Come on people, this is not:
- A crime against nature
- A crime against God
- A crime against humanity
- Proof of our lack of morals
- Prelude to apocolypse
This is scientists, making our world better.
Remember, their job?
For those of you who have responded with "Whoa, nay, immoral!" and are also pro-life/anti-abortion, ok, you can go (I'll argue with *you* later, but at least you are consistent). Animal rights types are also excused. For the rest of you, really now, grow up. Even if this was what everyone seems to think it is, a creature magically endowed with half human and half animal DNA, how are you going to justify *NOT* doing it? Superstition? Movies? Old literature? "Just feels wrong?" (like heart transplants, mechanical hearts, vaccines...)
In order to make a case against something like this, you need to show *who is hurt*.
A nonsentient lump of cells? Like the ones grown and killed daily in the service of science? Like aborted fetuses? Like the lab animals that can actually feel pain, but we experiment anyway? These are things I'm in favor of, and many of you as well. If you want to get up in a row about something, there's a lot more dubious things than this concept. Getting upset at new things because they are new is for stupid people.
(2)- No policeman in range is broadcasting the "do not fire" signal (after all, cops in range mean that the problem is well in hand, and you certainly shouldn't be firing at an officer), a signal which all guns will be regulated to obey.
Also handles that annoying "revolution" problem that some places tend to have. That way, a government can stay in power without the consent of the governed, which will finally bring us back to they way God meant it to be- we obey the largest alpha male within range, who derives his power from tradition and birth, and no one gets out of line.
I'm really glad that Microsoft is addressing this problem, even if it is by buying up a little guy and redressing him. Right now, using spyware removal is borderline illegal (!) because you probably agreed to a click-contract that may have damaged your legal ability to remove it. This is why Dell support is not allowed to talk about adaware or others. The real benefits Microsoft brings to the fight are:
1- Legitimacy. No longer are those programs random dubious things- they now compete with something that will soon be an OS feature. 2- Fight the monkey, spyware guys! Right now spyware disables anti-spyware existing on your machine, and sometimes interferes with the ability to run it. Very virus-like Let's see how these cute tricks work against 500 pound gorilla Microsoft, hmm?
I think that Microsoft is ultimately the right call for this product- it's addressing control over programs on your machine, and is properly an OS feature rather than an add-on.
I use Linux, but I often get dragged to anti-spyware duty for my less tech-savy friends. This will make that much easier, eventually.
When people near me are using technology to speak to friends and relatives instead of being as bored as me. I like the current airphones ok, because it means that the bastards have to pay through the nose, and communication should be expensive. After all, what about my right to not have to put up with people talking around me? What about my freedom from speech?
Oh, wait...
Seriously, I really hate this logic. Cellphones are a wonderful, lifesaving technology. Sure, people use them wrong sometimes, and sometimes I'll hear one side of a stupid conversation, and that side is really loud. You know how we talk at a certain volume into a phone, and a softer volume to someone right next to us? I betcha that's a technical problem no one cared about until cellphones became ubiquitous. I bet that having a better microphone plus some voice enhancement software (cutting out the nonspeech band I think happens already during compression but is anything amplifying the strongest sound source yet?) will eventually allow you to talk at a murmur and still be clearly heard.
Until then, the principles of freedom dictate that we put up with the inconvenience, instead of going with junk science (turn off gameboys at takeoff) and luddites (i haet teh c3llphones c4n i jam tem pls?).
I'd love there to be "no cellphone" flights for the few people who would prefer them, or a "no cellphoning" section of the airplane. That way people could still get their chance at not being bothered. But, failing that, the default should not be to deny people access to their useful and frankly somewhat godlike (by standards of generations ago, this is telepathy) technology.
One of my biggest gripes is the "exactly" requirement that some places have. Your password must have at least one number, at least one special character, at least one lowercase, at least one uppercase, and be EXACTLY eight characters long.
Lame-O!
So now it isn't "think of something secure" (which I'm ok at), it's "think of a phrase with eight words, or a thing with eight letters, or have something longer and stop typing when you hit eight characters.
Yea, it's probably not the best way that can be accomplished. But, at least they have it! I've never used nor heard of a feature like that before, so seeing it implemented in a way that I *think* could be done better doesn't bother me in the slightest.
Thanks a lot. Thanks to you and the other commentor, my file managing just got a lot easier.
I was about to ask what exactly you were smoking, and then I decided to experiment: I didn't pick the first couple (with control) and then use control-shift to pick the remainders, I just used shift.
That worked.
It's still not perfect (or I'm missing more details, likely at this point): if I want to highlight two different lines of things, I don't have *that* option (because holding control makes the "select an additional dude" logic fire, whereas I would like *both* that and the "string of guys" to follow).
