Isn't there a theory about this? I tried to do a quick Google, but I don't even have the slightest idea what it is called. I just remember it has something to do with a valley. Their comes a point where the closer a robot or artifical life comes to looking like a human, the more put off real humans are to it. I'm sure someone else knows what I'm refering to.
It seems like your major beef with the game has more to do with the installation process then the actual game. I don't know how far you actually got into the game, but perhaps checking out the Xbox version will be a lot more user friendly for you. ( If you own an Xbox that is. )
It's pretty much a moot point though. Grand Theft Auto was given a rating of M. Based on that rating, the only people that should be playing this game are people who are already mature adults.
If parents really are up in arms about this ( which I have yet to see any evidence of this ), then the question needs to be asked why they are letting their kids play these games in the first place.
I don't think you have a right to watch movies. Watching movies, listening to music, playing games, and various other forms of entertainment are not something you are entitled to.
Well, it's within their rights ( or it should be anyway ) to be greedy with their own music if they so choose. It belongs to them so they can do with it what they want ( within reason of course ).
No, I don't mean to imply that money is the ONLY motivating factor to creating music. It is a fairly large one though. Especially if you decide you want to create music full time. They have to have a way to buy shelter and food just like everyone else.
Well, I'm not advocating that copyrights should be in place indefinitely. I just don't see what's wrong with an artist wanting to be compensated for the work that he or she has done. What motivation as a musician do I have to make music if as soon as I put out a song, someone copies it and gives it to everyone else?
I personally consider it stealing still. To me it doesn't matter that the artist or record company or whoever actually lost money because you weren't going to buy the album anyways. That artist spent time and effort to create that song. That song is his or her property. The same as if I wrote a poem or a book or anything else. It is that person's right to determine what is and isn't allowed with that property. If he or she decides that that song is going to cost someone twenty bucks to listen to, then that is their right. It is your right not to pay that amount, but it isn't your right to reap the rewards of someone else's hardwork for nothing.
I think the answer to this is exposure. If the "movement" were large enough, well organized enough, and recognized for what it is, then they wouldn't be able to blame P2P networks anymore. This is just a hypothetical situation, but say you got one million people to stop buying digital media. Now, not only do they stop buying, they also loudly speak out through websites, news blurbs, and any other kind of exposure. All of a sudden the industries profits start to drop, there is no way they would be able to reasonably blame P2P networks when everyone already knows that there are a million people that are choosing not to purchase digital media.
This is a very bad analogy. A prisoner is someone who made a choice that put him in prison. He decided to do something against the law. Slaves didn't have that choice at all. They were chained up simply because they were black, not because of something they actually did.
It's not to difficult to imagine someone paying for ringtones. People buy frivolous stuff all the time. Look at the popularity of beanie babies a few years back. I remember hearing about people paying thousands of dollars for them. I personally don't understand it. However, there have been times when I have bought something that was probably a waste of money. I'm sure any one of you can think back to a time you purchased something that maybe wasn't such a good thing to buy also.
I will agree that it's annoying when you hear them in restaurants, movie theaters, and other indoor public places. Oh well, this is the society we live in today so I guess I just have to take the bad with the good.
I don't thing it's about having your cake and eating it too. Haven't you ever done something, or thought something, and then later realized that you were mistaken? There is nothing wrong with changing your mind over an issue when you are presented with new information. Of course not everyone is quite that sincere, but I think it's okay to give people the benefit of the doubt.
The problem with this response is it doesn't really address the issue. "There is only so much a parent can do". Sure there, but can you honestly say that parents are doing enough? The problems that are occuring today have to do with the kind of society America has become. The employment of both parents is increasing more and more. This means that less and less time is spent with the kids instilling proper values. Instead, things like video games and television are used to raise kids. People today are more concerned with material things than they are with anything else. They want that big screen TV, or that brand new car. It just seems that all our priorities are way out of whack. This is a bit rushed because I'm in a hurry, but I hope it's clear enough what I'm trying to say.
I noticed a lot of people talk about how TV isn't very good. I'm just curious, what is the definition of good TV? I always thought that this was a subjective thing. If a couple million people watch a television show, doesn't that mean it must be pretty good. After all, if it was horrible, so many people wouldn't watch it, right?
