You've gotta pay people to work on deadlines sometimes. I've done volunteer work which has led to paying work, driven by nessecity. Most volunteers have day jobs, and aren't extremely wealthy. If they're being asked to put in a lot of hours, it's only fair to compensate them for the time they can't spend working at their normal job, be it freelancing, a normal desk job, or whatever.
That's true. Even the USSR wasn't as bad as it was made out to be. And, I think I could be doing a lot *better* than the current level of freedom I presently enjoy. I'm not trying to hold the US out as an example of what a country should be (because it's not), I was just saying that not every bad thing you hear about China is propaganda.
I think three things we can agree on:
China needs to liberalize a lot of their domestic policies-- clean up the courts, get the corruption out of the politburo, make their currency play nicer with the rest of the world, own up about Tiananmen.
The US is not the benchmark country for freedom and liberalism.
A sizable portion of slashdotters spend an inordinate amount of time talking out their asses.;-)
Actually, I like you-- this has been one of the better discussions I've had recently. Thanks!
Hey, I calls 'em likes I sees 'em. Is there such a thing as "a little bit free?"
Freedom is important, regardless of who you are or where you are. Yeah, there are a lot of racist, ignorant, wrongminded, poorly spoken assholes on/., but there's a difference between making a moral call regarding the *crushing of people with tanks* and simply disliking the Chinese for their innate Chinese-ness.
I've known honest-to-god Chinese people, naturalized Chinese, and even had a first generation Chinese-American as my first girlfriend, so I guess I should make it clear that my comments are not just me being an asshole.
I also know that the vast majority of Chinese feel the same as I do-- killing people is wrong, and it's wrong to help a gov't who kills people. This is also why I regularly protest the actions of the US gov't. Occasionally, I even protest both at once.
The (Communist || Republican || Democratic) Party can kiss my pasty caucausian ass if it offends them to be reminded of their past misdeeds.
Since when does technological innovation have it's roots in "beating the other guy".
Since the first guy picked up a rock and used it as a weapon.
It's for advancement of society, for curiousity, for problem solving. Just because China does some research doesn't mean it's trying to win a "race". Sure they might have wanted in the past to play catch up in technological progress, but why are we so quick to assume it's a race? Why not just assume they're doing it for the betterment of society?
The betterment of whose society? Their own? Censorship, control, brainwashing, newspeak?
Why would they want to help our society? Altruism?
Where does all this xenophobia come from?
Tiananmen Square, 1989. Among other examples.
The average Chinese citizen doesn't feel this way towards Americans, but for some reason, we are so paranoid about them.
I'm not afraid of the average Chinese citizen. I empathize with them, in fact. I'm afraid of their government. And, if they were smart, they'd be afraid of my government, too, just like I am. I'm sure they're just as smart as I am, and are able to make the distinction between the citizens of a country and that country's leadership.
Tiananmen Square? I still haven't forgotten that, dispite the best efforts of the new, cuddly, friendly Party.
How many years did those dissidents that Yahoo turned in get?
Are those things propaganda?
So, er, who's gonna make stuff? Oh, wait, that means that all the western nations who's economies are moving ever closer to being entirely reliant on intellectual property with a real value of nil and are banking on the force of law and international treaties to bouy their economies up whilst shifting the manufacture of real goods to China will have to start making stuff themselves again.
Right now China has got us all over a barrel because they're where we get the majority of our goods, why would they fritter it all away moving to an economic model like ours?
I've been worried about this, too. However, of late, I've come to the conclusion that it's really a non-issue. Here in the states, we'll go back to what we were doing before we outsourced everything to China. We'll outsource it all to Central and South America. Some stuff we'll go back to making domestically, and our new factories will in fact be better than our old, defunct ones. China's industrial technology all comes from either the US, EU, or Japan, and it's out of date. The US has the money to burn on ramping up domestic production again. I see China almost as like the neighborhood kid who cuts the lawn for you-- you could do it yourself, it's just more convenient to have them do it. However, if the kid is no longer availible, we could always go back to cutting our own grass; it's not like we don't know how.
Actually, this plan is a no-go. Too much space, satellites are too small, and you'd have to use too big of a rocket to put enough debris up there to make an effective 'cloud' of the little guys. Now, a small orbital rocket launcher, with precise guidance control, that'd be a satellite killer.
