This could be a perpetual source of ideas for the Make mag's MakeShift challenge. Find a medical technology scarce in the undeveloped world and ask the hardware hackers of the world to roll their own.
Actually, the sad truth is that very often (at least in the sci-fi genre of fan films) special effects movies are all that's made. Independent SF films are for the most part derivative, poorly written and poorly acted vehicles to show off home-grown special effects.
That said, they have three saving graces: 1) They're usually free, 2)They're short, which makes all of the above bearable and 3) Most of them show a lot of passion, if not a little originality.
The ideal would for these untrained, passionate people to be linked with mentors who could teach them the craft of visual storytelling. This is what Lucas has suggested he'll do post-Star Wars.... it would be great if it really happens.
Regardless, I think we'll see a similar progression as happened with publishing in the 80s. Once Desk Top Publishing became viable and approached the quality of traditional layout methods, there was an explosion of published content (newsletters, small-press books, etc.) from folks who bought a computer and thought they were designers. A lot of it was crap. But there are now many, many good, creative small pub shops, independent designers and even larger publishers (like O'Reilly's) who would not have a functional business model with the old way.
I suspect we'll see the same progression with video media as well. The good ones will learn and thrive, the bad ones will get bored and leave (or persist, but that's the price of democracy.)
And, the collapse of a building should damage or trap the tank, or cause the loss of a track. That would make driving a tank a job of some skill, and not turn them into building-destroying juggernauts.
Agreed. Especially as the screenshots of the hack show the participants fully clothed. Extremely juvenile, not particularly erotic, and overall pretty silly.
I would estimate that the outcry over this is not so much a 'now *this* is too adult' response; it's more a 'see *what else* this depraved game can do' response. In other words, new ammunition for an exsiting battle.
However, to drag this silly mod into the public eye weakens any argument against GTA. The issue at hand is the glorification of violent crime for amusement sake, and this is where the dialogue should remain.
It's worth noting that Americans, decendants of both Puritans and rebels/revolutionaries, have always struggled with this dichotomy of reveling in activities that are essentially immoral. GTA is simply the latest incident in this long running public debate, which has been going on at least since dime novels popularized the exploits of outlaws at the turn of the last century.
You do realize that in a zombie/undead/demons of hell environment where they can sense you by your very soul, not having a light on you is a big "eat me before I even know you're there" invitation, don't you?
Continue to read the article: the technology does not penetrate skin. Any person with a sufficiently large fat roll, or a woman with good-sized breasts could still smuggle a non-metallic weapon (NOT a Glock, as mentioned elsewhere, but ceramic knives, etc) through this technology. For that matter, anyone willing to use other body orifices could do so as well.
Adding backstatter technology is NOT a net gain in security. It's false security, unless one adds intrusive body searches on top of the scanner.
I installed the Netcraft toolbar and promptly uninstalled it. Every single site I visited caused a popup warning about cross-site scripting... this included CNN.com, a couple of webcomics and my company's internal web sites. What's the use of an application that flags EVERY web site as potentially hostile? I can be paranoid on my own, thank you.
It's true that organisms evolve; even intelligent design advocates don't deny that.
The question being debated is whether new organisms, organs or vastly complex systems can evolve from the minute, stepwise changes that Darwin observed in his research. Darwin's model is that everything moved from simple to complex. Evolutionary changes we see in nature (Beak of the Finch, the aformentioned bacterial adaptions) are movement from complexity to complexity: in other words, using existing faculties to adapt to changing conditions. Intelligent design postulates that some systems are irreducibly complex, thus something must have created it. Michael Behe's book Darwin's Black Box is the most readable summary of the argument I've seen; I highly recommend it as a good primer for those who'd care to understand where these arguments are coming from.
I find the resistance to even discussing the viewpoint in schools rather odd. In political science we expose our children to Marxism, socialism, democracy and all number of other political systems in order to expand their minds while yet they are expected to believe that our political system is the best that is available. Likewise in other disciplines, absolute truth is a rarity.
Ultimately, debate and open discussion are good things: they excercise the mind and expand it. Let our kids be exposed to controversy! They might yet grow up to be intelligent, critical thinkers.
5. Determine the hacker's RL name, location, etc.
6. Contact an independent bounty hunter (Mad Dog, anyone?) to launch a "Denial of Freedom" attack
7. Tape the whole thing as a reality show so that G4/TechTV could have at least one interesting program.
Why recommend open source? The same reason I recommend books, movies, CDs and bathroom cleaning products to my circle of influence: I use them, like the results and anticipate they also would realize some benefit.
Given that criterion, however, I find it hard to recommend ALL open source to ALL people, even myself ; given that different needs and ability levels will make some software/OS more appropriate than another to any given user.
If your post was sarcastic, feel free to ignore this comment. That being said...
It's easy to decry someone who 'sells out'. But why lambast someone who used the system to bring a dream to life?
Gainsaying mainstream distribution by mplying traitorship to some imagined cause is silly. What's the cause in this case? Simply an artist's desire to bring his vision to life.
To reach the masses, he cannot do this on his own. He either uses 'establishment' media channels or uses the internet, which despite the apparent chaos and freedom, still runs on a commercial backbone. He cannot show the world his vision without some medium (or media) to carry the message, who cares what path he takes?
The important thing is that a man had a vision, and that vision was powerful (or at least compelling) enough to make the powers-that-be in the media industry sit up and take notice. Why should we not celebrate his success for what it is?
If visionaries can make their visions seen, by hook (the internet) or by crook (big media) what more revolution do we need?
Re:So that's what you do with them
on
Banana Power!
·
· Score: 1
Ah, thanks. I think I'll switch myself. I appreciate the correction!
