From the beginning of this republic, freedom has demanded privacy/autonomy. It's a bit harder to autonomously author that little series of pamphlets now known as "The Federalist Papers" if the government can see who you are (albeit, I admit, marginally so--though much more of an acute issue in places where speech is more repressed), and ditto "Common Sense."
For those of you who recall (pun fully intended), the difference between HP and Apple is that HP owns up to its mistakes and issues a recall where, instead of a mere switch-around of defective products, they actually mail you a new one. Apple's policy, as I implied, is not so forthright.
There is no legal murder, but there is such a thing as legal filesharing, thus the need for a distinction. IP law protects you in some cases, but you're free to distribute your own music at no charge if you wish, or movie, etc. However, in the context of movies I think the media is assuming that the populace is at least somewhat ignorant since, practically speaking, there is much less of a chance of encountering a "legally shared" movie (although it is common with short films and the occassional fan flick type thing), especially one that the public has heard of, whereas with music it's far more likely.
At some places you have to do that with the bartender, but where I've been you didn't have to. I've not heard of doing it with the hostess, though--they're usually paid a straight wage, which is reasonable considering that their job is substantially easier. I've also never heard of giving anything to the cooks. They're already making twice what the average waiter makes (and often what the best waiter makes, or even more). It definitely varies by restaurant, though.
That's bullshit. I used to be a waiter, and all of our electronic tips were tallied and given to us in cash at the end of the night. True, wages are only 2.15 minimum per hour, but I never made less than 8/hour, and usually 10/hour or more. Moreover, I was the only waiter in the place to my knowledge who actually declared more than a fraction of his earnings. Most waiters not only get tips, but a self-declared tax break as well.
The article focuses on Clinton, and since whoever started this thread posted that article, the people on here are focusing on Clinton.
I have to commend you in a sense: you're getting close to the problem by noting the lack of even-handedness. Personally, I don't care for the positions of a vast array of other politicians either, but the fact is that Senator Clinton gets an enormously disproportionate share of media time. I study policymaking issues, and I still couldn't name the majority of senators based on media exposure, but every time she swats at a fly, Clinton gets media. She's gearing up for a presidential run, or at least those in the media are hoping for it, because she's certainly getting more attention than your average Senator, or even your average spouse-of-a-former-president Senator, in my opinion (though it's admittedly hard to compare on that last scale).
Well put Ungrounded Lightning (62228)! It's nice to see that someone on this forum knows something about education before they post.
Having studied these issues, I can agree almost entirely with the poster above, especially on the following: "new math" and other educational philosophies that promote form over content, self-esteem in educational philosophy (which has been time and again proven in studies to be a false "truth" in education--just look at China!), teacher retention/promotion, the entire curriculum development process (which is geared toward selling books, not publishing good content, and its contents are often somewhat politically determined).
Another big factors that he excluded, but is highly relevant: The decline of extremely capable people willing to go into the teaching profession. Like it or not, women's 'liberalization' has vastly decreased the number of able-minded folks going into the teaching profession, much to its detriment. Teaching is a dead end career with practically no professional development.
For a good book on the subject of educational philosophy and why the current regime is not succeeding, pick up E.D. Hirsch's Cultural Literacy. He doesn't get to a lot of the cultural problems, but he certainly takes on the problems with a lot of the now-dominant educational philosophies that are ruining public education.
First, the content was fairly explicit. Check the vid: not prime-time material.
Second, there is a vast difference between SIMS mods and San Andreas: the SIMS mods didn't have the content already on the disc. Apparently, all one had to do was flag a.dll file or something equally inane in order to get full access to the sex game embedded in the game. This was less like a mod since the material wasn't grafted in on top of Rockstar's content.
Berate the ESRB all you like, but their ruling is consistent with their standards, which are well-documented (as pointed out by someone above). It's pretty clear what happened here: Rockstar, or some subsidiary programmers within its company, decided to include a sex-game on its final release version, only they cut some reference out so that the content wasn't on the game. Then, lo and behold, almost coterminous with its release, this extra content is "noticed" by an outside group which publishes a patch. I don't declare myself to be an expert, but it seems dubious that this was a coincidence (though it may have been--the content may have been easily visible within the primary game data files, but that's unlikely). What seems more likely is that some Rockstar programmer called a buddy up and told him what was going on.
My theory is pretty much irrelevant though: whether the company heads knew or not is an interesting question, but it was still their responsibility to know what they were sending out to the ESRB and to stores.
The ESRB is setting the right precedent in this case. If they allowed the prior rating to go unchallenged, then any minimally intrepid programmer thereafter could foil their rankings system by simply letting it be known informally that some content was available with merely a few keystrokes. Companies could include whatever they wanted, and blame it on the 'modding' community, rendering ESRB irrelevant.
I'm not making an argument for or it against it the ESRB itself. Personally, I think that what they do serves a purpose, although in practice I'm not sure how much of a difference their ratings make. The key is parents. However, without this whole scandal, it is doubtful whether parents would have known of this at all (unless reporters deemed it worthy to follow the lead of a few disgruntled Congressmen and consumers' groups).
I'm fairly certain that the discrepancy is in the word "gentiles" since Harvard, Yale, and other ivies have an exceptionally large proportion of Jewish students.
