Well, it turns out you are correct about alcoholics being protected by the ADA. That was not quite my point however. This type of thing just removes one more barrier protecting our privacy. If alcoholism cannot affect whether you are hired or not, why should the company know about it in the first place? At the very least however, it might cause the employer to form a negative opinion of an applicant and it seems it would cause the same reaction in you.
Again, that wasn't quite my point. I merely said the RFID data indicated Mr. Smith purchased 14 cases of beer. You see how easy it is to mistake that with actual consumption? Mr. Smith could completely detest the taste/effects of alcohol and still purchase that much beer (perhaps for a party, friends, etc.).
Well sure, if you eventually blow something up then this is great evidence to have, simply reading it would not be enough to prosecute...don't use bombs and reading like this wouldnt come back to haunt you. Despite all the hype and fear, no one has been detained for reading the wrong material.
No, but at the very least it's likely to cause a full background check to be conducted, and possibly surveillance of your activities. Again, not the point. The scenario shows another false positive that is likely to negatively affect the innocent's life. Some might say a person reading those books should be watched carefully. But you see the problem with that, yes? If the negative consequences (being put on a government watchlist, etc.) out weigh the positive ones, people will stop trying to access that information. Later, books containing ideas conflicting with those of government are frowned upon and all of a sudden we're in a nose-dive towards a police state.
who cares about anyones drinking habits? Drug habits might effect employment or something.
"Well Mr. Smith, we had decided to hire you until we had a look at your RFID data. It seems you purchased 14 cases of beer last week. That's two a day. This concerns us greatly and we have decided to reject your application. We've also forwarded this information to an alcoholic rehabilitation center and they should be contacting you shortly."
And the books I read? What? What books are you reading that this would really make a difference? I can't think of a single book i've ever read that I would be afraid if someone found out I was reading it...maybe you can give an example?
Sure. Let's say that I am disturbed at the amount of death a terrorist bomb can cause. I purchase/rent books on bombs (so I can understand how they work, thus possibly having the information to help formulate ways to prevent them and/or protect against their effects) and books on terrorism (so that I can understand their beliefs and motivations, also so I can possibly help fight terrorism). What is an FBI agent who knows nothing about me going to think we he sees a red flag come up that someone is reading books on bombs and terrorism? Now what if I happen to have an Arabic name?
Method of birth control is also a weird one for your list...not sure who really cares about that either, again unless you live in some puritanical society or something.
Uh... who was America founded by again? Let us not forget that at one point in history, it was illegal to dance in public in certain places. Something about it stirring up feelings of lust or some such.
Scenario: Someone is running for a public office. RFID data reveals this man has purchased many condoms. Obvious conclusion (to some): Lots of pre-marital sex, public opinion drops (After all, what righteous, Christian, married couple would need condoms? They should only be having sex to procreate anyways). Enter sleezebag with a 'clean' purchase record. Wins by a land slide and proceeds to screw the government up even more.
What I would like to see is a team of developers that aren't afraid to 'grief' players every now and then. By that I don't mean camping spawn points with their level 9999999 character they programmed just for themselves (although that could be a fun experience too:-). I'm talking about random events like natural disasters that destroy a town or hinder resource flow. Or NPC enemy groups that wage war on players and player owned towns/castles/whatever. Just anything unexpected that totally messes up people's routines. Of course this should be balanced with good things occasionally as well.
Mostly what I'm tired of is games forcing everyone to be equal so that it's "fair" to everyone. All that seems to have succeeded in doing is making the games incredibly boring after a certain point. Wow you mean my level 60 paladin is exactly the same as the other 400,000 level 60 paladins in the game... exciting. There should be elements in the game that distinguish individuals or groups. It's much more interesting to have competition for resources and locations than competing for raw number of kills that nets you some meaningless PvP title.
I'd also like to see constant PvP return to mainstream games, and I'm hardly a hardcore PvP player. The constant threat of death (especially if death is meaningful in some way) adds an extra level of player interaction that I think helps to prevent games from becoming stale so easily. I used to play Asheron's Call on the Darktide server (PvP always) and until they added housing to the game, there was no truly safe place that you could escape being killed. Player created monarchies actually fought to defend and control the towns with the best locations/vendor rates. You just don't see that in many other games. In AC, I was constantly aware of my surroundings in the game and prepared to fight at any moment. When I play WoW, unless I'm specifically looking for a fight, I just don't care. There is almost no penalty for death so most of the time it's not worth the effort to quickly shift from idly watching my character run to town and into battle mode.
I realize that it's not that simple. The people that play these games are notoriously whiny, and the developer's of a game do have to worry about keeping their customer base. What I see happen all too much though is a working system that is constantly tweaked in an effort to balance it or make things fair, at the behest of the most vocal group that feels that since their particular character/class is not the most powerful in their perception, there is something wrong with the game. Dueling weaknesses and strengths of different types of characters and player attitudes make an interesting environment that will stay enjoyable longer. Removing wood's weakness to fire and fire's weakness to water and so on just leaves a static system where nothing changes and it becomes boring very fast. I wish people would wake up and realize that it's not all about them, and I wish developers would stop screwing with their system that most are pleased with just to satisfy the least common denominator.
