"Its not like games like GTA won't be produced anymore because Walmart won't carry it."
Actually it is. Big game producers need to have the biggest market for their goods. If a content author from a big game producer goes to management and says: "we can add this mature content, but it will severely restrict where we can sell the game", will that affect management's decision on what should be included in the contenc? Of course it will, and of course it should.
That said, the ESRB system is currently working as it should. Whether it is used properly in the purchase decision is up to the buyer (aka parent if applicable) and the retailer. Walmart chooses not to carry AO games. Good, it's exercising its right as a private entity to make decisions about what demographic it wants to appeal to. It chooses 'family friendly', it gets 'family friendly', and game producers have to take this into account. Those things are called 'business decisions'. If Walmart's clout means that producers take a big hit by going AO, that is also a business decision. Deal with it. Take your dollars elsewhere if that's what it means, 'cause that's the only language Walmart understands.
Now, regarding a previous comment mentioning that Hot Coffee and Oblivion represent a broken ESRB system, I beg to differ. The ESRB is supposed to represent the content in the game. If the content is on the disk, it is accessible. Difficulty in access does not render it inaccessible, and outside the scope of the ESRB. Hot coffee was a developer blunder (removing access to the content but not the content itself), and Take Two got appropriately burned on that blunder. Failure to disclose to the ESRB review full information about your content leaves you open to getting burned. If graphic user controlled sexual content bumps from M to AO, then there you go. Discovery = bump. If Oblivion has boob baring models, and nudity bumps from T to M, then it should be bumped, and it was. The content is what is rated, not the 'default game storyline'. All content is assumed to be accessible to the only moderatly tech-savvy individual.
The rating process is working, to the best of it's ability. Those two games represent the added difficulty in rating games vs movies. A movie can be completely screened (as in each and every frame on the DVD) in a reasonable amount of time, and a firm rating determined accordingly. (has a movie rating ever been changed after the fact?) Games have so much content, this same level of vigilence becomes difficult. From the ESRB on Oblivion: "The board cross-examined the tape Bethesda submitted with video taken from the final release of the game...determined that the developer understated the detail and intensity of the blood and gore... the ESRB said publishers are required 'to disclose locked-out content during the rating process if it is pertinent to a rating,' and that Bethesda failed to do so. ". Bethesda did a poor job disclosing everything in the game, and now they're getting burned. Publishers will get more careful about the ESRB review, and this should stop happening.
The rating system does what it's supposed to do. Now, I think the ratings are stupid (17 vz 18 for M vs AO), but that's semantics. If a PG DVD had a graphic sex scene that couldn't be accessed from the menu, but anyone with a DVD-ROM or the right DVD player could get to it, that publisher should get burned and the DVD re-rated. No different with games. And publishers need to keep the market in mind when it comes to content.
Am I the only one who gets a huge gap between the slashblurb and the comments whenever there's an ad in the upper right corner? (Not always one there). It seems the comment portion of the page is tabled below the right-side boxes (ad, username info, and "Related Links", which makes it go Waaaaaaaaaaaaaayyy down the page whenever a tall advert is thrown in there. Seems like the comments aren't thrown in the middle of three columns, but in the right column in a 2-col setup, where the top of the right column is split into two columns (blurb sub-column and 'right-side-boxes' sub-column). Clunky. Me no like. didn't it say 'report bugs' somewhere? where?
I'm sorry, I forgot to end the post with !!!!111!!!!111!one! to emphasize the silliness.
yes, I believe secrecy is necessary in many instances. No, I do not believe oversight has been sufficient and the "who guards the guards" saying is perfectly valid regarding most of the "terrorism" related policies that have been put in place.
"they are forbidden to raise a public stink about them"
Which is correct and as it should be. Otherwise, if one guy doesn't like a program that everyone else does, he could submarine it by being allowed to make a public stink.
The general ruse^H^Hle is that classified operations have oversight by MORE THAN one guy. This is supposed to keep things in check. If classified activities put a bad taste in enough people's mouths, it will get canned.
-
The problem isn't that the classified things exist (although overclassification is an issue). A problem in a particular case may be poor oversight. If that's the case, that is what's to be fixed. Not the removal of all classified info. Disclosure to Joe Public American also means disclosure to absolutely everyone around the globe, and with many things thats just a bad idea.
Details about a system, whether it's a physical system, or 'policy/procedures/operations', can provide an adversary with enough knowledge to circumvent or overcome the system. When things work properly, a seemingly benign secret, if it is classified, was made so for a reason. I.e., the disclosure of said information would create a risk on some level to some aspect of the nation's security. I'm sure there are a few DEA members who wouldn't want a Mexican drug cartel to know the ins-and-outs, or parts-thereof, of the US operations in that area.