But that's a not the same level of problem at all.
Heheh. Yea, I started complaining with the whole "Press Control-L to enter a location".
Right-O, that's obvious.
Now, I use it all the time. I didn't like the spatial thing, but I wanted to see whether they were right all along.
I'm still out on the issue, but it hasn't been a real winner for me so far:(
One question, and maybe everyone knows but me: in Windows at least (and maybe it originated on Mac) if I have a list of files, I can Ctrl-Click them and highlight many. Or, I can click on one and shift click on another and highlight all the intervening ones. Or, some combination of the two. The shift-click mechanic doesn't seem to be present in Nautilus. Is this deliberate? Is there some easier way to highlight all files that start with "Kl" or all jpgs, or all files created last week, that I'm not aware of?
If, for some reason, you find yourself being MRI probed or whatever, you simply think up a lie for EVERY SINGLE QUESTION, but then answer normally.
This doesn't measure "are you lying" as much as it measures "are you thinking", so going through the mental motions of lying and telling the truth should get all your responses to look identical.
Alternatively, you could do what has been suggested and make your lies look like truths, but the lack of a discriminating factor is the important part.
I would argue that it's simply not the government's role to burden communications with taxes.
One argument in the article is "not taxing this is not fair, because regular phones are taxed". This is a true statement, but I would argue that the *existing* taxes are an arbitrary joke: Americans are forced to pay per minute rates on "long distance" (meaning, another state, even though the actual route to another state and the same one could end up using the exact same satellite). Why? Well, it's because the goverment *taxes* based on per minute usage. Stating that the only way to achieve equality is to apply the same flawed system equally is not good logic.
If the functionality of 911 is so important (I believe it is), then other ways can be brought about to pay for it. With the current market penetration of phones, it's not unreasonable to assume that almost everyone has access to 911, so an alternate method could be used, one that taxes everyone just as the current system does. It could even be rolled trivially into property taxes, it's can't be much because it's itemized on my monthly phone bill, and it is tiny.
Saying that the only way we'll have goverment phone services or local governments gaining relevant revenue is to allow regulation of VOIP is beyond silly. There may be a difficult time of transition, but it's clear that progress is on the side of the new technology.
But it's clear from the article what the *real* problem is:
"The City of Seattle in 2003 collected $30 million from telephone utility taxes, its fourth largest source of revenue after property, B&O, and sales taxes."
Here the argument becomes, "A technology to allow people to communicate was developed, and we allowed governments to tax it. Now that an alternative has come along, we need to allow governments to tax it or else the governments won't be getting as much of your money as they are used to."
This is the same logic that would shut down an invention that generates endless free energy (Look at that electricity tax / the private sector that exists to deliver energy!), that would shut down an invention that creates delicious food out of thin air (sales tax / destroying the livelihood of farmers), a great solution in medicine that allowed people to be free of their various prescription drug dependencies... the same idea would oppose all of these things.
Stepping out of utopia land, we can address the one thing we *can* replicate nearly for free, and realize that it is the same logic opposing free software.
Your argument is equivalent to saying that it's ok if the elite (in this case, those skilled in drawing) violate copyright, but to make that available to everyone is wrong.
In fact, neither case is correct, and the horrible nonlogic of damaging a general purpose system with the goal of restricting certain things is stupid.
To take this from the other side, if Marvel wins this terrible case, then that implies that creating a character in City of Heroes is akin to creating one in a comic book- so if your guy has an orange cape and yellow tights and black hair, maybe you can sue someone who introduces such a character in comic books. Meaning that, if you want to create a comic book with an entirely new character, you can't just check the history of comics, you have to access the CoH (and any other relevant MMORG) database to make sure you aren't "infringing" on a similar design that some kid in Kansas came up with at 2 AM on pot.
Which would be like a resident of California living in Nevada voting there.
The EU is effectively a new country. Like the US before it, it plays around with the definion of independent states.
But of course, a resident of Uruguay can't vote for electoral positions in France by virtue of being there at the time, right? The concept of nation being generally impigned by such an election and all.
"Crikey, all this is turning into is a whole lot of people overreading their own issues into a film and totally getting it wrong."
hey cool a personal attack yay
"As for people being "heros" who are not supermen, the guy working at an insurance agency who actually helps customers as oppose to being a toady to the greedy bos (hey all that matters is shareholder value) is as much a hero as any of the supers. Missed that mesage did you?"
Did you even see the movie? That only guy I saw helping customers as opposed to being a toady to the greedy boss was Mr. Incredible himself (at his day job), who eventually punched the boss through a series of walls in a fit of anger- a fit of anger that is morally justified, the movie implies, by Mr. Incredible's perfection.