Slashdot Mirror
From the beginning of this republic, freedom has demanded privacy/autonomy. It's a bit harder to autonomously author that little series of pamphlets now known as "The Federalist Papers" if the government can see who you are (albeit, I admit, marginally so--though much more of an acute issue in places where speech is more repressed), and ditto "Common Sense."
For those of you who recall (pun fully intended), the difference between HP and Apple is that HP owns up to its mistakes and issues a recall where, instead of a mere switch-around of defective products, they actually mail you a new one. Apple's policy, as I implied, is not so forthright.
The answer is in the question:
There is no legal murder, but there is such a thing as legal filesharing, thus the need for a distinction. IP law protects you in some cases, but you're free to distribute your own music at no charge if you wish, or movie, etc. However, in the context of movies I think the media is assuming that the populace is at least somewhat ignorant since, practically speaking, there is much less of a chance of encountering a "legally shared" movie (although it is common with short films and the occassional fan flick type thing), especially one that the public has heard of, whereas with music it's far more likely.
At some places you have to do that with the bartender, but where I've been you didn't have to. I've not heard of doing it with the hostess, though--they're usually paid a straight wage, which is reasonable considering that their job is substantially easier. I've also never heard of giving anything to the cooks. They're already making twice what the average waiter makes (and often what the best waiter makes, or even more). It definitely varies by restaurant, though.
That's bullshit. I used to be a waiter, and all of our electronic tips were tallied and given to us in cash at the end of the night. True, wages are only 2.15 minimum per hour, but I never made less than 8/hour, and usually 10/hour or more. Moreover, I was the only waiter in the place to my knowledge who actually declared more than a fraction of his earnings. Most waiters not only get tips, but a self-declared tax break as well.
The article focuses on Clinton, and since whoever started this thread posted that article, the people on here are focusing on Clinton. I have to commend you in a sense: you're getting close to the problem by noting the lack of even-handedness. Personally, I don't care for the positions of a vast array of other politicians either, but the fact is that Senator Clinton gets an enormously disproportionate share of media time. I study policymaking issues, and I still couldn't name the majority of senators based on media exposure, but every time she swats at a fly, Clinton gets media. She's gearing up for a presidential run, or at least those in the media are hoping for it, because she's certainly getting more attention than your average Senator, or even your average spouse-of-a-former-president Senator, in my opinion (though it's admittedly hard to compare on that last scale).
Well put Ungrounded Lightning (62228)! It's nice to see that someone on this forum knows something about education before they post.
Having studied these issues, I can agree almost entirely with the poster above, especially on the following: "new math" and other educational philosophies that promote form over content, self-esteem in educational philosophy (which has been time and again proven in studies to be a false "truth" in education--just look at China!), teacher retention/promotion, the entire curriculum development process (which is geared toward selling books, not publishing good content, and its contents are often somewhat politically determined).
Another big factors that he excluded, but is highly relevant: The decline of extremely capable people willing to go into the teaching profession. Like it or not, women's 'liberalization' has vastly decreased the number of able-minded folks going into the teaching profession, much to its detriment. Teaching is a dead end career with practically no professional development.
For a good book on the subject of educational philosophy and why the current regime is not succeeding, pick up E.D. Hirsch's Cultural Literacy. He doesn't get to a lot of the cultural problems, but he certainly takes on the problems with a lot of the now-dominant educational philosophies that are ruining public education.
First, the content was fairly explicit. Check the vid: not prime-time material. Second, there is a vast difference between SIMS mods and San Andreas: the SIMS mods didn't have the content already on the disc. Apparently, all one had to do was flag a .dll file or something equally inane in order to get full access to the sex game embedded in the game. This was less like a mod since the material wasn't grafted in on top of Rockstar's content.
Berate the ESRB all you like, but their ruling is consistent with their standards, which are well-documented (as pointed out by someone above). It's pretty clear what happened here: Rockstar, or some subsidiary programmers within its company, decided to include a sex-game on its final release version, only they cut some reference out so that the content wasn't on the game. Then, lo and behold, almost coterminous with its release, this extra content is "noticed" by an outside group which publishes a patch. I don't declare myself to be an expert, but it seems dubious that this was a coincidence (though it may have been--the content may have been easily visible within the primary game data files, but that's unlikely). What seems more likely is that some Rockstar programmer called a buddy up and told him what was going on.
My theory is pretty much irrelevant though: whether the company heads knew or not is an interesting question, but it was still their responsibility to know what they were sending out to the ESRB and to stores.
The ESRB is setting the right precedent in this case. If they allowed the prior rating to go unchallenged, then any minimally intrepid programmer thereafter could foil their rankings system by simply letting it be known informally that some content was available with merely a few keystrokes. Companies could include whatever they wanted, and blame it on the 'modding' community, rendering ESRB irrelevant.
I'm not making an argument for or it against it the ESRB itself. Personally, I think that what they do serves a purpose, although in practice I'm not sure how much of a difference their ratings make. The key is parents. However, without this whole scandal, it is doubtful whether parents would have known of this at all (unless reporters deemed it worthy to follow the lead of a few disgruntled Congressmen and consumers' groups).
I'm fairly certain that the discrepancy is in the word "gentiles" since Harvard, Yale, and other ivies have an exceptionally large proportion of Jewish students.