What you're discussing is a hierarchy of secrets, some of which are more important, or "more secret", than others. Hence the use of multiple levels of classification. I do beleive penalties are different for different levels of classification, but I'm not sure.
You got that right. My daughter has a book based on one of those Barbie ones. Even those still shots are hard to look at. CG isn't there yet for human actors. The problem is that it's too good, but not good enough yet. We can do cartoony people really well (Incredibles), but not real ones. Why? Because of The Uncanny Valley.
"The phenomenon can be explained by the notion that if an entity is sufficiently non-humanlike, then the humanlike characteristics will tend to stand out and be noticed easily, generating empathy. On the other hand, if the entity is "almost human", then the non-human characteristics will be the ones that stand out, leading to a feeling of "strangeness" in the human viewer."
As we try to inch closer to perfect, we actually get worse results from the general populace. Maybe film CG will break the valley, but it's a long road.
They should find a person or team capable of this project, and get it done right
You're mildly missing the point. They don't know what to do! They're not trolling the waters for competent development. They're trying to hit upon a Killer App(TM) for their underutilized grid. They're paying for creativity and and 'quantity over quality' approach to the problem. They might get lucky. But that's what it comes down to.
We, the network hardware manufacturers, took a bath at the end of the dot-com bubble due to (to simplify a bit) poor supply chain management (oversupply and the like). We are trying to make a compback, and find your net neutrality proposals quite troubling. We have spent a large amount of capital developing technologies that would be used, no, required, in a non-neutral network. In order to meet our revenue growth expectations, we need a non-neutral network. Please, don't be hasty. You could stifle **mysterious hand waving** technological innovation. You don't want to stifle technology, do you? Why do you hate technology? It creates jobs for Americans. You don't hate Americans, do you? Without jobs, how will they feed their children? Please, don't force a neutral internet, think of the children!
4) sending email itself is not illegal, and should never be. The use of fraudulent or misleading information in an advertisment or business action can be illegal, and there are already laws on the books covering these. Most spam laws just specify the "fraudulent things are illegal" and harrasment parts to Spam.
(the answer to spam requires no laws that aren't already in place.)
Let's think this through a bit. (and keep things such as "AOL paid whitelisting" in mind)
Anti-spam is currently touted as a selling point to their customers. "We'll protect your inbox from Spam!", but results are mediocre at best. HOWEVER, those results do not negatively impact their bottom line (people accept the spam anyway, and keep using the service.
Such 'vigilante' action would involve risk to the company. Financial risk from implementation, ?increased bandwidth usage?, support, 'defense from retaliation', etc. This risk must be offset by potential gains (to the company, in terms of dollars), or there's no point in doing it. Forget good will or altruism.
Potential gains? (1) long term decreased spam handling costs only if it makes a difference on their network. (2) increased subscriber base if the service attracts new customers because it is positively unique in some way. (hard if you're doing it in cooperation with competitors) (3)???extortion money???
So, seems like the big positive is long term spam cost reduction if it works. Now how many companies do you know that will make an investment in long term profits?
"I was shot in the leg when I was 17 and... The only way violence ever stops future violence is if one party is killed."
Exactly. so what your example demonstrates is that ineffective violence begets more violence. Had that guy been a better shot, it would have stopped.
Translated to this context, if the BlueSecurity effect is potent enough, it could have a subsantial effect. If it's not, it'll just spark more back-and-forth.
wouldn't even go this far. The fans wanted the prequels. Georgie made them to suit fan demand. He did so in a less than stellar fashion. It is possible to meet superfan expectations for a movie. I use the Lord of Rings as an example. (different risks at play going to the movie from an established script, as opposed to a new story, but it still shows it can be done.)
The problem is the typical obsessed fan's need to know more. To beat the dead horse. Forget your own imagination, you need it spelled out for you on screen to make it more "real". That's the need George was trying to satisfy.
Episode 3 was the climax of the series. And the arguably most climactic moment (obiwan defeating anakin) was pretty crappy. "i have the high ground, give up", "lame defiant comment", poor minimal action shot, anakin missing a few limbs on the ground. didn't do it for me. but, I guess that kept up with the rest of the series. Would have been better to leave the prequels "in our heads" than anywhere else. But the superfans had to be satisfied, and they threw enough money at it to trash it.
