I don't see why chess should be a 'highbrow' game. In fact (and perhaps I should have been more clear about this), I don't think such distinctions should be applied to games at all. Anyone can play them; you don't need to be educated to play a game. Anyone can play and enjoy chess (I learned to play it when I was 5 or 6; I might not be a good player, but I still enjoy playing it). The game itself isn't difficult (it has very few rules). Beating the other player is difficult -- especially if that player is good. But I don't think this makes that game any more 'highbrow'. Only if you turn game into a metaphor for something else can you apply such categories to it.
'Highbrow' doesn't only mean that you have to put a lot into something. You would also have to be rewarded accordingly and get something 'bigger' or 'higher' out of it. Flight sims and TBS-s aren't really 'highbrow' -- they simply lack the depth you would expect from something belonging to the 'high' culture. They don't really challenge your understanding of the world; on the contrary, they tend to reinforce your assumptions of it.
I think what we're dealing here with is a misconception (a pretty common one, I might add) of what a photo is. The misconception is that a photo can somehow magically reproduce something the way it is, while in reality, all photos are staged to some extent, even the ones were "lucky shots" (you'll still have to frame them, etc). Press photos are doubly so. A press photographer has to take interesting photos. The photos have to be interesting because if they aren't, noone will buy them. These photos also have to produce some sort of an emotion in the reader/viewer. These photos don't have to give an exact account of what happened (this is what the article text is for) but simply illustrate the news piece and, perhaps, reinforce its message (that war is a horrible thing, for instace). At the same time, the article text or the photo caption serve as context for the image, "framing" or "staging" it.
Of course, digital cameras have changed things quite a bit. You can get digital images "up" very fast, but this speed comes at a price: they are easier to forge and the forgeries are more likely to go unnoticed because of the large number of images. It seems to me that the "traditional" media haven't quite accustomed to this yet. But this doesn't mean that there are no safeguards against such incidents. It also doesn't mean that they don't care if the pictures are real or fakes -- in all the cases where a photo journalist has been caught manipulating images (at least in all the cases I've heard of), that person has promptly been fired.
There's also Group 5: people who post jokes that have grown a beard and have little to do with the topic of the discussion. Something like this old joke about preparing for exams:
First year students start studying two weeks before the exam. Second year students start studying two days before the exam. Third year students prepare their crib notes the night before the exam. Fourth year students copy their answers from a textbook they keep under the desk. Fifth year students copy their answers from a textbook they keep on the desk. Sixth year students walk up to the professor's desk with the textbook in their hand: "Is this the page? No? Maybe this one, then? No? Take the book and find it yourself, then."
but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be testing it on the people who are building it or will be using it in real life
Because nothing motivates these people better than the prospect of the weapon they helped develop being used on them. Only in Soviet Russia, of course, and maybe in Communist China and Korea. In a democratic country, if you want people working for you, you don't make them suffer as a result of this.
But hey, I have a great idea. How about if they test these weapons on soldiers -- just like they did with the atomic bomb? Or maybe they have already?
Shouldn't we have more concern for our fellow American citizens than those who we're at war against?
To my knowledge, America isn't officially at war with anyone at the moment (Afghanistan is a "peacekeeping" operation and the Iraqis are supposed to sort their own mess out themselves). I guess this means that America is, in fact, at war with itself, meaning that the use of these weapons against its own citizens is quite justified.
What makes you think they gaven't tested these weapons on individuals already? Maybe they just want to test them in real-life situations, like demonstrations gone out of hand or riots?
Nothing new here. Just someone complaining that privacy is not worth a slight inconvenience.
Not all people are the same, and not everyone values their (or someone else's) privacy the same. Some are willing to give up a bit of convenience in the name of privacy, others, however, are willing to trade off a bit of privacy for extra convenience; some are willing to trade off more, some less. But the important thing is, you cannot have them both at once. At least not yet. And not on the Internet.
I know how easy it is to condemn people for acting "stupid", but stupidity is not absolute. Someone might ridicule (and condemn) you for exactly the opposite -- being obsessed with privacy.
RTFB (read the fine blurb). It says: "you can use Google Book Search to explore some of the best novels of the 20th century which have been challenged or banned" -- meaning that they are not necessarily banned at the moment (although they might be in some other part of the world)
No information = information has finally been set free from the graves of disks and memory sticks, from the shackles of the synapses of your brain, from the chains of words, sentences, paragraphs and sections, free to roam loose in the wide Universe.
Remember, information wants to be free! Burn a book, set another piece of information free!
I think the analogy you use is a bad one and the argument you make is not a correct one. Most of all, I cannot agree at all with your definition of censorship. It seems to me that you're confusing censorship (witholding information) with propaganda (feeding "convenient" or misleading information). While censorship is one of the tools employed by propaganda, they're not the same thing.
When we (and by we, I mean the linux community) hit a larger portion of user base, say 10% of desktop market (if that will ever happen) linux is going to be well known
You (and by you, I mean the linux community) have been beating this drum for a dozen years now. Somehow, I don't believe it will ever happen. If it will, it won't be the same Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
fanbox.
I don't see why chess should be a 'highbrow' game. In fact (and perhaps I should have been more clear about this), I don't think such distinctions should be applied to games at all. Anyone can play them; you don't need to be educated to play a game. Anyone can play and enjoy chess (I learned to play it when I was 5 or 6; I might not be a good player, but I still enjoy playing it). The game itself isn't difficult (it has very few rules). Beating the other player is difficult -- especially if that player is good. But I don't think this makes that game any more 'highbrow'. Only if you turn game into a metaphor for something else can you apply such categories to it.