Was it a normal, unpowered guy making the right choices? No. The implication is that NO ONE ELSE can see through the bosses greed, or deal with it, except the ubermensch that are the supers.
The superheroes in the movie are portrayed as simply superior by right of birth, and this doesn't change that at all, it reinforces my statement. It's a case of him wanting to help people and being prevented, in this case by a Napoleonic and dour character. The image of him tapping his foot and controlling the situation was supposed to strike us as ridiculous on several levels, morally (and no, I didn't miss it, it was bashing me on the head) the "screw the customers" guy was obviously villanous, visually (Mr. Incredible is huge and submissive, our Napoleon is tiny and dominant, a juxtaposition of what our mammilian senses expect), and philosophically (Mr. Incredible is inherently fit and just, whereas the boss is shortsighted and greedy).
Did you not notice in that scene that he punches the guy through walls, a moment we are supposed to be thrilled about, good smiting evil? Except that this was a helpless nitwit who was nearly killed by Hulk-style strength. The moral message that approves of this kind of action is pretty depressing as well. Might makes right, and as proof we are given a case where "might" and "right" are previously associated (in Mr. Incredible). This is propaganda-level logic.
"It seems like most people are waiting for some kind of superman to make everything better."
I totally agree with this. It would seem that largely we are simply built to follow authority, or at respect it, or be jealous of it- but true independence seems rare. I think this hurts us at many levels. On average, we all seem to want some grand poo-bah to look up to.
Yes, you would hope that a person running a scam is in all ways sleazy. While this is to some extent simplistic thinking, it's not *at all* the steretyping you mention.
Wishing that people behave in consistent ways is not wishing that they lived up to stereotypes. Wishing that a person who engages in horrible scams is the kind of person who engages in *OTHER* morally questionable activity is wishing for consistency. It the equivalent of wishing that all Arabs are at least partially of Arabic descent, and that all programmers know how to program.
It is unrelated to preconceptions society may have.
How come when they finally get busted, it's not the stereotypical sleazeball you hope for?
Life would be easy if it were 1 dimensional.
Oh well, still good to see crime being punished.
The fact that they don't rule is because they are inherently good. They could rule, if they want, and the movie totally dodges this by providing no "bad" supers. Have powers? Congrats, you are clearly selected as the ubermensch, and are above morality.
The "be yourself no matter what" message is nice, except that Syndrom tries that (he's a hero that wasn't born with powers, he seems to think), and he's a bad guy for it.
I guess Invisible Girl powers do work better on a goth-style girl. But, come on! She has the EXACT SAME POWERS as the Invisible Girl. Two of them map DIRECTLY to Fantastic Four. Incredible as Thing isn't too much of a stretch, and "The Dash" instead of "The Flash" isn't even supposed to be hidden.
The question is, why did they do that? When I saw that they were just normal heroes redone, I wondered if they were going to make satirical points or something. Well, not really. No references or anything. Or, not that I'm aware of. I'll ask some of my big time comic book geek friends and see what they have to say.
Besides, Elastigal being "stretched thin" is pushing it, don't you think?
It hadn't occurred to me that any of those guys would be faking their injuries, actually.
"I can't understand what you're saying here."
Ok, assume that a story has angels coming down from heaven and taking control of the world. They do everything right, and they are perfectly good and proper. They also wield supernatural power that is irresistible by mortals.
Now, are we obeying the angels because we have no choice? Or is it because they always make the correct moral decision?
The lack of demons to balance the story skips this hard question.
That's what this movie has.
"Syndrome started out good. He only turned bad because Mr. Incredible rejected him"
When he showed up in the car, that was merely annoying. When he had rocket boots that let him fly, he ended up in a scene that got many people injured. The antiscience message starts early.
It's also debateable that he was really good ever, or if he just wanted to be seens that way.
"There aren't any other super-villains"
The only enemies we see: 1- Bomb Voyage, who seems to be a regular guy who bombs things. 2- Syndrome, point of discussion. 3- "The Underminer: I am beneath you all, but nothing is beneath me!" Damn that was funny. Anyway, he seems to be tech based as well. But, he was mostly put there as comic relief, so I don't even know if he counts.
In a few other moments, we see other references to the rest of their universe, but I hesitate to use those, as they seemed to be there for comedic purposes and nothing else.