That is a very interesting idea and while I'm not completely sold on it, I believe it is worth thinking about. I wonder if the micropayment plan could work similarly to the way Slashdot's subscription system works. I think one of the 'perks' of being a Slashdot subscriber is that you get a certain number of ad-free pages and you can set a limit on how many ad-free page points you use per day. You could think about this as putting up a pool of money and using it to make a micropayment for each ad-free page you view. Applying that to your Wikipedia model, you would simply add money to your account and small amounts would be transferred to the account of the author of the page when you viewed it. I would assume there would be some taxes involved that could seriously complicate the situation but maybe there is a way around that as well.
This guy is for "Progress and Freedom"? From the article:
But when the content is delivered purely as digital bits, there is no limit to the range of TPM that can be applied. Content producers can also quickly change their options to meet market demand. What is a publisher to do when it finds out that it can't get students to buy e-textbooks when they expire after a mere four months? By changing one line of code, those four months can be expanded to a full year.
Wow! You mean if customers finally start complaining that their collective anus is bleeding, producers might let consumers hold on to their property for a little while longer?
I guess I just don't see how limiting people's rights to their purchased property is progress and it's certainly not freedom.
I second this. About 6 months ago I bought one of their SC1425 1U dual Xeon servers (I think that's the model number). They were having a "second processor is free" kind of deal. I was skeptical at first, thinking that it was a "free" second processor. I must have tried for days to even equal the price they were selling it at (~$1200 IIRC which was after upgrading to dual 2.8GHz Xeons instead of 2.4). I checked Newegg, other online distributors, forums, ebay, every place I could think of. The best I could do was ~$1400 for a system with lower specs, without rails for the case. Dell even makes you pay extra for the rails.
So sure, I may not have the pleasure of saying it's a custom built server but I think I'll settle for a much cheaper server with a Dell logo on it.
I feel some amount of pity for someone who feels this. "Oh god, little Johnny can't listen to the latest Britney Spears album!! Won't someone think of the children!!!!!!!!1111oneone"
While Britney Spears was hardly the focus of my point (no entertainment: no music, no movies, no books, no art, nothing), there are people that like her music and as such should be included with other entertaining works. Even if no one liked her music, it should still be included simply because it's intent is to be entertaining. Besides all that, are you denying that entertainment is important for a society? Are you denying that most Americans would see a culture without TV, movies, music, books, etc. as "backward?"
If the plumbing company has in their contract that they will install a camera in your bathroom and you sign the contract, what exact right of yours have they broken? Don't like it, buy from a plumber who doesn't install a camera. If no plumbers sell without the camera, start an incredibly popular new plumbing company that sells without cameras and make a killing. The point of government enforcement of rights protection is simply to prevent the situtation where no plumber can provide the no-camera toilet.
Well okay, perhaps it was not the best example. The point was to show a breach of the right to privacy. In the example, the homeowner purchased a toilet and payed to have it installed. After that, it is their own business what they do with it - and I doubt many would disagree with that statement. It was also supposed to then be obvious in its relation to DRM. That is, once I've legally purchased a CD, for example, why is it anyone else's business if I copy that audio data to my server so I don't have to fiddle with discs and drives, or make a personal backup copy so when my frail disc is destroyed by [insert any of a rediculously large amount of Bad Things] I have not lost my investment. It was also supposed to emphasize the rights of the people/consumers over those of a company to its supposedly threatened profits. Moving to the RIAA example, sure someone could try to start a company that would sell music without DRM. How exactly would they pay the licensing fees for all the music, assuming the RIAA even let them sell "their" music without DRM (extremely unlikely given that said music could then be put on filesharing networks very easily)? And if they did not have permission from the RIAA, the business would be immediately shut down and probably be subject to federal investigation thanks to the DMCA.
The point is that these kinds of things become defacto standards and are harmful to people. While not necessarily illegal (although always in a gray area of the law), it should be obvious that they are wrong. That's my problem with your argument (which essentially boils down to: "If you don't like [something], then don't do [this]." or "If you don't like [something], then do [this] instead.") It's essentially a free pass for any "wrong-doer." That argument applied to a situation where domestic abuse was not illegal would go something like: "If the victim doesn't like being beaten, then the victim shouldn't piss off the abuser." Well, it's not illegal so it's okay, right? It's the same argument conservatives (many, not all) use when some liberal says something "Well if you don't like it here in America, you should just leave." It neither addresses the problem nor argues a defense.
Anyways, I've started to lose my train of thought so I'll stop now, but don't worry about being argumentative. What would Slashdot be without healthy debates?:)
It's not that simple though. People will still continue to buy DRM protected music, just as they would continue to purchase food if it came with a restrictive EULA. Food is a necessity and so people would have no choice but to buy it, even if the license stated you had to send nude photographs of your children to the company. Whether you like it or not, music or more importantly, entertainment, has become what I call a "virtual" necessity for the average standard of living in our culture. The average person would probably feel some amount of pity for someone with absolutely no access to entertainment (i.e. They would feel this person is not experiencing as full of a life as they could). So, whether it is a true necessity or not, people will still buy music and other forms of entertainment even knowing that it is encumbered by DRM. To do otherwise, unless it was their desire to not participate (they do not like entertainment), would be denying themselves of a higher standard of living.