Living to be 1,000 couldn't be all that bad. Elves do it all the time and they seem to get along just fine. If elves can do it, then I think humans can too.
I'm a little curious as to why you felt the need to post this in the first place. If you are that passionate about it, why don't you do something to fix the problem? What good does it do to come here and call people stupid, and moronic, and have a very holier than thou attitude? For someone who is supposedly as educated as you are, you don't seem to be using it very well.
He's a successful tech journalist who is leaving his very cushy job in order to start up his own citizen journalism website. It could concern you because he basically feels that there is to much talking and not enough listening in America today. So he's trying to do something to fix that. That's what I get from the article.
I'm probably being naive, but I think it's good what he is doing. Perhaps he is just talking to make himself sound good, but the message is still a good one. People would be a lot better of if they didn't always focus on what they wanted to hear. You should try to learn about things you may not like. Step outside your comfort zone. At the very least, be respectful that someone may have a differing opinion then yourself. If he can create something that helps to accomplish that, then I say good for him. That just makes this world a little bit better in my opinion.
Read this... The Dangers from Nuclear Weapons; Facts versus Myths
It shows that even if the US and Russia had gotten into nuclear war, the probability of life ending on earth is pretty much zero. It would be incredibly devestating for sure, but it wouldn't be the end of life as we know it. It wouldn't even be the end of human life as we know it. I didn't know any of this until you mentioned it. I got curious and looked up some info on it.
A lot of this seems way over my head, so I want to make sure I understand everything correctly. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is a government run organization, correct? They control who gets the Top Level Domains (TLD). Currently, companies like GoDaddy and Verisigns ( I'm assuming ) bid on chunks of TLD's. Then those companies sell them individually as domains to people. Currently there is a $.25 charge on each domain name. When Verisign's contract bid ends in 2005, ICANN is going to add an additional $.75 charge to each.net TLD. The reason people are upset is because they feel that the $.75 is unnecessary for what ICANN does. If I am wrong about any of this or if I'm missing anything, let me know. Like I said, most of this is a little over my head and I want to understand it better before I make any kind of judgement.
Actually, depending on your point of view, some statements can be both right and wrong at the same time. "This sentence is false" can be thought of as being both right and wrong.
When a person or a company creates a product, it is up to them to determine who gets to use that product. The most common exchange is money. You give them your money, and in return they allow you to use their product. That money is compensation for the time, effort, and anything else that went into making that product. In the case of music, paying $20.00, gives you the privledge to listen to music that the artist made. When you download that same song off a P2P program, you are stealing. It is stealing because you are listening to that song without giving the artist proper compensation. Listening to music is not a right, it is a privledge that is granted to you by paying the amount the artist decided on. If you don't like the price, or the artist, then don't buy the music. You have no right however to enjoy the fruits of someone else's labor without giving them proper compensation. Your argument that a copied CD is a number, and therefore is not owned by anyone is seriously flawed. The musician does not own the 1's and 0's themselves. They own what those 1's and 0's represent. In this case, a song. If you were to create a program or a song using only the number 7, then yes, you would be within your right to charge for that program. By downloading a copy of those 1's and 0's, you are stealing the information that those 1's and 0's represent. If you don't agree with the price of a product, or you don't agree with the product itself, then you have the right not to purchase that product.
But if next July's anticipated Supreme Court ruling in the MPAA/RIAA vs Grokster/Streamcast goes in favour of the movie and music industries, the heat is going to be on any technology, no matter how benign the intentions of its developer, that nevertheless makes piracy possible
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the music and movie industry, wouldn't that set a pretty big precedent? Any company could be held liable if their product can be used for illegal purposes.
Could you imagine spam and viruses being uploaded into your brain. You would never be able to get the image out of your head of a pill that enlarges your breasts. Scary.
This is why games that are turned into movies always fail horribly. The only people that can really be guaranteed to go see a movie like this are the people that played the video game in the first place. When Hollywood changes such major aspects of the plot, a big reason to go see the movie for gamers is removed. Non-gamers arn't going to go see the movie because it's unfamiliar to them, and gamers arn't going to go see the movie because it isn't in the spirit of the game they loved in the first place. Hollywood should concentrate on taking a game plot and fleshing it out into a good movie, instead of changing the entire concept and making a really horrible movie.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't there a theory about this? I tried to do a quick Google, but I don't even have the slightest idea what it is called. I just remember it has something to do with a valley. Their comes a point where the closer a robot or artifical life comes to looking like a human, the more put off real humans are to it. I'm sure someone else knows what I'm refering to.