The reason I think the philosophy shines through:
1- All "supers" are good: there is no Magneto. 2- No "nonsupers" act nonsuper: there is no Batman. 3- Syndrome goes off on I think two occasions about how "just because you have powers doesn't mean you are fit for it / are the only ones who can do it", once early in the movie. This is never refuted, it just echoes empty as a bag guy / impetulant child giving his monologue. 4- Syndrome's master plan is entirely democratic and libertarian in nature: he plans massive distribution of his godlike technology. His zero point energy rings seem like a bad thing for everyone to have, but is it? Wouldn't a seventeenth century nobleman think the concept of cars and cellular phones in the hands of the masses mad? (not to mention weaponry falling out of the careful control of those clearly selected by God) 5- Syndrome's plan to elevate humanity to the level of the supers is clearly portrayed as mad. This would go along with the idea of only the select few being naturally fit to wield the powers (for everyone else it is "unnatural").
That's the point, the movie tells us that they *SHOULD* be above right and wrong by virtue of their power. As an example, note that the movie tells us that it is their moral right to be above mortal law, by mocking society when it attempts to hold them accountable for vigilante action (the lawsuits portrayed are always frivolous- a suicide suing because he was injured by Mr. Incredible in his attempt to kill himself, his face a picture of smugness and anger). Or a roomful of defendants whose lives had just been saved, but suffered severe whiplash in the process.
At no point was there a trial where a hero acting without full information makes a poor call, or a tough "do you save X or Y" call, the sort of thing that a touch of realism would have added.
While all the heroes ARE moral, that's the point. WHY are they all moral? There's no supervillian in sight, because they *are* Nietzchean supermen. If it were Marvel or DC, then we would see people with powers as bad guys and good guys. No such luck here. The supermen are above morality, but they dodge that point by making them all very moral people so that the question is deliberately avoided.
Oh, and the "effortless" thing you mentioned was addressed, but not the way you wanted it to be. All the GOOD GUYS are born super. The writers don't just consider hard word and practice to be irrelevant: they are the marks of a power hungry commoner striving to immitate their betters. The only character in the movie with burning motivation was Syndrome, the genocidal villian. He was the only one in the *entire* film who got where he was using anything except luck. The fact that a common man who had worked his entire life at a goal could be defeated by a superbaby who was mildly upset was simply more ubermensch philosophy.
The "divine rule of kings" concept was definitely here. The guy who wanted to everyone to have superpowers, the one guy favoring equality? Yea, he's a villian with genocidal tendencies. Syndrome (the villian) mouthed those words so that we would disagree with them- when the very concept of science, the core ability of delivering power and equality to everyone is villianized, I can't respect the philosophy.
It did argue in favor of Nietzchian thought, and it argued against both democracy and science.
The lawsuits shutting down superheroes is something that we aren't supposed to think too well of. The message is that the genetically gifted are talented enough to use their gifts in ways that the common man is simply not competent to judge- that complaining is not the role of the nonexceptional, because he doesn't really understand. Because the untalented are not as worthwhile as people.
There are no good guy scientists in the entire film. The closest "good guy" is the clothing designer, who is excused for her obvious genius by being comically short, unattractive, and highly eccentric. We wouldn't want anyone to get the idea that smart people can fill any normal roles, after all.
I enjoyed the movie a lot, but the message really dissappointed me. It's the same kind of philosophical trash we always get out of Hollywood, except not even hidden as well as normal. Pixar can do better.
Yea, you just have to deal with this, I guess. I kinda bugged me, but most of my friends are ok with the unoriginality. I mean, the chick can go invisible and use force fields. Those two powers have nothing in common, except to rip off whatserface.
On the bright side, I'm now totally convinced that the "strechable hero" is much better as a female.
I had thought that with those similarities, they were going to be doing something tongue in cheek about the originals, but, if there was, I didn't see it.
More disturbing is the fantasy nature (those who nature/god has blessed with powers are divinely fit to rule, those who are noteworthy through intelligence and effort are foes, and the rule of the fit is better than democracy). At least to me, I dislike that rule-of-kings crap.
Read the article. I'm sure this has been said before, but it doesn't seem to have modded up yet.
This is a remote controlled device. It has a bunch of anti-bomb tricks, like detection systems and a shotgun. The shotgun could also be used to remotely shoot a person, as I'm sure everyone is aware. But, this is not a robot- meaning that, a person has to control it.
By the common logic, robots with giant cannons were deployed in World War II across the world. The difference being, the operator sat INSIDE the tank, rather than far away.
Uhh... isn't this not a troll because slashdot clearly shows that each link points to a site with "hentai" in the name?
I mean, click on those, I've got a feeling you know what you are getting.
Slashdot Mirror
Come on people, this is not:
- A crime against nature
- A crime against God
- A crime against humanity
- Proof of our lack of morals
- Prelude to apocolypse
This is scientists, making our world better.
Remember, their job?