That is why we are supposed to have rights (I dunno, I read in some ancient texts people used to have them?); so that your plumbing company can't install a camera in your bathroom to make sure no one but you is using the toilet they installed for you (they should buy their own!!). Oh but I forgot, you could just go shit in a hole out back.
Open format might be a technical concept, but it has important implications. I would think by now the benefits to the consumer of open standards and formats would be obvious by now. I think that open standards are even more important when dealing with important things like government. If, for example, the government was using Microsoft proprietary formats for public documents, a user without access to Microsoft software (say they are running on an OS that MS Office cannot run on) is denied access to those public documents. If the standard is open on the other hand, any application developer can create a program that is able to work with the document. Two examples there: one where only one company can provide access to a file, and another where any number of companies can provide the same access. Which is better for the market?
It should also be noted that no one is forcing Microsoft to do anything. Microsoft is free to continue using proprietary formats. The Massachusetts government, for example, has simply stated that all document application software must support the open standard thereby increasing the availability of important documents and freeing themselves of their servitude to Microsoft. If Microsoft were to provide the functionality to work with open standard documents (say through one of their many and frequent updates), I see no reason why that government might continue to use their products. As long as the functionality was complete, that would actually probably be a better decision since all the government employees are familiar with that software.
Not really communism, more like corporate dictatorship. They're starting with saying you don't own the media files, but in time they'll move to say they own all your files to be sure that you aren't pirating or in some way ruining their archaic business model.
Other than that, I agree. I cannot understand how it can be legal for them to say what I can or cannot do with my hardware (and since all this "IP" is just bits stored on my hard drive, that's basically what they are doing). If I decide that it's more efficient to have those bits stored on one of the drives in one of my servers, what's wrong with that? Now they're saying I can only copy a specific pattern of bits a limited number of times? What happens when one of my important documents matches that bit pattern?
This is still true (up to the latest version of Windows XP that I have tried). Near as I can tell, the Windows setup utility insists that it be able to write to the MBR as well as some amount of data to the other partitions on the drive. I think this is because naturally, you wouldn't have a non-Microsoft operating system on the drive right? So of course it freaks out when it can't read/write your (non-FAT, non-NTFS) filesystem. I've had this happen to me (more than once because I forgot how stupid Microsoft is), but fortunately it's easy to just tar up your whole Linux system and scp it over to your server and back again once you've installed Windows first.
So after dealing with that, I would not be surprised either if Windows Vista did that. Fortunately, we probably would not have to deal with a long drawn out legal battle with a small fine at the end. Instead, the DOJ will probably meet with Gates and his lawyers to find some way to pervert the system and exploit the DMCA to make this okay. After all, Vista has all this nice DRM built-in so allowing a "Non-Trusted" OS to be on the same system could indicate complicity in subverting copyright protection schemes!
As other posters have pointed out, bits/per second is the standard unit for bandwidth. What's truly misleading is when companies compare disparate products/services. My local cable ISP, Comcast, loves to bump up their highest speed and then compare it to the lowest level of service prodivided by local DSL providers.
Perhaps Sony should be punished for running software that modifies system files without permission.
It seems to me that this copy protection scheme exploits two security holes in Windows: autorun (maybe ok by itself) and everyone running with administrator privileges by default. We regularly imprison and fine people who exploit such security holes, why should Sony be any different? At the very least you can't blame people for trying to prevent unwanted changes to their system.
Oh how I wish that was true. Sure, people like us understand that he is sorely mistaken. However, the average person that doesn't even realize there are alternatives to Windows obviously does not have any ground upon which to question his statement. Your average computer user is likely to see Bill Gates as a super smart, multi-billionare, computer/technology guru. Hence not only will they buy his crap, they'll pay $200 just to upgrade...
I find the layout annoying as well. Fortunately, there is a nice "text" button that will open a page with the article in plain text. No pictures, no stupid next page buttons, just text.
Apparently you completely missed what the AC was saying so I'll try again for him. I have the right to say what I wish but that does not imply the right to an audience. No one has to listen or purchase my speech. However, how does that relate to the right of anyone to be my audience if they so choose? If I choose to seek out any form of entertainment and no one is harmed as a result of it, what reason could there be to restrict my action? Just as important, and as the AC pointed out, if you restrict the right to purchase or view any form of speech, you also indirectly restrict the right of the author. While no one is required to buy your book, is there really freedom of speech if no one is allowed to buy it? Hopefully you can appreciate the precedent these kinds of laws set. If pornography and violence are harmful to children, surely hints of anarchy or anti-government thoughts are just as bad? After all, those could warp the delicate young mind into deviancy. That is why people like me get so touchy at even a hint of the restriction of rights; it often sets a precedent for removing said right entirely, almost at a whim.
I'm disappointed that you think only idiots believe minors should have rights but they do. Unless I'm mistaken, choosing to purchase any available good or service is an act of speech and thus should be protected by the first amendment. If we allow minors first amendment rights, they therefore also have the right to purchase whatever pleases them. I think what has really happened is that, as usual, politicians have side-stepped the Constitution to "protect the children" and passed laws that restrict the sale of pornography, for example.