Re:So that's what you do with them
on
Banana Power!
·
· Score: 1
Hmm. This site has it "like the wind", but that's hardly authoritative. Can you cite a source? (Not that it really matters, but in future I'd like to know whether or not it's being quoted correctly!)
Slashdot Mirror
And thanks to the crank, they'll have something to do with their hands while they do!
A real man with feats of clay?
So much for Volkswagen's 'Drivers wanted' slogan.
Homebuilt MRI anyone?
That said, they have three saving graces: 1) They're usually free, 2)They're short, which makes all of the above bearable and 3) Most of them show a lot of passion, if not a little originality.
The ideal would for these untrained, passionate people to be linked with mentors who could teach them the craft of visual storytelling. This is what Lucas has suggested he'll do post-Star Wars.... it would be great if it really happens.
Regardless, I think we'll see a similar progression as happened with publishing in the 80s. Once Desk Top Publishing became viable and approached the quality of traditional layout methods, there was an explosion of published content (newsletters, small-press books, etc.) from folks who bought a computer and thought they were designers. A lot of it was crap. But there are now many, many good, creative small pub shops, independent designers and even larger publishers (like O'Reilly's) who would not have a functional business model with the old way.
I suspect we'll see the same progression with video media as well. The good ones will learn and thrive, the bad ones will get bored and leave (or persist, but that's the price of democracy.)
And a more accurate spelling would be frisson. C.f. dictionary.com
*Marrowind*? Bits of bone blowing in the breeze? Something that gorey must have been an FPS.
Save that for the OGRE MMORPG. ;)
He could nae change the laws of physics, Captain.
I would estimate that the outcry over this is not so much a 'now *this* is too adult' response; it's more a 'see *what else* this depraved game can do' response. In other words, new ammunition for an exsiting battle.
However, to drag this silly mod into the public eye weakens any argument against GTA. The issue at hand is the glorification of violent crime for amusement sake, and this is where the dialogue should remain.
It's worth noting that Americans, decendants of both Puritans and rebels/revolutionaries, have always struggled with this dichotomy of reveling in activities that are essentially immoral. GTA is simply the latest incident in this long running public debate, which has been going on at least since dime novels popularized the exploits of outlaws at the turn of the last century.
Just checked the page, and they do seem to be listed now.
So the shuttle was possibly damaged by a crashing windows patch? ;) Best add the BillBorg icon to this story.
I liked the argument over zombie technicalities better. Less knowledge, more brains. :)
You do realize that in a zombie/undead/demons of hell environment where they can sense you by your very soul, not having a light on you is a big "eat me before I even know you're there" invitation, don't you?
I'm not.
Adding backstatter technology is NOT a net gain in security. It's false security, unless one adds intrusive body searches on top of the scanner.
I installed the Netcraft toolbar and promptly uninstalled it. Every single site I visited caused a popup warning about cross-site scripting... this included CNN.com, a couple of webcomics and my company's internal web sites. What's the use of an application that flags EVERY web site as potentially hostile? I can be paranoid on my own, thank you.
The question being debated is whether new organisms, organs or vastly complex systems can evolve from the minute, stepwise changes that Darwin observed in his research. Darwin's model is that everything moved from simple to complex. Evolutionary changes we see in nature (Beak of the Finch, the aformentioned bacterial adaptions) are movement from complexity to complexity: in other words, using existing faculties to adapt to changing conditions. Intelligent design postulates that some systems are irreducibly complex, thus something must have created it. Michael Behe's book Darwin's Black Box is the most readable summary of the argument I've seen; I highly recommend it as a good primer for those who'd care to understand where these arguments are coming from.
I find the resistance to even discussing the viewpoint in schools rather odd. In political science we expose our children to Marxism, socialism, democracy and all number of other political systems in order to expand their minds while yet they are expected to believe that our political system is the best that is available. Likewise in other disciplines, absolute truth is a rarity.
Ultimately, debate and open discussion are good things: they excercise the mind and expand it. Let our kids be exposed to controversy! They might yet grow up to be intelligent, critical thinkers.
5. Determine the hacker's RL name, location, etc. 6. Contact an independent bounty hunter (Mad Dog, anyone?) to launch a "Denial of Freedom" attack 7. Tape the whole thing as a reality show so that G4/TechTV could have at least one interesting program.
Given that criterion, however, I find it hard to recommend ALL open source to ALL people, even myself ; given that different needs and ability levels will make some software/OS more appropriate than another to any given user.
More precisely, it's a Beowulf novel transformed into a Dante novel by antiquity and the assimilation by the Dante circle and gatekeepers.
As noted by a previous comment, most wireless lavalier mikes have a microphone bud which is connected by a wire to a belt-mounted transmitter.
It's easy to decry someone who 'sells out'. But why lambast someone who used the system to bring a dream to life?
Gainsaying mainstream distribution by mplying traitorship to some imagined cause is silly. What's the cause in this case? Simply an artist's desire to bring his vision to life.
To reach the masses, he cannot do this on his own. He either uses 'establishment' media channels or uses the internet, which despite the apparent chaos and freedom, still runs on a commercial backbone. He cannot show the world his vision without some medium (or media) to carry the message, who cares what path he takes? The important thing is that a man had a vision, and that vision was powerful (or at least compelling) enough to make the powers-that-be in the media industry sit up and take notice. Why should we not celebrate his success for what it is?
If visionaries can make their visions seen, by hook (the internet) or by crook (big media) what more revolution do we need?
Ah, thanks. I think I'll switch myself. I appreciate the correction!
Hmm. This site has it "like the wind", but that's hardly authoritative. Can you cite a source? (Not that it really matters, but in future I'd like to know whether or not it's being quoted correctly!)