For those of you who have responded with "Whoa, nay, immoral!" and are also pro-life/anti-abortion, ok, you can go (I'll argue with *you* later, but at least you are consistent). Animal rights types are also excused. For the rest of you, really now, grow up. Even if this was what everyone seems to think it is, a creature magically endowed with half human and half animal DNA, how are you going to justify *NOT* doing it? Superstition? Movies? Old literature? "Just feels wrong?" (like heart transplants, mechanical hearts, vaccines...)
In order to make a case against something like this, you need to show *who is hurt*.
A nonsentient lump of cells? Like the ones grown and killed daily in the service of science? Like aborted fetuses? Like the lab animals that can actually feel pain, but we experiment anyway? These are things I'm in favor of, and many of you as well. If you want to get up in a row about something, there's a lot more dubious things than this concept. Getting upset at new things because they are new is for stupid people.
I expected better from Slashdot, honestly.
How about the gun that works only when:
(1)- You, the owner are using it...
-and-
(2)- No policeman in range is broadcasting the "do not fire" signal (after all, cops in range mean that the problem is well in hand, and you certainly shouldn't be firing at an officer), a signal which all guns will be regulated to obey.
Also handles that annoying "revolution" problem that some places tend to have. That way, a government can stay in power without the consent of the governed, which will finally bring us back to they way God meant it to be- we obey the largest alpha male within range, who derives his power from tradition and birth, and no one gets out of line.
It worked so well for so long!
I'm really glad that Microsoft is addressing this problem, even if it is by buying up a little guy and redressing him. Right now, using spyware removal is borderline illegal (!) because you probably agreed to a click-contract that may have damaged your legal ability to remove it. This is why Dell support is not allowed to talk about adaware or others. The real benefits Microsoft brings to the fight are:
1- Legitimacy. No longer are those programs random dubious things- they now compete with something that will soon be an OS feature.
2- Fight the monkey, spyware guys! Right now spyware disables anti-spyware existing on your machine, and sometimes interferes with the ability to run it. Very virus-like Let's see how these cute tricks work against 500 pound gorilla Microsoft, hmm?
I think that Microsoft is ultimately the right call for this product- it's addressing control over programs on your machine, and is properly an OS feature rather than an add-on.
I use Linux, but I often get dragged to anti-spyware duty for my less tech-savy friends. This will make that much easier, eventually.
When people near me are using technology to speak to friends and relatives instead of being as bored as me. I like the current airphones ok, because it means that the bastards have to pay through the nose, and communication should be expensive. After all, what about my right to not have to put up with people talking around me? What about my freedom from speech?
Oh, wait...
Seriously, I really hate this logic. Cellphones are a wonderful, lifesaving technology. Sure, people use them wrong sometimes, and sometimes I'll hear one side of a stupid conversation, and that side is really loud. You know how we talk at a certain volume into a phone, and a softer volume to someone right next to us? I betcha that's a technical problem no one cared about until cellphones became ubiquitous. I bet that having a better microphone plus some voice enhancement software (cutting out the nonspeech band I think happens already during compression but is anything amplifying the strongest sound source yet?) will eventually allow you to talk at a murmur and still be clearly heard.
Until then, the principles of freedom dictate that we put up with the inconvenience, instead of going with junk science (turn off gameboys at takeoff) and luddites (i haet teh c3llphones c4n i jam tem pls?).
I'd love there to be "no cellphone" flights for the few people who would prefer them, or a "no cellphoning" section of the airplane. That way people could still get their chance at not being bothered. But, failing that, the default should not be to deny people access to their useful and frankly somewhat godlike (by standards of generations ago, this is telepathy) technology.
One of my biggest gripes is the "exactly" requirement that some places have. Your password must have at least one number, at least one special character, at least one lowercase, at least one uppercase, and be EXACTLY eight characters long.
Lame-O!
So now it isn't "think of something secure" (which I'm ok at), it's "think of a phrase with eight words, or a thing with eight letters, or have something longer and stop typing when you hit eight characters.
Because what I wanted was a poetry contest.
Sheesh.
Hey, awesome!
Yea, it's probably not the best way that can be accomplished. But, at least they have it! I've never used nor heard of a feature like that before, so seeing it implemented in a way that I *think* could be done better doesn't bother me in the slightest.
Thanks a lot. Thanks to you and the other commentor, my file managing just got a lot easier.
Well, I tried it, and it didn't work.
I was about to ask what exactly you were smoking, and then I decided to experiment: I didn't pick the first couple (with control) and then use control-shift to pick the remainders, I just used shift.
That worked.