It is my own belief that parents should be the final authority for what is appropriate for their child. Since the legal system recognizes that children are not fully capable until [insert arbitrary age here], parents are liable for their child's actions. Combine that with the fact that nearly all parents want the best for their child and we have a system that works well except in cases of parental neglect (and no system should be designed to cater to these people - they are the deviants that need to be punished, not the average person).
The point is, laws such as these are pointless and ineffective. In the end, they only result in the average law abiding citizen being restricted. The criminals, or at least those that have no compunction for breaking the law, will continue to engage in their activity as they always have. The mature kid that actually probably is emotionally developed enough to handle a weapon, alcohol, etc, will also obey the laws. Meanwhile the others will just get someone of age to buy their alcohol, and now their violent video games, for them.
Make 'em get jobs so they can pay their own montly fees:) Only costs them a few hours of time to make the money for an entire month of play (depending on the pay of the job) and it saves you $540/yr.
If you actually stop and think about it for a minute instead of immediately dismissing the entire concept you might have more luck understanding the opposing viewpoint.
Yes, but what will you make and how will you get it to market?
I can't speak for what exactly he was talking about but for one, what about heavy industry? If there is no life on Mars and we don't care about polluting it, would it not make a good place for dirty manufacturing type facilities? As for how to get it to the market, I would think this would be largely solved in the process of setting these kinds of industries up on Mars. At least for the initial colony and manufacturing plants, you'll have to transport a lot of mass a long way from Earth. If you can do that without it costing a bajillion dollars, surely you can make a return cargo flight full of valuable materials (probably with increased efficiency as well due to improvements in technology combined with data and experience from your initial journey).
Another thing to consider is that this company is planning this for twenty years from now. They may be counting on the fact that there will likely be an enormous difference between our current level of technology and that of civilization in 2025. It's not entirely unreasonable to expect that we'll have at least sustainable fusion reactors at that point (which nullifies any concerns about uranium or solar power). If they were saying they were going to do this now or in a few years, I'd be laughing and calling it a scam right along with you. Given the ever accelerating advancement of technology however, I'm not going to dismiss it immediately as you seem to have done.
Re:High Resolution Computer Graphics and Broadband
on
Pornified
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Interesting, I never thought of it that way. It's like polygamy for polygons. Polygomy?
Re:High Resolution Computer Graphics and Broadband
on
Pornified
·
· Score: 1
1024x768x16? What kind of nerd are you? Obviously not a very proud one for setting your standards so low.
Here's a question: Why does everyone require that their preferred quality in any form of entertainment be the main focus and be near perfection and the movie/game/book/etc is horrible if not? For some it seems to be cold hard realism. As an example, my parents went to see Transporter 2 this weekend. I would like to see that as well so I asked them what they thought about it. My mom said she liked it but my dad did not respond, prompting my mom to pry him for the answer. He said something to the effect of it wasn't very realistic. So obviously he did not care for it too much simply based on that fact (of course few movies are realistic and it's not like this is his first non-documentary but whatever).
For other people it's the visual and special effects portion. Those movies that concentrate on telling a story without too much attention to visuals (and usually receive high ratings from critics) are often dismissed as boring or too artsy or some such by many people. For yet others, yourself included apparently, the story is the most important.
I just don't understand why a movie has to have an epic storyline or optic nerve stunning graphics or textbook accurate details to be a "good" movie or at least decent diversion for 2 hours. I'm baffled when I hear that some people walk out of movies halfway through. While I haven't seen every and can't necessarily comment on the exact reasons behind their decision, I can't image doing so for any of the ones that I've seen. How self-important do you have to be that you have to find every flaw possible in a movie so you can show everyone else how far beneath you the film was? When people get so uptight about something that is supposed to be a fun way to relax and remove oneself from reality for a couple of hours, it's no surprise that people have so many health problems.
So the plot in Revenge of the Sith was terrible, so what? So in your opinion the story was bad in FF, so what? So there weren't any special effects in this or that movie, so what? You made the decision to spend the $8 (give or take $5 whatever) to watch it, sit down and enjoy yourself for two meager hours. Ugh whatever maybe I'm just too easy to please.
On topic now... In general, I would say gameplay is the most important aspect of a game. I've enjoyed all the Zelda games (never played this Wind Walker - I don't have a GC). It never even crossed my mind that the graphics were a little cartoonish. I dislike cel-shading a great deal though; I just think it looks rediculous. I liked all the previous games though and if I had a GC it would not have stopped me from buying the game at all. After all, after playing it for a short time I'd probably forget (mostly) about the graphics and just enjoy the storyline and whacking stuff with my sword.
While I'm somewhat wary of non-lethal weapons because of the potentially negative side effects, I agree that the ability to disable enemies in a non-lethal way is a good thing. However I would like to point out that your helicopter scenario isn't that nice. In a densely populated city you might have 100,000 people in those few blocks. If your weapon knocked out 90%-95% of the people and killed the rest, you've just killed 5,000 to 10,000 people... I'm not sure that's as "acceptable" as you put it. As it is, our lethal weapons like "smart bombs" have much smaller collateral damage effects, typically on the order of a dozen innocents if I remember correctly.