Well, and, being educated and outspoken in China is seldom a good career move. Let's not forget this is stil the government who crushed their own people with tanks at Tiananamen Square.
You're a pleasant fellow, aren't you? I'd love to discuss politics or religion with you, based on how nicely you've handled a discussion regarding something that's --entirely pointless-- for both of us.
Some people like records; some people like CDs. To my ears, a record sounds better, the same way to my eyes, a Rembrandt is nicer than a Munch. ***It is an entirely subjective analysis***
For an accurate technical analysis, take a really nice, high quality oscilloscope, and record the sine waves coming from the line output of a CD player and a turntable playing the same song. Then, overlay one wave atop the other. They will *not* be the same. It's up to you to decide which one you think sounds better.
Yeah, and I had a cousin's friend's neighbour who had a Jaguar, too, but the one time he let me drive it, I couldn't tell the difference between it and my 1988 Nissan! They were both motor vehicals, with wheels and gearshifts and stuff. I think he way overpaid.;-)
Hmm... I got trolled (lame, btw, I could do so much better), so I'll take ten minutes off from my frustrating day at work to look at pictures of cool turntables, so I can make a decent response. Har-har, joke's on you mate, I had fun.
http://www.needledoctor.com/s.nl/it.A/id.888/.f?sc =2&category=45 No geek in the world could look at that and not think it was cool. I dare you. I mean, it's got three motors and weights 32kg, for the love of god.
Not so, actually. A CD contains a digital representation of the original analog signal. The record contains *the original analog signal.*
If you ever get the chance, listen to an mp3 (most dramatic), or even a cd (closer, but no cigar), and then listen to the same track from a vinyl record. The difference will blow your mind-- the record will sound clearer and more detailed, even if it's old and scratched. The sound is far more lifelike in the way our ears handle it.
Not that I'm ragging on digital music-- I have a large collection, and listen to it frequently. The simple truth of the matter is that records offer a more accurate recreation of the original audio, simply because their 'resolution' is (for all intents and purposes) infinite, where a digital recording is limited by the encoding rate of the ADC (analog-to-digital converter, for the non-crazy). If you don't have a top-notch stereo, the difference isn't as noticeable, but I've found that as I've become more familiar with the hobby and upgraded my kit, my records sound better and better, while I listen to my mp3s less and less.
There's a trend among young technophile types (myself included) to discount analog technology, because of a perceived 'obsolescense'. However, to compare analog music storage directly to digital technology is a disservice, because both types actually serve different types of functions and users. Analog is for when portability doesn't matter, sound quality is a priority, and simplicity of design is of a premium. Digital is what you use when you need something that can be easily modified, portable to multiple types of devices, and easily transported over a variety of communication links.
However, when I'm in my living room, listening to my hand-crafted speakers, etc, etc, I want the best audio quality possible, so I'm willing to make a concession on portability in favor of that.
It's not for everyone, granted, but I'm happy to see more bands releasing albums on vinyl. I just feel better about spending money on records, because at least I have a large, tangible thing. Kind of like buying a book. I can download all the pirated books from the net that I could ever want, but there are times when being able to hold the dead-tree version in your hands is priceless.
A note on garage sale turntables: Use caution with them-- many of the old models from the fifties and sixties have needles (styli) which are quite a bit inferior to modern ones. Without going into hardcore details, the point of the styli are oftentimes extremely worn, and will damage your delicate records. I highly recommend anyone just getting into this hobby get a 'good' turntable, with a detachable headshell (the bit at the end of the arm, which holds the cartridge and needle), and buy a new cartridge for it. A decent beginner model will cost less than $50.
Not a shill, just a hobbiest-- needledoctor.com. Check out the high dollar models, very geek drool-worthy. Failing that, go to eBay and pick up a nice Dual or Technics.
Would you rather have braking or steering?
Would you rather have vision or hearing?
Would you rather have a coffee, or a cup to put it in?
Would you rather have electricity or running water?
Would you rather have a plate or silverware?
Would you rather have hands or feet?
Would you rather have housing or transit?