It's still not perfect (or I'm missing more details, likely at this point): if I want to highlight two different lines of things, I don't have *that* option (because holding control makes the "select an additional dude" logic fire, whereas I would like *both* that and the "string of guys" to follow).
But that's a not the same level of problem at all.
Thanks a lot!
Heheh. Yea, I started complaining with the whole "Press Control-L to enter a location".
:(
Right-O, that's obvious.
Now, I use it all the time. I didn't like the spatial thing, but I wanted to see whether they were right all along.
I'm still out on the issue, but it hasn't been a real winner for me so far
One question, and maybe everyone knows but me: in Windows at least (and maybe it originated on Mac) if I have a list of files, I can Ctrl-Click them and highlight many. Or, I can click on one and shift click on another and highlight all the intervening ones. Or, some combination of the two. The shift-click mechanic doesn't seem to be present in Nautilus. Is this deliberate? Is there some easier way to highlight all files that start with "Kl" or all jpgs, or all files created last week, that I'm not aware of?
That was an awesome post, thanks.
If, for some reason, you find yourself being MRI probed or whatever, you simply think up a lie for EVERY SINGLE QUESTION, but then answer normally.
This doesn't measure "are you lying" as much as it measures "are you thinking", so going through the mental motions of lying and telling the truth should get all your responses to look identical.
Alternatively, you could do what has been suggested and make your lies look like truths, but the lack of a discriminating factor is the important part.
I mean, that should work, right?
We ARE evolution.
This is just another tool in the kit.
I would argue that it's simply not the government's role to burden communications with taxes.
One argument in the article is "not taxing this is not fair, because regular phones are taxed". This is a true statement, but I would argue that the *existing* taxes are an arbitrary joke: Americans are forced to pay per minute rates on "long distance" (meaning, another state, even though the actual route to another state and the same one could end up using the exact same satellite). Why? Well, it's because the goverment *taxes* based on per minute usage. Stating that the only way to achieve equality is to apply the same flawed system equally is not good logic.
If the functionality of 911 is so important (I believe it is), then other ways can be brought about to pay for it. With the current market penetration of phones, it's not unreasonable to assume that almost everyone has access to 911, so an alternate method could be used, one that taxes everyone just as the current system does. It could even be rolled trivially into property taxes, it's can't be much because it's itemized on my monthly phone bill, and it is tiny.
Saying that the only way we'll have goverment phone services or local governments gaining relevant revenue is to allow regulation of VOIP is beyond silly. There may be a difficult time of transition, but it's clear that progress is on the side of the new technology.
But it's clear from the article what the *real* problem is:
"The City of Seattle in 2003 collected $30 million from telephone utility taxes, its fourth largest source of revenue after property, B&O, and sales taxes."
Here the argument becomes, "A technology to allow people to communicate was developed, and we allowed governments to tax it. Now that an alternative has come along, we need to allow governments to tax it or else the governments won't be getting as much of your money as they are used to."
This is the same logic that would shut down an invention that generates endless free energy (Look at that electricity tax / the private sector that exists to deliver energy!), that would shut down an invention that creates delicious food out of thin air (sales tax / destroying the livelihood of farmers), a great solution in medicine that allowed people to be free of their various prescription drug dependencies... the same idea would oppose all of these things.
Stepping out of utopia land, we can address the one thing we *can* replicate nearly for free, and realize that it is the same logic opposing free software.
It is not good logic.
... Insanity later....
Your argument is equivalent to saying that it's ok if the elite (in this case, those skilled in drawing) violate copyright, but to make that available to everyone is wrong.
In fact, neither case is correct, and the horrible nonlogic of damaging a general purpose system with the goal of restricting certain things is stupid.
To take this from the other side, if Marvel wins this terrible case, then that implies that creating a character in City of Heroes is akin to creating one in a comic book- so if your guy has an orange cape and yellow tights and black hair, maybe you can sue someone who introduces such a character in comic books. Meaning that, if you want to create a comic book with an entirely new character, you can't just check the history of comics, you have to access the CoH (and any other relevant MMORG) database to make sure you aren't "infringing" on a similar design that some kid in Kansas came up with at 2 AM on pot.
Which would be like a resident of California living in Nevada voting there.
The EU is effectively a new country. Like the US before it, it plays around with the definion of independent states.
But of course, a resident of Uruguay can't vote for electoral positions in France by virtue of being there at the time, right? The concept of nation being generally impigned by such an election and all.
"Crikey, all this is turning into is a whole lot of people overreading their own issues into a film and totally getting it wrong."
hey cool a personal attack yay
"As for people being "heros" who are not supermen, the guy working at an insurance agency who actually helps customers as oppose to being a toady to the greedy bos (hey all that matters is shareholder value) is as much a hero as any of the supers. Missed that mesage did you?"