That's why it's best to go with single target or small radius 'non-lethal' weapons. That way you minimize the chances of harming or killing innocent people. The idea is to disable the enemies trying to kill you, not fry the brains of a large portion of the populace.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it turns out you are correct about alcoholics being protected by the ADA. That was not quite my point however. This type of thing just removes one more barrier protecting our privacy. If alcoholism cannot affect whether you are hired or not, why should the company know about it in the first place? At the very least however, it might cause the employer to form a negative opinion of an applicant and it seems it would cause the same reaction in you.
Again, that wasn't quite my point. I merely said the RFID data indicated Mr. Smith purchased 14 cases of beer. You see how easy it is to mistake that with actual consumption? Mr. Smith could completely detest the taste/effects of alcohol and still purchase that much beer (perhaps for a party, friends, etc.).
Well sure, if you eventually blow something up then this is great evidence to have, simply reading it would not be enough to prosecute...don't use bombs and reading like this wouldnt come back to haunt you. Despite all the hype and fear, no one has been detained for reading the wrong material.
No, but at the very least it's likely to cause a full background check to be conducted, and possibly surveillance of your activities. Again, not the point. The scenario shows another false positive that is likely to negatively affect the innocent's life. Some might say a person reading those books should be watched carefully. But you see the problem with that, yes? If the negative consequences (being put on a government watchlist, etc.) out weigh the positive ones, people will stop trying to access that information. Later, books containing ideas conflicting with those of government are frowned upon and all of a sudden we're in a nose-dive towards a police state.
who cares about anyones drinking habits? Drug habits might effect employment or something.
"Well Mr. Smith, we had decided to hire you until we had a look at your RFID data. It seems you purchased 14 cases of beer last week. That's two a day. This concerns us greatly and we have decided to reject your application. We've also forwarded this information to an alcoholic rehabilitation center and they should be contacting you shortly."
And the books I read? What? What books are you reading that this would really make a difference? I can't think of a single book i've ever read that I would be afraid if someone found out I was reading it...maybe you can give an example?
Sure. Let's say that I am disturbed at the amount of death a terrorist bomb can cause. I purchase/rent books on bombs (so I can understand how they work, thus possibly having the information to help formulate ways to prevent them and/or protect against their effects) and books on terrorism (so that I can understand their beliefs and motivations, also so I can possibly help fight terrorism). What is an FBI agent who knows nothing about me going to think we he sees a red flag come up that someone is reading books on bombs and terrorism? Now what if I happen to have an Arabic name?
Method of birth control is also a weird one for your list...not sure who really cares about that either, again unless you live in some puritanical society or something.
Uh... who was America founded by again? Let us not forget that at one point in history, it was illegal to dance in public in certain places. Something about it stirring up feelings of lust or some such.
Scenario: Someone is running for a public office. RFID data reveals this man has purchased many condoms. Obvious conclusion (to some): Lots of pre-marital sex, public opinion drops (After all, what righteous, Christian, married couple would need condoms? They should only be having sex to procreate anyways). Enter sleezebag with a 'clean' purchase record. Wins by a land slide and proceeds to screw the government up even more.
What I would like to see is a team of developers that aren't afraid to 'grief' players every now and then. By that I don't mean camping spawn points with their level 9999999 character they programmed just for themselves (although that could be a fun experience too :-). I'm talking about random events like natural disasters that destroy a town or hinder resource flow. Or NPC enemy groups that wage war on players and player owned towns/castles/whatever. Just anything unexpected that totally messes up people's routines. Of course this should be balanced with good things occasionally as well.
Mostly what I'm tired of is games forcing everyone to be equal so that it's "fair" to everyone. All that seems to have succeeded in doing is making the games incredibly boring after a certain point. Wow you mean my level 60 paladin is exactly the same as the other 400,000 level 60 paladins in the game... exciting. There should be elements in the game that distinguish individuals or groups. It's much more interesting to have competition for resources and locations than competing for raw number of kills that nets you some meaningless PvP title.
I'd also like to see constant PvP return to mainstream games, and I'm hardly a hardcore PvP player. The constant threat of death (especially if death is meaningful in some way) adds an extra level of player interaction that I think helps to prevent games from becoming stale so easily. I used to play Asheron's Call on the Darktide server (PvP always) and until they added housing to the game, there was no truly safe place that you could escape being killed. Player created monarchies actually fought to defend and control the towns with the best locations/vendor rates. You just don't see that in many other games. In AC, I was constantly aware of my surroundings in the game and prepared to fight at any moment. When I play WoW, unless I'm specifically looking for a fight, I just don't care. There is almost no penalty for death so most of the time it's not worth the effort to quickly shift from idly watching my character run to town and into battle mode.
I realize that it's not that simple. The people that play these games are notoriously whiny, and the developer's of a game do have to worry about keeping their customer base. What I see happen all too much though is a working system that is constantly tweaked in an effort to balance it or make things fair, at the behest of the most vocal group that feels that since their particular character/class is not the most powerful in their perception, there is something wrong with the game. Dueling weaknesses and strengths of different types of characters and player attitudes make an interesting environment that will stay enjoyable longer. Removing wood's weakness to fire and fire's weakness to water and so on just leaves a static system where nothing changes and it becomes boring very fast. I wish people would wake up and realize that it's not all about them, and I wish developers would stop screwing with their system that most are pleased with just to satisfy the least common denominator.