But, now that I'm reading this, will someone with mod points mark this whole StarWars thread offtopic? thanks.
so... let's hear from those with at least a little more legal knowledge than me (defined as some). How is his handing the papers to the EFF different than an ex-employee of a chemical company handing documents detailing improper waste disposal methods to the newspaper? If the court rules these documents inadmissable because of the company's IP concerns, wouldn't the same apply to the latter case?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually it is. Big game producers need to have the biggest market for their goods. If a content author from a big game producer goes to management and says: "we can add this mature content, but it will severely restrict where we can sell the game", will that affect management's decision on what should be included in the contenc? Of course it will, and of course it should.
That said, the ESRB system is currently working as it should. Whether it is used properly in the purchase decision is up to the buyer (aka parent if applicable) and the retailer. Walmart chooses not to carry AO games. Good, it's exercising its right as a private entity to make decisions about what demographic it wants to appeal to. It chooses 'family friendly', it gets 'family friendly', and game producers have to take this into account. Those things are called 'business decisions'. If Walmart's clout means that producers take a big hit by going AO, that is also a business decision. Deal with it. Take your dollars elsewhere if that's what it means, 'cause that's the only language Walmart understands.
Now, regarding a previous comment mentioning that Hot Coffee and Oblivion represent a broken ESRB system, I beg to differ. The ESRB is supposed to represent the content in the game. If the content is on the disk, it is accessible. Difficulty in access does not render it inaccessible, and outside the scope of the ESRB. Hot coffee was a developer blunder (removing access to the content but not the content itself), and Take Two got appropriately burned on that blunder. Failure to disclose to the ESRB review full information about your content leaves you open to getting burned. If graphic user controlled sexual content bumps from M to AO, then there you go. Discovery = bump. If Oblivion has boob baring models, and nudity bumps from T to M, then it should be bumped, and it was. The content is what is rated, not the 'default game storyline'. All content is assumed to be accessible to the only moderatly tech-savvy individual.
The rating process is working, to the best of it's ability. Those two games represent the added difficulty in rating games vs movies. A movie can be completely screened (as in each and every frame on the DVD) in a reasonable amount of time, and a firm rating determined accordingly. (has a movie rating ever been changed after the fact?) Games have so much content, this same level of vigilence becomes difficult. From the ESRB on Oblivion: "The board cross-examined the tape Bethesda submitted with video taken from the final release of the game...determined that the developer understated the detail and intensity of the blood and gore... the ESRB said publishers are required 'to disclose locked-out content during the rating process if it is pertinent to a rating,' and that Bethesda failed to do so. ". Bethesda did a poor job disclosing everything in the game, and now they're getting burned. Publishers will get more careful about the ESRB review, and this should stop happening.
The rating system does what it's supposed to do. Now, I think the ratings are stupid (17 vz 18 for M vs AO), but that's semantics. If a PG DVD had a graphic sex scene that couldn't be accessed from the menu, but anyone with a DVD-ROM or the right DVD player could get to it, that publisher should get burned and the DVD re-rated. No different with games. And publishers need to keep the market in mind when it comes to content.
hmmm... wonder what those cores will be optimized for...
Am I the only one who gets a huge gap between the slashblurb and the comments whenever there's an ad in the upper right corner? (Not always one there). It seems the comment portion of the page is tabled below the right-side boxes (ad, username info, and "Related Links", which makes it go Waaaaaaaaaaaaaayyy down the page whenever a tall advert is thrown in there. Seems like the comments aren't thrown in the middle of three columns, but in the right column in a 2-col setup, where the top of the right column is split into two columns (blurb sub-column and 'right-side-boxes' sub-column). Clunky. Me no like. didn't it say 'report bugs' somewhere? where?
yes, I believe secrecy is necessary in many instances. No, I do not believe oversight has been sufficient and the "who guards the guards" saying is perfectly valid regarding most of the "terrorism" related policies that have been put in place.
but showing you the proof from past events would endanger the present operations that are stopping even more attacks that are TAKING PLACE RIGHT NOW!!
Informative??
Right. I think it is fairly obvious the OP was talking about POTS. Please don't try to pick a fight over poor vocabulary choice.
All hail the Dark 'N Stormy! (now available in a convenient gift pack!)
Wow, way to direct the comment moderator. Let me try. THIS COMMENT IS INSIGHTFUL.
You have unlimited 'rentals' of books included in your membership fee. Said fee has been paid via your local/state taxes.
Which is correct and as it should be. Otherwise, if one guy doesn't like a program that everyone else does, he could submarine it by being allowed to make a public stink.
The general ruse^H^Hle is that classified operations have oversight by MORE THAN one guy. This is supposed to keep things in check. If classified activities put a bad taste in enough people's mouths, it will get canned.