Did you even see the movie? That only guy I saw helping customers as opposed to being a toady to the greedy boss was Mr. Incredible himself (at his day job), who eventually punched the boss through a series of walls in a fit of anger- a fit of anger that is morally justified, the movie implies, by Mr. Incredible's perfection.
Was it a normal, unpowered guy making the right choices? No. The implication is that NO ONE ELSE can see through the bosses greed, or deal with it, except the ubermensch that are the supers.
The superheroes in the movie are portrayed as simply superior by right of birth, and this doesn't change that at all, it reinforces my statement. It's a case of him wanting to help people and being prevented, in this case by a Napoleonic and dour character. The image of him tapping his foot and controlling the situation was supposed to strike us as ridiculous on several levels, morally (and no, I didn't miss it, it was bashing me on the head) the "screw the customers" guy was obviously villanous, visually (Mr. Incredible is huge and submissive, our Napoleon is tiny and dominant, a juxtaposition of what our mammilian senses expect), and philosophically (Mr. Incredible is inherently fit and just, whereas the boss is shortsighted and greedy).
Did you not notice in that scene that he punches the guy through walls, a moment we are supposed to be thrilled about, good smiting evil? Except that this was a helpless nitwit who was nearly killed by Hulk-style strength. The moral message that approves of this kind of action is pretty depressing as well. Might makes right, and as proof we are given a case where "might" and "right" are previously associated (in Mr. Incredible). This is propaganda-level logic.
"It seems like most people are waiting for some kind of superman to make everything better."
I totally agree with this. It would seem that largely we are simply built to follow authority, or at respect it, or be jealous of it- but true independence seems rare. I think this hurts us at many levels. On average, we all seem to want some grand poo-bah to look up to.
^ John
Yes, you would hope that a person running a scam is in all ways sleazy. While this is to some extent simplistic thinking, it's not *at all* the steretyping you mention.
Wishing that people behave in consistent ways is not wishing that they lived up to stereotypes. Wishing that a person who engages in horrible scams is the kind of person who engages in *OTHER* morally questionable activity is wishing for consistency. It the equivalent of wishing that all Arabs are at least partially of Arabic descent, and that all programmers know how to program.
It is unrelated to preconceptions society may have.
How come when they finally get busted, it's not the stereotypical sleazeball you hope for? Life would be easy if it were 1 dimensional. Oh well, still good to see crime being punished.
The fact that they don't rule is because they are inherently good. They could rule, if they want, and the movie totally dodges this by providing no "bad" supers. Have powers? Congrats, you are clearly selected as the ubermensch, and are above morality.
The "be yourself no matter what" message is nice, except that Syndrom tries that (he's a hero that wasn't born with powers, he seems to think), and he's a bad guy for it.
I guess Invisible Girl powers do work better on a goth-style girl. But, come on! She has the EXACT SAME POWERS as the Invisible Girl. Two of them map DIRECTLY to Fantastic Four. Incredible as Thing isn't too much of a stretch, and "The Dash" instead of "The Flash" isn't even supposed to be hidden.
The question is, why did they do that? When I saw that they were just normal heroes redone, I wondered if they were going to make satirical points or something. Well, not really. No references or anything. Or, not that I'm aware of. I'll ask some of my big time comic book geek friends and see what they have to say.
Besides, Elastigal being "stretched thin" is pushing it, don't you think?
It hadn't occurred to me that any of those guys would be faking their injuries, actually.
"I can't understand what you're saying here."
Ok, assume that a story has angels coming down from heaven and taking control of the world. They do everything right, and they are perfectly good and proper. They also wield supernatural power that is irresistible by mortals.
Now, are we obeying the angels because we have no choice? Or is it because they always make the correct moral decision?
The lack of demons to balance the story skips this hard question.
That's what this movie has.
"Syndrome started out good. He only turned bad because Mr. Incredible rejected him"
When he showed up in the car, that was merely annoying. When he had rocket boots that let him fly, he ended up in a scene that got many people injured. The antiscience message starts early.
It's also debateable that he was really good ever, or if he just wanted to be seens that way.
"There aren't any other super-villains"
The only enemies we see:
1- Bomb Voyage, who seems to be a regular guy who bombs things.
2- Syndrome, point of discussion.
3- "The Underminer: I am beneath you all, but nothing is beneath me!" Damn that was funny. Anyway, he seems to be tech based as well. But, he was mostly put there as comic relief, so I don't even know if he counts.
In a few other moments, we see other references to the rest of their universe, but I hesitate to use those, as they seemed to be there for comedic purposes and nothing else.