And yes, for a moment, I was tempted to post a NSFW gif image instead of the cat in a hole one.
More colorful, perhaps? Unfortunately, you're right. We can't have nice things around here because someone will find a way to abuse them.
Really, is there any way that technology has enhanced your web experience for the better?
Dude. Inlined animated gifs are like the bestest thing ever! Pity that Slashdot doesn't allow inlining images...
'Highbrow' doesn't only mean that you have to put a lot into something. You would also have to be rewarded accordingly and get something 'bigger' or 'higher' out of it. Flight sims and TBS-s aren't really 'highbrow' -- they simply lack the depth you would expect from something belonging to the 'high' culture. They don't really challenge your understanding of the world; on the contrary, they tend to reinforce your assumptions of it.
Isn't this an oxymoron? 'Highbrow' all but screams "serious" to me, but a game taken seriously is no longer a game.
I get the shotgun seat!
I think what we're dealing here with is a misconception (a pretty common one, I might add) of what a photo is. The misconception is that a photo can somehow magically reproduce something the way it is, while in reality, all photos are staged to some extent, even the ones were "lucky shots" (you'll still have to frame them, etc). Press photos are doubly so. A press photographer has to take interesting photos. The photos have to be interesting because if they aren't, noone will buy them. These photos also have to produce some sort of an emotion in the reader/viewer. These photos don't have to give an exact account of what happened (this is what the article text is for) but simply illustrate the news piece and, perhaps, reinforce its message (that war is a horrible thing, for instace). At the same time, the article text or the photo caption serve as context for the image, "framing" or "staging" it.
Of course, digital cameras have changed things quite a bit. You can get digital images "up" very fast, but this speed comes at a price: they are easier to forge and the forgeries are more likely to go unnoticed because of the large number of images. It seems to me that the "traditional" media haven't quite accustomed to this yet. But this doesn't mean that there are no safeguards against such incidents. It also doesn't mean that they don't care if the pictures are real or fakes -- in all the cases where a photo journalist has been caught manipulating images (at least in all the cases I've heard of), that person has promptly been fired.
There's also Group 5: people who post jokes that have grown a beard and have little to do with the topic of the discussion. Something like this old joke about preparing for exams:
First year students start studying two weeks before the exam.
Second year students start studying two days before the exam.
Third year students prepare their crib notes the night before the exam.
Fourth year students copy their answers from a textbook they keep under the desk.
Fifth year students copy their answers from a textbook they keep on the desk.
Sixth year students walk up to the professor's desk with the textbook in their hand: "Is this the page? No? Maybe this one, then? No? Take the book and find it yourself, then."
encouraging the use of force is probably not a good idea.
Unfortunately, if you're dealing with large crowds, it's usually a lot easier to use force than to try and solve the situation in a peaceful manner.
but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be testing it on the people who are building it or will be using it in real life
Because nothing motivates these people better than the prospect of the weapon they helped develop being used on them. Only in Soviet Russia, of course, and maybe in Communist China and Korea. In a democratic country, if you want people working for you, you don't make them suffer as a result of this.
But hey, I have a great idea. How about if they test these weapons on soldiers -- just like they did with the atomic bomb? Or maybe they have already?
Shouldn't we have more concern for our fellow American citizens than those who we're at war against?
To my knowledge, America isn't officially at war with anyone at the moment (Afghanistan is a "peacekeeping" operation and the Iraqis are supposed to sort their own mess out themselves). I guess this means that America is, in fact, at war with itself, meaning that the use of these weapons against its own citizens is quite justified.
What makes you think they gaven't tested these weapons on individuals already? Maybe they just want to test them in real-life situations, like demonstrations gone out of hand or riots?
Or maybe it should be used on "real American patriots": Ask not, what your country can do to you; ask what you can do for your country :7
Wow, you're so damn clever.
Nothing new here. Just someone complaining that privacy is not worth a slight inconvenience.
Not all people are the same, and not everyone values their (or someone else's) privacy the same. Some are willing to give up a bit of convenience in the name of privacy, others, however, are willing to trade off a bit of privacy for extra convenience; some are willing to trade off more, some less. But the important thing is, you cannot have them both at once. At least not yet. And not on the Internet.
I know how easy it is to condemn people for acting "stupid", but stupidity is not absolute. Someone might ridicule (and condemn) you for exactly the opposite -- being obsessed with privacy.
Oops, forgot to check the "post as AC" box...
Nonsense. Flamewars are supposed to be fun, you fucker!
RTFB (read the fine blurb). It says: "you can use Google Book Search to explore some of the best novels of the 20th century which have been challenged or banned" -- meaning that they are not necessarily banned at the moment (although they might be in some other part of the world)
No information = information has finally been set free from the graves of disks and memory sticks, from the shackles of the synapses of your brain, from the chains of words, sentences, paragraphs and sections, free to roam loose in the wide Universe.
Remember, information wants to be free! Burn a book, set another piece of information free!
I think the analogy you use is a bad one and the argument you make is not a correct one. Most of all, I cannot agree at all with your definition of censorship. It seems to me that you're confusing censorship (witholding information) with propaganda (feeding "convenient" or misleading information). While censorship is one of the tools employed by propaganda, they're not the same thing.
When we (and by we, I mean the linux community) hit a larger portion of user base, say 10% of desktop market (if that will ever happen) linux is going to be well known
You (and by you, I mean the linux community) have been beating this drum for a dozen years now. Somehow, I don't believe it will ever happen. If it will, it won't be the same Linux.
You didn't actually understand a word they said, did you?