That is a very interesting idea and while I'm not completely sold on it, I believe it is worth thinking about. I wonder if the micropayment plan could work similarly to the way Slashdot's subscription system works. I think one of the 'perks' of being a Slashdot subscriber is that you get a certain number of ad-free pages and you can set a limit on how many ad-free page points you use per day. You could think about this as putting up a pool of money and using it to make a micropayment for each ad-free page you view. Applying that to your Wikipedia model, you would simply add money to your account and small amounts would be transferred to the account of the author of the page when you viewed it. I would assume there would be some taxes involved that could seriously complicate the situation but maybe there is a way around that as well.
I guess I just don't see how limiting people's rights to their purchased property is progress and it's certainly not freedom.
What do you need two Tolkien rings for? You only need one...
I second this. About 6 months ago I bought one of their SC1425 1U dual Xeon servers (I think that's the model number). They were having a "second processor is free" kind of deal. I was skeptical at first, thinking that it was a "free" second processor. I must have tried for days to even equal the price they were selling it at (~$1200 IIRC which was after upgrading to dual 2.8GHz Xeons instead of 2.4). I checked Newegg, other online distributors, forums, ebay, every place I could think of. The best I could do was ~$1400 for a system with lower specs, without rails for the case. Dell even makes you pay extra for the rails.
So sure, I may not have the pleasure of saying it's a custom built server but I think I'll settle for a much cheaper server with a Dell logo on it.
I feel some amount of pity for someone who feels this. "Oh god, little Johnny can't listen to the latest Britney Spears album!! Won't someone think of the children!!!!!!!!1111oneone"
:)
While Britney Spears was hardly the focus of my point (no entertainment: no music, no movies, no books, no art, nothing ), there are people that like her music and as such should be included with other entertaining works. Even if no one liked her music, it should still be included simply because it's intent is to be entertaining. Besides all that, are you denying that entertainment is important for a society? Are you denying that most Americans would see a culture without TV, movies, music, books, etc. as "backward?"
If the plumbing company has in their contract that they will install a camera in your bathroom and you sign the contract, what exact right of yours have they broken? Don't like it, buy from a plumber who doesn't install a camera. If no plumbers sell without the camera, start an incredibly popular new plumbing company that sells without cameras and make a killing. The point of government enforcement of rights protection is simply to prevent the situtation where no plumber can provide the no-camera toilet.
Well okay, perhaps it was not the best example. The point was to show a breach of the right to privacy. In the example, the homeowner purchased a toilet and payed to have it installed. After that, it is their own business what they do with it - and I doubt many would disagree with that statement. It was also supposed to then be obvious in its relation to DRM. That is, once I've legally purchased a CD, for example, why is it anyone else's business if I copy that audio data to my server so I don't have to fiddle with discs and drives, or make a personal backup copy so when my frail disc is destroyed by [insert any of a rediculously large amount of Bad Things] I have not lost my investment. It was also supposed to emphasize the rights of the people/consumers over those of a company to its supposedly threatened profits. Moving to the RIAA example, sure someone could try to start a company that would sell music without DRM. How exactly would they pay the licensing fees for all the music, assuming the RIAA even let them sell "their" music without DRM ( extremely unlikely given that said music could then be put on filesharing networks very easily)? And if they did not have permission from the RIAA, the business would be immediately shut down and probably be subject to federal investigation thanks to the DMCA.
The point is that these kinds of things become defacto standards and are harmful to people. While not necessarily illegal (although always in a gray area of the law), it should be obvious that they are wrong. That's my problem with your argument (which essentially boils down to: "If you don't like [something], then don't do [this]." or "If you don't like [something], then do [this] instead.") It's essentially a free pass for any "wrong-doer." That argument applied to a situation where domestic abuse was not illegal would go something like: "If the victim doesn't like being beaten, then the victim shouldn't piss off the abuser." Well, it's not illegal so it's okay, right? It's the same argument conservatives (many, not all) use when some liberal says something "Well if you don't like it here in America, you should just leave." It neither addresses the problem nor argues a defense.
Anyways, I've started to lose my train of thought so I'll stop now, but don't worry about being argumentative. What would Slashdot be without healthy debates?
It's not that simple though. People will still continue to buy DRM protected music, just as they would continue to purchase food if it came with a restrictive EULA. Food is a necessity and so people would have no choice but to buy it, even if the license stated you had to send nude photographs of your children to the company. Whether you like it or not, music or more importantly, entertainment, has become what I call a "virtual" necessity for the average standard of living in our culture. The average person would probably feel some amount of pity for someone with absolutely no access to entertainment (i.e. They would feel this person is not experiencing as full of a life as they could). So, whether it is a true necessity or not, people will still buy music and other forms of entertainment even knowing that it is encumbered by DRM. To do otherwise, unless it was their desire to not participate (they do not like entertainment), would be denying themselves of a higher standard of living.
