A free society cannot survive without an open forum of ideas. It is this ideal of free society that groups like the ACLU seek to perpetuate. Regardless of what you may think, the people you mention (Rush Limbaugh and neo-nazis) *must* have the right to voice their opinion in a free society.
The restriction of freedom of speech really is about as slippery a slope as you can get. If we started imposing restrictions on the opinions of people who wished to "take away our rights," but who would interpret what this means?
Indeed, in some cases, this could result in the silencing of both sides of an issue. Take abortion, for example. Pro-lifers think that pro-choicers are taking away the embryo/fetus's right to life. Pro-choicers think that pro-lifers are taking away a woman's right to choose. Which one of these positions would be censored because they wish to take away peoples' rights?
Instead, even though you (or I) do not agree with the positions of these people, you should support their right to voice it in the marketplace of ideas. To do otherwise would start the country on a downward spiral of censorship and absurdity. That is why I support the ACLU via donations - because, while they may support the rights of groups whose opinions I do not agree with, in doing so they support my rights, too.
Don't you just hate it when your favorite insightful, helpful, or even downright revolutionary websites/programs get cancelled, only to be replaced with what is essentially a neutered, brainwashed shadow of its former glory?
Like Napster before it, it seems MP3.com has fallen victim to the RIAA's insatiable greed. What before was a bastion to new, emerging, and often innovative bands is now pay to listen, and no indie artists.
I like to call this the Zombie Effect - websites and P2P programs are killed by a higher authority, and then resurrected under complete control of that authority. It's happened before, and unfortunately, as this example shows, it will happen again.
...NASA not only wants to waste our taxpayer dollars on useless, overfunded, wasteful government-sponsored ventures, but they *also* want our input on *how* to waste that money. One would think that, after the recent disasters that the agency has experienced as well as the money-pit that the International Space Station continues to be, they would eventually give up.
With that in mind, here's an idea for a new "grand challenge:" See how many private groups/businesses can do NASA's job better than NASA. Because government monopolies such as NASA, like private monopolies, nearly always tend to produce lower quality goods at an inflated cost to the detriment of the taxpayer/consumer, I guarantee you that the number of entries (and successes) will be higher than one might think.
While political themes are abused to the point of redundancy in many games (how many times have you heard the "big evil corporation" storyline?), politics has its place. I simply think that the video-game industry isn't quite mature enough to find that place yet.
Essentially, video games are at the same stage right now that movies were at before the Cold War. In the case of the movie industry, it took a few intelligent yet entertaining titles to get people to take the medium as seriously as, say, politically-themed novels. As for examples, "The Day The Earth Stood Still" comes to mind, as does pretty much every Stanley Kubrick movie beginning with "Dr. Strangelove." All contain very serious political/philosophical messages, and were obviously not intended for the regular movie-of-the-week crowd. While one may argue that the movie industry has since been dumbed down due to the overabundance of special effects, you still get gems like "Brazil" or "Pi" on occasion that really challenge your values and intellect.
I think that, in recent years at least, we have been seeing the beginning of such a revolution with video games. More recent "adult" games such as Syberia (which included some very subtle and interesting anti-industrial messages) and Planescape-Torment (which addressed some rather challenging philosophical questions) are already beginning to appeal to those who favor thought-provoking experiences over blasting the hell out of everything that moves. Others, such as Republic-The Revolution, have tried and failed to deliver a serious political message, and still others (think: all of the Tom Clancy games, with their over-simplified "us vs. the terrorists" message) are making a mockery over what could be much more. All the gaming industry needs is that one, popular, breakthrough game.
Actually, prosecution and eventual punishment are both very effective deterrants to some types of crimes, namely anything that is not a "crime of passion."
Look at it this way: Murderers, rapists, and other violent offenders are usually too caught up in the heat of the moment to care about the consequenses of their actions. Therefore, longer jail sentences and measures such as the death penalty are largely ineffective in deterring these types of crimes. However, in the case of organized robberies, fraud, and pretty much any type of white-collar crime, fear of punitive measures by the government can be a very effective deterrant, because the criminal knows that he or she may be caught.
In other words, *if* these spammers are prosecuted to the fullest extent, given the maximum amount of jail time for their crimes available under the law, *and* this process is repeated on several major spammers, then this might eventually prevent Joe Blow's spam company from sending those bloody annoying penis-enlargement e-mails to you every week. But, of course, that is a big "if".
"Scientific principles absolutely demand that someone must go up there and search for it."