It seems like your major beef with the game has more to do with the installation process then the actual game. I don't know how far you actually got into the game, but perhaps checking out the Xbox version will be a lot more user friendly for you. ( If you own an Xbox that is. )
It's pretty much a moot point though. Grand Theft Auto was given a rating of M. Based on that rating, the only people that should be playing this game are people who are already mature adults. If parents really are up in arms about this ( which I have yet to see any evidence of this ), then the question needs to be asked why they are letting their kids play these games in the first place.
I don't think you have a right to watch movies. Watching movies, listening to music, playing games, and various other forms of entertainment are not something you are entitled to.
Well, it's within their rights ( or it should be anyway ) to be greedy with their own music if they so choose. It belongs to them so they can do with it what they want ( within reason of course ). No, I don't mean to imply that money is the ONLY motivating factor to creating music. It is a fairly large one though. Especially if you decide you want to create music full time. They have to have a way to buy shelter and food just like everyone else.
Well, I'm not advocating that copyrights should be in place indefinitely. I just don't see what's wrong with an artist wanting to be compensated for the work that he or she has done. What motivation as a musician do I have to make music if as soon as I put out a song, someone copies it and gives it to everyone else?
I personally consider it stealing still. To me it doesn't matter that the artist or record company or whoever actually lost money because you weren't going to buy the album anyways. That artist spent time and effort to create that song. That song is his or her property. The same as if I wrote a poem or a book or anything else. It is that person's right to determine what is and isn't allowed with that property. If he or she decides that that song is going to cost someone twenty bucks to listen to, then that is their right. It is your right not to pay that amount, but it isn't your right to reap the rewards of someone else's hardwork for nothing.
I think the answer to this is exposure. If the "movement" were large enough, well organized enough, and recognized for what it is, then they wouldn't be able to blame P2P networks anymore. This is just a hypothetical situation, but say you got one million people to stop buying digital media. Now, not only do they stop buying, they also loudly speak out through websites, news blurbs, and any other kind of exposure. All of a sudden the industries profits start to drop, there is no way they would be able to reasonably blame P2P networks when everyone already knows that there are a million people that are choosing not to purchase digital media.
This is a very bad analogy. A prisoner is someone who made a choice that put him in prison. He decided to do something against the law. Slaves didn't have that choice at all. They were chained up simply because they were black, not because of something they actually did.
It's not to difficult to imagine someone paying for ringtones. People buy frivolous stuff all the time. Look at the popularity of beanie babies a few years back. I remember hearing about people paying thousands of dollars for them. I personally don't understand it. However, there have been times when I have bought something that was probably a waste of money. I'm sure any one of you can think back to a time you purchased something that maybe wasn't such a good thing to buy also.
I will agree that it's annoying when you hear them in restaurants, movie theaters, and other indoor public places. Oh well, this is the society we live in today so I guess I just have to take the bad with the good.
I don't thing it's about having your cake and eating it too. Haven't you ever done something, or thought something, and then later realized that you were mistaken? There is nothing wrong with changing your mind over an issue when you are presented with new information. Of course not everyone is quite that sincere, but I think it's okay to give people the benefit of the doubt.
The problem with this response is it doesn't really address the issue. "There is only so much a parent can do". Sure there, but can you honestly say that parents are doing enough? The problems that are occuring today have to do with the kind of society America has become. The employment of both parents is increasing more and more. This means that less and less time is spent with the kids instilling proper values. Instead, things like video games and television are used to raise kids. People today are more concerned with material things than they are with anything else. They want that big screen TV, or that brand new car. It just seems that all our priorities are way out of whack. This is a bit rushed because I'm in a hurry, but I hope it's clear enough what I'm trying to say.
I noticed a lot of people talk about how TV isn't very good. I'm just curious, what is the definition of good TV? I always thought that this was a subjective thing. If a couple million people watch a television show, doesn't that mean it must be pretty good. After all, if it was horrible, so many people wouldn't watch it, right?