That is why we are supposed to have rights (I dunno, I read in some ancient texts people used to have them?); so that your plumbing company can't install a camera in your bathroom to make sure no one but you is using the toilet they installed for you (they should buy their own!!). Oh but I forgot, you could just go shit in a hole out back.
Open format might be a technical concept, but it has important implications. I would think by now the benefits to the consumer of open standards and formats would be obvious by now. I think that open standards are even more important when dealing with important things like government. If, for example, the government was using Microsoft proprietary formats for public documents, a user without access to Microsoft software (say they are running on an OS that MS Office cannot run on) is denied access to those public documents. If the standard is open on the other hand, any application developer can create a program that is able to work with the document. Two examples there: one where only one company can provide access to a file, and another where any number of companies can provide the same access. Which is better for the market?
It should also be noted that no one is forcing Microsoft to do anything. Microsoft is free to continue using proprietary formats. The Massachusetts government, for example, has simply stated that all document application software must support the open standard thereby increasing the availability of important documents and freeing themselves of their servitude to Microsoft. If Microsoft were to provide the functionality to work with open standard documents (say through one of their many and frequent updates), I see no reason why that government might continue to use their products. As long as the functionality was complete, that would actually probably be a better decision since all the government employees are familiar with that software.
Not really communism, more like corporate dictatorship. They're starting with saying you don't own the media files, but in time they'll move to say they own all your files to be sure that you aren't pirating or in some way ruining their archaic business model.
Other than that, I agree. I cannot understand how it can be legal for them to say what I can or cannot do with my hardware (and since all this "IP" is just bits stored on my hard drive, that's basically what they are doing). If I decide that it's more efficient to have those bits stored on one of the drives in one of my servers, what's wrong with that? Now they're saying I can only copy a specific pattern of bits a limited number of times? What happens when one of my important documents matches that bit pattern?
This is still true (up to the latest version of Windows XP that I have tried). Near as I can tell, the Windows setup utility insists that it be able to write to the MBR as well as some amount of data to the other partitions on the drive. I think this is because naturally, you wouldn't have a non-Microsoft operating system on the drive right? So of course it freaks out when it can't read/write your (non-FAT, non-NTFS) filesystem. I've had this happen to me (more than once because I forgot how stupid Microsoft is), but fortunately it's easy to just tar up your whole Linux system and scp it over to your server and back again once you've installed Windows first.
So after dealing with that, I would not be surprised either if Windows Vista did that. Fortunately, we probably would not have to deal with a long drawn out legal battle with a small fine at the end. Instead, the DOJ will probably meet with Gates and his lawyers to find some way to pervert the system and exploit the DMCA to make this okay. After all, Vista has all this nice DRM built-in so allowing a "Non-Trusted" OS to be on the same system could indicate complicity in subverting copyright protection schemes!
As other posters have pointed out, bits/per second is the standard unit for bandwidth. What's truly misleading is when companies compare disparate products/services. My local cable ISP, Comcast, loves to bump up their highest speed and then compare it to the lowest level of service prodivided by local DSL providers.
Perhaps Sony should be punished for running software that modifies system files without permission.
It seems to me that this copy protection scheme exploits two security holes in Windows: autorun (maybe ok by itself) and everyone running with administrator privileges by default. We regularly imprison and fine people who exploit such security holes, why should Sony be any different? At the very least you can't blame people for trying to prevent unwanted changes to their system.
Nice to see people aren't buying this crap.
Oh how I wish that was true. Sure, people like us understand that he is sorely mistaken. However, the average person that doesn't even realize there are alternatives to Windows obviously does not have any ground upon which to question his statement. Your average computer user is likely to see Bill Gates as a super smart, multi-billionare, computer/technology guru. Hence not only will they buy his crap, they'll pay $200 just to upgrade...
Resistance is futile.
I find the layout annoying as well. Fortunately, there is a nice "text" button that will open a page with the article in plain text. No pictures, no stupid next page buttons, just text.
Apparently you completely missed what the AC was saying so I'll try again for him. I have the right to say what I wish but that does not imply the right to an audience. No one has to listen or purchase my speech. However, how does that relate to the right of anyone to be my audience if they so choose? If I choose to seek out any form of entertainment and no one is harmed as a result of it, what reason could there be to restrict my action? Just as important, and as the AC pointed out, if you restrict the right to purchase or view any form of speech, you also indirectly restrict the right of the author. While no one is required to buy your book, is there really freedom of speech if no one is allowed to buy it? Hopefully you can appreciate the precedent these kinds of laws set. If pornography and violence are harmful to children, surely hints of anarchy or anti-government thoughts are just as bad? After all, those could warp the delicate young mind into deviancy. That is why people like me get so touchy at even a hint of the restriction of rights; it often sets a precedent for removing said right entirely, almost at a whim.
I'm disappointed that you think only idiots believe minors should have rights but they do. Unless I'm mistaken, choosing to purchase any available good or service is an act of speech and thus should be protected by the first amendment. If we allow minors first amendment rights, they therefore also have the right to purchase whatever pleases them. I think what has really happened is that, as usual, politicians have side-stepped the Constitution to "protect the children" and passed laws that restrict the sale of pornography, for example.
