the argument-If it was a safe activity for you when you were a kid, it should be as safe for your kids now. When I first got Doom, my mother was fairly upset. Even though the graphics left much up to the imagination, the sight of pixellated blood flying about disturbed her. It wasn't the realism of the graphics that disturbed her; rather, it was the intent behind her child's actions that disturbed her.
I'm not advocating that you change the way you raise your kids, I'm just making a point
Well yes, but you can 'buy' a house after <10 years of work. It might not be paid off in ten years, but you can be living in your 'own' home before then.
Yeah, it's old, but so what? That's all he needs, provided he isn't doing anything too intensive. If it's a home desktop that isn't a gaming machine, why pay for more hardware than you need? If $200 buys you the computer you need, why spend 700? Now, mind you, most people buying Dells and such are paying for more hardware than they actually need, but that's neither here nor there.
I'm buying several sheets to send letters to a friend in Iraq. Nothing more embarrassing than being a soldier who plays WoW and gets letters with Star Wars stamps. *evil laugh*
Personally, I think something like this would be fairly easy to do. The average pedestrian NPC's in GTA react to shootings in a perfectly sane manner-they scream and run away. Yes, it would involve a lot of pvp warfare, but that's the whole point of such a game. If there were different character classes-I.E. bodyguards, crooked cops, hitmen, etc., it would keep things fairly well balanced. If there were multiple 'gangs' in a city, the territory each gang controlled could be controlled by how much money they made from whatever illegal enterprises they controlled and how well they did in PvP warfare. Also, the quest system would be as viable as any other MMO. For instance, how many people are upset that when they are questing in, say, wow, everybody seems to be doing the same thing. In quests that involve helping some prisoner escape, or collecting a certain number of items for a NPC, it doesn't make any logical sense that the NPC would want to escape multiple times, or would need millions of a certain item, but it happens anyway. I have been waiting quite a while for a full-fledged MMO GTA, and I don't see any serious problems hindering the development of such a game.
While the executive enforces the laws, the executive branch is responsible to the judicial branch, which can "compel" the executive branch to obey the laws. Technically, Bush does have the power to ignore any law he wants to, but in the real world he is compelled to enforce the laws by the judicial and legislative branches.
Where the hell did I say I've shown porn to kids? Did I say anything that would lead you to conclude that I am, in fact, a peddler of smut to kids? You are mistaken sir. It is you who are the moron. If and when I have kids, they will receive a frank, honest, informative talk about sex. This does not mean I give porn to other people's kids, or that I will give porn to my own kids. I won't punish them for possessing pornography, nor will I treat sex as a vile, evil act.
Furthermore, kids have an inherent understanding of the consequences of violence because parents/society have taught them these consequences (through the existence of jails, police, etc.). However, kids can also have an inherent understanding of the negative consequences of sex if they are so taught.
Finally, to engage in philosophical/semantics debate, most people have no inherent understanding of anything. I didn't have an inherent understanding of the danger of fire when I was born. Most people have this understanding, either through personal experience or education. However, if nobody has told you that fire can harm you, and you haven't been burned yet, you have no comprehension of the dangers that await you.
Not to be inflammatory, but I sincerely cannot accept the validity of your point. Clearly, unless your child is a prodigy, he/she is incapable of surfing the internet. At such a young age, he/she is only exposed to whatever influences you deem appropriate. No school kids are pressuring him to smoke, drink, do drugs, etc. Your child is only exposed to media you deem appropriate to present to him. In my case, I didn't start surfing the internet until I was in fourth or fifth grade (concidentally, the time when most boys begin puberty). At this age, most boys will willingly seek out pornography out of curiosity or peer pressure. Banning online pornography will not stop them from trying to seek out pornography, be it through television, magazines, or the neighbor girl's window. I believe a frank talk between parents and children will do more good to "protect" the children than censorship. Children, and humans in general, are drawn to the unknown, and censorship only increases that attraction. Therefore, the "hush-hush" stigma surrounding sexuality and censorship actually do more harm than good to children and adults.
Why is it that movies that depict extremely graphic, senseless murder receive PG-13 and R ratings, while full-frontal nudity can easily doom a movie with the forbidden NC-17 rating? Surely murder is worse than sex, so why does society seem to stomach murder more easily than sex? In my lifetime, I have seen more people murdered (on television, movies, etc.) than I have seen naked men/women. It is fairly evident that modern culture feels violence is less harmful to children (for example, how many times does Wile E Coyote get injured/killed?) than sex (how often does said coyote get laid?). Far from protecting children, we are desensitizing them to violence and creating negative thoughts surrounding sex. In my lifetime, I have never murdered, hospitalized, or even physically fought another person; but I have had sex multiple times. Why, then, does the media and the culture surrounding it not reflect the actual reality of the persons consuming the media?
And yes, I also oppose censorship because, as a young college student, I and my peers are apt to consume pornography. So that self-interest may color my opinions, but the logic of the argument still stands.
The real question I've always had is: Why is porn bad for kids? Seriously, I can't come up with any reason at all. Unless it's ultra-violent rape porn or something, porn is typically far less disturbing to a kid than the evening news.
Wait, that's it. Censor CNN!!
Case in point: I'm sure Tom Cruise, Ben Afflec, etc, would be perfectly capable of being garbage men. But how many garbage men would be able to do their jobs? Although some refuse to recognize it, there are quite a few fairly complex skills actors have to master to be good. This is where the 'honesty' thing comes in. Acting is, essentially, dishonest; but it's the honesty of the performance that actors are worried about. They are paid to act, and if a computer can do half of the acting for them, then what are they supposed to do??
"I did my part- I have 4 kids of my own"
Which, when you think about it, may not in fact be all that great. We are already struggling with overpopulation, so the last thing we need is even more kids. Think about it. If every family had 4 kids, then in about 18 years or so there are 12 billion people on the planet. Sounds like a good idea to me.
"The financial institutions (who you say will 'prop up' the dollar) always want more money pumped created so they can lend it out and make more money"
This is pretty much flat-out untrue. Financial institutions (e.g. banks) don't wait for the government to print more money so they can lend it out. While the U.S. government does print new money, most of the 'new' money that enters the economy is created by banks. Average Joe decides to buy a house, so he goes to the bank. The bank loans him money, and Joe buys his house. Wham! New money. That money didn't exist before, the bank just gave him money drawn from other people's accounts. So, while the bank is out this amount of money until Joe repays his loan, the bank doesn't tell the account holders that their money isn't in the bank, they need to wait for Joe's loan to be repaid. The bank simple hands them money out of the hard currency it has on hand. This effect is much more significant when banks loan large amounts of money to investors/corporations to create new businesses or expand existing ones. So, while the government does create some new money each year, most of the new dollars pumped into the economy come from banks.
While I agree that there are still walking opportunities in sprawled areas, walking is a less attractive decision. I currently live in an urban area, and the grocery store is about 8 blocks away. I don't drive to the store, because I would spend 2 minutes driving and 10 minutes finding a parking spot. However; I used to live in a 'sprawled' community where the grocery store was much, much farther away. Walking wasn't a viable option, because it would have taken about half an hour; so I spent 4 minutes driving to the store and 1 minute parking my car. The point is that urban communities force people to walk, whereas suburban communities 'invite' people to drive. So, while people living in sprawled areas can choose to walk, they most likely won't want to spend 1.5 hours walking to work each morning. And, conversely, in urban areas, people would rather walk 10 minutes to work instead of spending $5 and a half an hour driving to work.
Well, when you think about it, Bill Gates has probably done more to fight AIDS and world hunger than the entire slashdot community combined. It's still just easier to cry about how much MS sucks and how open source is better.