Living to be 1,000 couldn't be all that bad. Elves do it all the time and they seem to get along just fine. If elves can do it, then I think humans can too.
I'm a little curious as to why you felt the need to post this in the first place. If you are that passionate about it, why don't you do something to fix the problem? What good does it do to come here and call people stupid, and moronic, and have a very holier than thou attitude? For someone who is supposedly as educated as you are, you don't seem to be using it very well.
He's a successful tech journalist who is leaving his very cushy job in order to start up his own citizen journalism website. It could concern you because he basically feels that there is to much talking and not enough listening in America today. So he's trying to do something to fix that. That's what I get from the article.
I'm probably being naive, but I think it's good what he is doing. Perhaps he is just talking to make himself sound good, but the message is still a good one. People would be a lot better of if they didn't always focus on what they wanted to hear. You should try to learn about things you may not like. Step outside your comfort zone. At the very least, be respectful that someone may have a differing opinion then yourself. If he can create something that helps to accomplish that, then I say good for him. That just makes this world a little bit better in my opinion.
Read this... The Dangers from Nuclear Weapons; Facts versus Myths It shows that even if the US and Russia had gotten into nuclear war, the probability of life ending on earth is pretty much zero. It would be incredibly devestating for sure, but it wouldn't be the end of life as we know it. It wouldn't even be the end of human life as we know it. I didn't know any of this until you mentioned it. I got curious and looked up some info on it.
A lot of this seems way over my head, so I want to make sure I understand everything correctly. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is a government run organization, correct? They control who gets the Top Level Domains (TLD). Currently, companies like GoDaddy and Verisigns ( I'm assuming ) bid on chunks of TLD's. Then those companies sell them individually as domains to people. Currently there is a $.25 charge on each domain name. When Verisign's contract bid ends in 2005, ICANN is going to add an additional $.75 charge to each .net TLD. The reason people are upset is because they feel that the $.75 is unnecessary for what ICANN does. If I am wrong about any of this or if I'm missing anything, let me know. Like I said, most of this is a little over my head and I want to understand it better before I make any kind of judgement.
Actually, depending on your point of view, some statements can be both right and wrong at the same time. "This sentence is false" can be thought of as being both right and wrong.
When a person or a company creates a product, it is up to them to determine who gets to use that product. The most common exchange is money. You give them your money, and in return they allow you to use their product. That money is compensation for the time, effort, and anything else that went into making that product. In the case of music, paying $20.00, gives you the privledge to listen to music that the artist made. When you download that same song off a P2P program, you are stealing. It is stealing because you are listening to that song without giving the artist proper compensation. Listening to music is not a right, it is a privledge that is granted to you by paying the amount the artist decided on. If you don't like the price, or the artist, then don't buy the music. You have no right however to enjoy the fruits of someone else's labor without giving them proper compensation.
Your argument that a copied CD is a number, and therefore is not owned by anyone is seriously flawed. The musician does not own the 1's and 0's themselves. They own what those 1's and 0's represent. In this case, a song. If you were to create a program or a song using only the number 7, then yes, you would be within your right to charge for that program. By downloading a copy of those 1's and 0's, you are stealing the information that those 1's and 0's represent. If you don't agree with the price of a product, or you don't agree with the product itself, then you have the right not to purchase that product.
But if next July's anticipated Supreme Court ruling in the MPAA/RIAA vs Grokster/Streamcast goes in favour of the movie and music industries, the heat is going to be on any technology, no matter how benign the intentions of its developer, that nevertheless makes piracy possible If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the music and movie industry, wouldn't that set a pretty big precedent? Any company could be held liable if their product can be used for illegal purposes.
Could you imagine spam and viruses being uploaded into your brain. You would never be able to get the image out of your head of a pill that enlarges your breasts. Scary.
This is why games that are turned into movies always fail horribly. The only people that can really be guaranteed to go see a movie like this are the people that played the video game in the first place. When Hollywood changes such major aspects of the plot, a big reason to go see the movie for gamers is removed. Non-gamers arn't going to go see the movie because it's unfamiliar to them, and gamers arn't going to go see the movie because it isn't in the spirit of the game they loved in the first place. Hollywood should concentrate on taking a game plot and fleshing it out into a good movie, instead of changing the entire concept and making a really horrible movie.