It is my own belief that parents should be the final authority for what is appropriate for their child. Since the legal system recognizes that children are not fully capable until [insert arbitrary age here], parents are liable for their child's actions. Combine that with the fact that nearly all parents want the best for their child and we have a system that works well except in cases of parental neglect (and no system should be designed to cater to these people - they are the deviants that need to be punished, not the average person).
The point is, laws such as these are pointless and ineffective. In the end, they only result in the average law abiding citizen being restricted. The criminals, or at least those that have no compunction for breaking the law, will continue to engage in their activity as they always have. The mature kid that actually probably is emotionally developed enough to handle a weapon, alcohol, etc, will also obey the laws. Meanwhile the others will just get someone of age to buy their alcohol, and now their violent video games, for them.
Caution! Avert thine eyes mortals, lest ye be overwhelmed by insight!
Make 'em get jobs so they can pay their own montly fees :) Only costs them a few hours of time to make the money for an entire month of play (depending on the pay of the job) and it saves you $540/yr.
If you actually stop and think about it for a minute instead of immediately dismissing the entire concept you might have more luck understanding the opposing viewpoint.
Yes, but what will you make and how will you get it to market?
I can't speak for what exactly he was talking about but for one, what about heavy industry? If there is no life on Mars and we don't care about polluting it, would it not make a good place for dirty manufacturing type facilities? As for how to get it to the market, I would think this would be largely solved in the process of setting these kinds of industries up on Mars. At least for the initial colony and manufacturing plants, you'll have to transport a lot of mass a long way from Earth. If you can do that without it costing a bajillion dollars, surely you can make a return cargo flight full of valuable materials (probably with increased efficiency as well due to improvements in technology combined with data and experience from your initial journey).
Another thing to consider is that this company is planning this for twenty years from now. They may be counting on the fact that there will likely be an enormous difference between our current level of technology and that of civilization in 2025. It's not entirely unreasonable to expect that we'll have at least sustainable fusion reactors at that point (which nullifies any concerns about uranium or solar power). If they were saying they were going to do this now or in a few years, I'd be laughing and calling it a scam right along with you. Given the ever accelerating advancement of technology however, I'm not going to dismiss it immediately as you seem to have done.
Interesting, I never thought of it that way. It's like polygamy for polygons. Polygomy?
1024x768x16? What kind of nerd are you? Obviously not a very proud one for setting your standards so low.
Here's a question: Why does everyone require that their preferred quality in any form of entertainment be the main focus and be near perfection and the movie/game/book/etc is horrible if not? For some it seems to be cold hard realism. As an example, my parents went to see Transporter 2 this weekend. I would like to see that as well so I asked them what they thought about it. My mom said she liked it but my dad did not respond, prompting my mom to pry him for the answer. He said something to the effect of it wasn't very realistic. So obviously he did not care for it too much simply based on that fact (of course few movies are realistic and it's not like this is his first non-documentary but whatever).
For other people it's the visual and special effects portion. Those movies that concentrate on telling a story without too much attention to visuals (and usually receive high ratings from critics) are often dismissed as boring or too artsy or some such by many people. For yet others, yourself included apparently, the story is the most important.
I just don't understand why a movie has to have an epic storyline or optic nerve stunning graphics or textbook accurate details to be a "good" movie or at least decent diversion for 2 hours. I'm baffled when I hear that some people walk out of movies halfway through. While I haven't seen every and can't necessarily comment on the exact reasons behind their decision, I can't image doing so for any of the ones that I've seen. How self-important do you have to be that you have to find every flaw possible in a movie so you can show everyone else how far beneath you the film was? When people get so uptight about something that is supposed to be a fun way to relax and remove oneself from reality for a couple of hours, it's no surprise that people have so many health problems.
So the plot in Revenge of the Sith was terrible, so what? So in your opinion the story was bad in FF, so what? So there weren't any special effects in this or that movie, so what? You made the decision to spend the $8 (give or take $5 whatever) to watch it, sit down and enjoy yourself for two meager hours. Ugh whatever maybe I'm just too easy to please.
On topic now... In general, I would say gameplay is the most important aspect of a game. I've enjoyed all the Zelda games (never played this Wind Walker - I don't have a GC). It never even crossed my mind that the graphics were a little cartoonish. I dislike cel-shading a great deal though; I just think it looks rediculous. I liked all the previous games though and if I had a GC it would not have stopped me from buying the game at all. After all, after playing it for a short time I'd probably forget (mostly) about the graphics and just enjoy the storyline and whacking stuff with my sword.
While I'm somewhat wary of non-lethal weapons because of the potentially negative side effects, I agree that the ability to disable enemies in a non-lethal way is a good thing. However I would like to point out that your helicopter scenario isn't that nice. In a densely populated city you might have 100,000 people in those few blocks. If your weapon knocked out 90%-95% of the people and killed the rest, you've just killed 5,000 to 10,000 people... I'm not sure that's as "acceptable" as you put it. As it is, our lethal weapons like "smart bombs" have much smaller collateral damage effects, typically on the order of a dozen innocents if I remember correctly.
That's why it's best to go with single target or small radius 'non-lethal' weapons. That way you minimize the chances of harming or killing innocent people. The idea is to disable the enemies trying to kill you, not fry the brains of a large portion of the populace.