The trouble is that such an expedition would not be "scientific" at all. Scientisis observe phenomena and draw conclusions from what they observe. The religious nuts going on this expedition are reversing the order: they essentially begin with a conclusion they will not waver from (the Bible is true, the Ark of the Covenant exists as described therein, etc., etc.) and then look for evidence to support it.
This approach cannot conclusively prove anything, yet thousands of "Christian Scientists" adopt it, as though they can shirk the responsibility of scientists to be as objective as possible and still gain acceptance with the scientific community. In other words, if this crew climbing Ararat doesn't stumble upon anything, you will not hear them admit that the Ark may not exist. Instead, you will hear pleas if "it must be somewhere else!" And if they *do* find something, it will not only automatically be the Ark, but also divine in origin, exactly as described in the Bible, etc.
So, in conclusion, anyone doubting the validity of any evidence gleaned from this expedition is not acting out of blind faith, but simple skepticism.
Most of your reasons for loving the PS2 (versus the PC) are either false or moot.
DVD's? While it is true that most PC games must come on 2 or 3 CD's, it's only a minor annoyance when you realize that, after installation, you will often only need one of them, or perhaps none at all!
Resolution not important? You bet it is, and, in fact, it becomes *more* important on larger screens. A game running at 640x480 will look horrible on a large TV, but significantly less so on a smaller monitor.
Console games bug-free? While I must admit that they have *less* bugs than computer games, bugs still do exist; in fact, this is an *advantage* for PCs because you cannot download patches on to consoles to fix them.
Controllers? A good keyboard and mouse can do more than even the most well-designed one.
While I'm at it, I might as well counter with "Why I Love My PC:"
-The games are much more intelligent. Because the dev's aren't constrained by the controller limitations of a console platform, you can design games with dozens of hotkeys, versus maybe 10 buttons (at most) on a console controller. Also, PC game dev's doesn't have to worry about catering to the mainly teenage console crowd.
-The games look better! There are fewer hardware limitations on PC's.
-The controls are much better for the majority of game types out there. A joystick cannot match the sheer speed and control that a mouse provides, and keys are much easier on the fingers than console joysticks/controllers (remember how your hand hurt after playing Halo on the Xbox for too long?) Console controllers lend themselves more towards games in which lots of movement isn't required, such as fighting games.
-Freeware/shareware games. You have to pay for every game you use on a console, but PC gamers can download NetHack (and many others) for free!
-Emulation! No further explanation needed.
-Innovation. How many small startup companies do you see making games for consoles? However, on the PC you get sleeper hits like Combat Mission that come from heretofore unknown game development groups. This allows for much more innovative games on the PC, while console game dev's are busy making another Final Fantasy or Mortal Kombat clone.
-Versatility. PC's can do much more than just gaming.
Well, that's my counter-argument, and I'm sticking to it.
Slashdot Mirror
The restriction of freedom of speech really is about as slippery a slope as you can get. If we started imposing restrictions on the opinions of people who wished to "take away our rights," but who would interpret what this means?
Indeed, in some cases, this could result in the silencing of both sides of an issue. Take abortion, for example. Pro-lifers think that pro-choicers are taking away the embryo/fetus's right to life. Pro-choicers think that pro-lifers are taking away a woman's right to choose. Which one of these positions would be censored because they wish to take away peoples' rights?
Instead, even though you (or I) do not agree with the positions of these people, you should support their right to voice it in the marketplace of ideas. To do otherwise would start the country on a downward spiral of censorship and absurdity. That is why I support the ACLU via donations - because, while they may support the rights of groups whose opinions I do not agree with, in doing so they support my rights, too.
Like Napster before it, it seems MP3.com has fallen victim to the RIAA's insatiable greed. What before was a bastion to new, emerging, and often innovative bands is now pay to listen, and no indie artists.
I like to call this the Zombie Effect - websites and P2P programs are killed by a higher authority, and then resurrected under complete control of that authority. It's happened before, and unfortunately, as this example shows, it will happen again.
With that in mind, here's an idea for a new "grand challenge:" See how many private groups/businesses can do NASA's job better than NASA. Because government monopolies such as NASA, like private monopolies, nearly always tend to produce lower quality goods at an inflated cost to the detriment of the taxpayer/consumer, I guarantee you that the number of entries (and successes) will be higher than one might think.