- The problem isn't that the classified things exist (although overclassification is an issue). A problem in a particular case may be poor oversight. If that's the case, that is what's to be fixed. Not the removal of all classified info. Disclosure to Joe Public American also means disclosure to absolutely everyone around the globe, and with many things thats just a bad idea.
What you're discussing is a hierarchy of secrets, some of which are more important, or "more secret", than others. Hence the use of multiple levels of classification. I do beleive penalties are different for different levels of classification, but I'm not sure.
"The phenomenon can be explained by the notion that if an entity is sufficiently non-humanlike, then the humanlike characteristics will tend to stand out and be noticed easily, generating empathy. On the other hand, if the entity is "almost human", then the non-human characteristics will be the ones that stand out, leading to a feeling of "strangeness" in the human viewer."
As we try to inch closer to perfect, we actually get worse results from the general populace. Maybe film CG will break the valley, but it's a long road.
Movies at the lowest price possible, consistent with quality.
You're mildly missing the point. They don't know what to do! They're not trolling the waters for competent development. They're trying to hit upon a Killer App(TM) for their underutilized grid. They're paying for creativity and and 'quantity over quality' approach to the problem. They might get lucky. But that's what it comes down to.
have no fear. elitist design choices are Linux's biggest security measure, and will prevent such an occurence from ever happening. :)
"
Dear honorable congressmen and congresswomen,
We, the network hardware manufacturers, took a bath at the end of the dot-com bubble due to (to simplify a bit) poor supply chain management (oversupply and the like). We are trying to make a compback, and find your net neutrality proposals quite troubling. We have spent a large amount of capital developing technologies that would be used, no, required, in a non-neutral network. In order to meet our revenue growth expectations, we need a non-neutral network. Please, don't be hasty. You could stifle **mysterious hand waving** technological innovation. You don't want to stifle technology, do you? Why do you hate technology? It creates jobs for Americans. You don't hate Americans, do you? Without jobs, how will they feed their children? Please, don't force a neutral internet, think of the children!
Sincerely,
The always altruistic corporations
"
Progress didn't take out its docking target.
4) sending email itself is not illegal, and should never be. The use of fraudulent or misleading information in an advertisment or business action can be illegal, and there are already laws on the books covering these. Most spam laws just specify the "fraudulent things are illegal" and harrasment parts to Spam.
(the answer to spam requires no laws that aren't already in place.)
Anti-spam is currently touted as a selling point to their customers. "We'll protect your inbox from Spam!", but results are mediocre at best. HOWEVER, those results do not negatively impact their bottom line (people accept the spam anyway, and keep using the service.
Such 'vigilante' action would involve risk to the company. Financial risk from implementation, ?increased bandwidth usage?, support, 'defense from retaliation', etc. This risk must be offset by potential gains (to the company, in terms of dollars), or there's no point in doing it. Forget good will or altruism.
Potential gains? (1) long term decreased spam handling costs only if it makes a difference on their network. (2) increased subscriber base if the service attracts new customers because it is positively unique in some way. (hard if you're doing it in cooperation with competitors) (3)???extortion money???
So, seems like the big positive is long term spam cost reduction if it works. Now how many companies do you know that will make an investment in long term profits?
Wait til I get going! Now, where was I?
Exactly. so what your example demonstrates is that ineffective violence begets more violence. Had that guy been a better shot, it would have stopped.
Translated to this context, if the BlueSecurity effect is potent enough, it could have a subsantial effect. If it's not, it'll just spark more back-and-forth.
or even more interesting, that said ability is assumed to be a right that the greedy moneygrubbers are unscrupulously taking away from them.
wouldn't even go this far. The fans wanted the prequels. Georgie made them to suit fan demand. He did so in a less than stellar fashion. It is possible to meet superfan expectations for a movie. I use the Lord of Rings as an example. (different risks at play going to the movie from an established script, as opposed to a new story, but it still shows it can be done.)
The problem is the typical obsessed fan's need to know more. To beat the dead horse. Forget your own imagination, you need it spelled out for you on screen to make it more "real". That's the need George was trying to satisfy.
Episode 3 was the climax of the series. And the arguably most climactic moment (obiwan defeating anakin) was pretty crappy. "i have the high ground, give up", "lame defiant comment", poor minimal action shot, anakin missing a few limbs on the ground. didn't do it for me. but, I guess that kept up with the rest of the series. Would have been better to leave the prequels "in our heads" than anywhere else. But the superfans had to be satisfied, and they threw enough money at it to trash it.
But, now that I'm reading this, will someone with mod points mark this whole StarWars thread offtopic? thanks.
Discuss amongst yourselves...