The reason I think the philosophy shines through:
1- All "supers" are good: there is no Magneto.
2- No "nonsupers" act nonsuper: there is no Batman.
3- Syndrome goes off on I think two occasions about how "just because you have powers doesn't mean you are fit for it / are the only ones who can do it", once early in the movie. This is never refuted, it just echoes empty as a bag guy / impetulant child giving his monologue.
4- Syndrome's master plan is entirely democratic and libertarian in nature: he plans massive distribution of his godlike technology. His zero point energy rings seem like a bad thing for everyone to have, but is it? Wouldn't a seventeenth century nobleman think the concept of cars and cellular phones in the hands of the masses mad? (not to mention weaponry falling out of the careful control of those clearly selected by God)
5- Syndrome's plan to elevate humanity to the level of the supers is clearly portrayed as mad. This would go along with the idea of only the select few being naturally fit to wield the powers (for everyone else it is "unnatural").
That's the point, the movie tells us that they *SHOULD* be above right and wrong by virtue of their power. As an example, note that the movie tells us that it is their moral right to be above mortal law, by mocking society when it attempts to hold them accountable for vigilante action (the lawsuits portrayed are always frivolous- a suicide suing because he was injured by Mr. Incredible in his attempt to kill himself, his face a picture of smugness and anger). Or a roomful of defendants whose lives had just been saved, but suffered severe whiplash in the process.
At no point was there a trial where a hero acting without full information makes a poor call, or a tough "do you save X or Y" call, the sort of thing that a touch of realism would have added.
While all the heroes ARE moral, that's the point. WHY are they all moral? There's no supervillian in sight, because they *are* Nietzchean supermen. If it were Marvel or DC, then we would see people with powers as bad guys and good guys. No such luck here. The supermen are above morality, but they dodge that point by making them all very moral people so that the question is deliberately avoided.
Oh, and the "effortless" thing you mentioned was addressed, but not the way you wanted it to be. All the GOOD GUYS are born super. The writers don't just consider hard word and practice to be irrelevant: they are the marks of a power hungry commoner striving to immitate their betters. The only character in the movie with burning motivation was Syndrome, the genocidal villian. He was the only one in the *entire* film who got where he was using anything except luck. The fact that a common man who had worked his entire life at a goal could be defeated by a superbaby who was mildly upset was simply more ubermensch philosophy.
The "divine rule of kings" concept was definitely here. The guy who wanted to everyone to have superpowers, the one guy favoring equality? Yea, he's a villian with genocidal tendencies. Syndrome (the villian) mouthed those words so that we would disagree with them- when the very concept of science, the core ability of delivering power and equality to everyone is villianized, I can't respect the philosophy.
It did argue in favor of Nietzchian thought, and it argued against both democracy and science.
The lawsuits shutting down superheroes is something that we aren't supposed to think too well of. The message is that the genetically gifted are talented enough to use their gifts in ways that the common man is simply not competent to judge- that complaining is not the role of the nonexceptional, because he doesn't really understand. Because the untalented are not as worthwhile as people.
There are no good guy scientists in the entire film. The closest "good guy" is the clothing designer, who is excused for her obvious genius by being comically short, unattractive, and highly eccentric. We wouldn't want anyone to get the idea that smart people can fill any normal roles, after all.
I enjoyed the movie a lot, but the message really dissappointed me. It's the same kind of philosophical trash we always get out of Hollywood, except not even hidden as well as normal. Pixar can do better.
Yea, you just have to deal with this, I guess. I kinda bugged me, but most of my friends are ok with the unoriginality. I mean, the chick can go invisible and use force fields. Those two powers have nothing in common, except to rip off whatserface. On the bright side, I'm now totally convinced that the "strechable hero" is much better as a female. I had thought that with those similarities, they were going to be doing something tongue in cheek about the originals, but, if there was, I didn't see it. More disturbing is the fantasy nature (those who nature/god has blessed with powers are divinely fit to rule, those who are noteworthy through intelligence and effort are foes, and the rule of the fit is better than democracy). At least to me, I dislike that rule-of-kings crap.
Read the article. I'm sure this has been said before, but it doesn't seem to have modded up yet. This is a remote controlled device. It has a bunch of anti-bomb tricks, like detection systems and a shotgun. The shotgun could also be used to remotely shoot a person, as I'm sure everyone is aware. But, this is not a robot- meaning that, a person has to control it. By the common logic, robots with giant cannons were deployed in World War II across the world. The difference being, the operator sat INSIDE the tank, rather than far away.
Uhh... isn't this not a troll because slashdot clearly shows that each link points to a site with "hentai" in the name? I mean, click on those, I've got a feeling you know what you are getting.