Essentially, video games are at the same stage right now that movies were at before the Cold War. In the case of the movie industry, it took a few intelligent yet entertaining titles to get people to take the medium as seriously as, say, politically-themed novels. As for examples, "The Day The Earth Stood Still" comes to mind, as does pretty much every Stanley Kubrick movie beginning with "Dr. Strangelove." All contain very serious political/philosophical messages, and were obviously not intended for the regular movie-of-the-week crowd. While one may argue that the movie industry has since been dumbed down due to the overabundance of special effects, you still get gems like "Brazil" or "Pi" on occasion that really challenge your values and intellect.
I think that, in recent years at least, we have been seeing the beginning of such a revolution with video games. More recent "adult" games such as Syberia (which included some very subtle and interesting anti-industrial messages) and Planescape-Torment (which addressed some rather challenging philosophical questions) are already beginning to appeal to those who favor thought-provoking experiences over blasting the hell out of everything that moves. Others, such as Republic-The Revolution, have tried and failed to deliver a serious political message, and still others (think: all of the Tom Clancy games, with their over-simplified "us vs. the terrorists" message) are making a mockery over what could be much more. All the gaming industry needs is that one, popular, breakthrough game.
Look at it this way: Murderers, rapists, and other violent offenders are usually too caught up in the heat of the moment to care about the consequenses of their actions. Therefore, longer jail sentences and measures such as the death penalty are largely ineffective in deterring these types of crimes. However, in the case of organized robberies, fraud, and pretty much any type of white-collar crime, fear of punitive measures by the government can be a very effective deterrant, because the criminal knows that he or she may be caught.
In other words, *if* these spammers are prosecuted to the fullest extent, given the maximum amount of jail time for their crimes available under the law, *and* this process is repeated on several major spammers, then this might eventually prevent Joe Blow's spam company from sending those bloody annoying penis-enlargement e-mails to you every week. But, of course, that is a big "if".
The trouble is that such an expedition would not be "scientific" at all. Scientisis observe phenomena and draw conclusions from what they observe. The religious nuts going on this expedition are reversing the order: they essentially begin with a conclusion they will not waver from (the Bible is true, the Ark of the Covenant exists as described therein, etc., etc.) and then look for evidence to support it.
This approach cannot conclusively prove anything, yet thousands of "Christian Scientists" adopt it, as though they can shirk the responsibility of scientists to be as objective as possible and still gain acceptance with the scientific community. In other words, if this crew climbing Ararat doesn't stumble upon anything, you will not hear them admit that the Ark may not exist. Instead, you will hear pleas if "it must be somewhere else!" And if they *do* find something, it will not only automatically be the Ark, but also divine in origin, exactly as described in the Bible, etc.
So, in conclusion, anyone doubting the validity of any evidence gleaned from this expedition is not acting out of blind faith, but simple skepticism.
Most of your reasons for loving the PS2 (versus the PC) are either false or moot. DVD's? While it is true that most PC games must come on 2 or 3 CD's, it's only a minor annoyance when you realize that, after installation, you will often only need one of them, or perhaps none at all! Resolution not important? You bet it is, and, in fact, it becomes *more* important on larger screens. A game running at 640x480 will look horrible on a large TV, but significantly less so on a smaller monitor. Console games bug-free? While I must admit that they have *less* bugs than computer games, bugs still do exist; in fact, this is an *advantage* for PCs because you cannot download patches on to consoles to fix them. Controllers? A good keyboard and mouse can do more than even the most well-designed one. While I'm at it, I might as well counter with "Why I Love My PC:" -The games are much more intelligent. Because the dev's aren't constrained by the controller limitations of a console platform, you can design games with dozens of hotkeys, versus maybe 10 buttons (at most) on a console controller. Also, PC game dev's doesn't have to worry about catering to the mainly teenage console crowd. -The games look better! There are fewer hardware limitations on PC's. -The controls are much better for the majority of game types out there. A joystick cannot match the sheer speed and control that a mouse provides, and keys are much easier on the fingers than console joysticks/controllers (remember how your hand hurt after playing Halo on the Xbox for too long?) Console controllers lend themselves more towards games in which lots of movement isn't required, such as fighting games. -Freeware/shareware games. You have to pay for every game you use on a console, but PC gamers can download NetHack (and many others) for free! -Emulation! No further explanation needed. -Innovation. How many small startup companies do you see making games for consoles? However, on the PC you get sleeper hits like Combat Mission that come from heretofore unknown game development groups. This allows for much more innovative games on the PC, while console game dev's are busy making another Final Fantasy or Mortal Kombat clone. -Versatility. PC's can do much more than just gaming. Well, that's my counter-argument, and I'm sticking to it.