Who decides who has access to what technology? Many more elderly fall for telephone scams than computer scams, and you very rarely hear about people lobbying to take telephones away from old people.;-)
Belgium (been there, btw-- lovely country, very nice people) is more socially enlightened than the States. Despite your problems with your retirement system, I can scarely imagine how it could be worse than our Social Security program. Anyway, though, America will cheerfully dump old people on the street-- I see them pushing shopping carts filled with old clothes on a daily basis.
Now, I'm not saying that all homeless have been defrauded, or that their own actions haven't led to their situations. In most cases, they probably have.
However, my point is that someone's life shouldn't be ruined because of a single mistake made on the internet. The cost to the entire society is too high at that point, because poor people turn to crime, they get sick more often, they're more likely to be victims of crime themselves, etc. I'd much rather pay a few bucks via my income taxes into FDIC (the US bank insurance agency), than pay a lot more bucks via my taxes for services designed to help the destitute. Given my preference, I'd rather they never became destitute at all.
Rehasing classics, by way of new productions: Yes. I've personally seen at the very least three different versions of "Hamlet."
Replacing bits of classics, while leaving other bits intact, skewing the line between what is new and what is original: Unacceptible. Shouldn't do it; terrifying implications.
Now, this is just Star Trek we're talking about here, so don't think I'm getting too frothy at the mouth. My objection is this: Sure, they're only changing the special effects now; but how about when they decide to re-release 'The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn'-- this time without anything objectionable! Or, let's digitally 'remaster' famous rock protest songs... only this time, we'll make them sing in *support* of Vietnam!
I know that I'm almost to move into tinfoil-hat territory, but I really believe that the editing and remixing of classic art, culture, literature, etc, should not be socially acceptible. People who want to do alternate performances, fine. People who want to do covers, fine. Even people who want to write books using characters from other books are fine. What's not fine is blurring the line between what's original, and what's remade. Enough gradual changes, and people will forget whatever made the orignal worth knowing; and that scares me.
So even though this is just Star Trek, I'm seeing it as a slippery slope. In my mind, the show was just fine with it's original special effects, because the whole point was the story and dialog. No one's expecting an honest-to-god analysis of what aliens or starships or computers look like, in the same way that a cardboard and plywood set in Hamlet wouldn't make people say, "That doesn't really look like Denmark! My suspension of disbelief is totally shattered now!"
I agree with you in spirit, but in praticality, I don't think your ideas are particularly feasible.
Let's take the internet out of this, and look at it as a normal con-job. If someone masquerades as a bank official for the purpose of defrauding money from a bank client (ie, they put on a teller's uniform, call someone out of line at the bank, and say, 'I'll handle your deposit for you, one sec.'), the bank is obligated to prevent such fraud, regardless of the technology used to make the 'pitch.'
I wouldn't want to phone my bank when making an internet purchase, either. However, if the internet purchase is *for the entire balance of my account,* I'd probably appreciate the bank calling me, just to make sure I really do want to deplete it.
In the US, we have the FDIC, which insures deposits in banks. It's funded by taxpayers, and heavily regulated. Individuals pay into the system, but there is no such thing as an individual FDIC insurance policy-- it's the banks which are insured, not the bank's clients. The money to replace that lost due to fraud is from the FDIC-- not just out of the bank in question.
If an individual is defrauded, what's more *socially just?* For the person to perhaps lose their entire savings, retirement, college fund, etc? Or for the loss to be spread around all of society, costing us all a negligible amount in our income taxes? Naturally, we'd prefer not to pay said taxes. Of course, when it's *your* money which has been stolen, one would be glad to recieve the benefit of that safety net. Which is of greater cost for society as a whole-- millions of people tossing a few bucks a year to a federal fraud insurance program, or millions of homeless vagrants, victims of fraud?
Before you answer, think about this: During the 1930s, in the US's Great Depression, we tried the one with no FDIC, and millions of homeless. It was underwhelming, as you might well imagine.
Finally, fraud has always been a factor in bank managment. They *plan* for it, because it's a fact of doing business in that industry. I'm sure it's a line item on their budgets. Banks are also in competition with each other-- how many customers would a bank which makes their clients liable be able to attract, compared with those banks which don't?
Phishing is simply a new take on an ancient, ancient crime-- just tricking people out of their money. It's disingenuous for banks to act like it's an entirely new phenomena, and for them to hold thier customers liable is, well, just them being cheapskates. I'm sure they'll end up doing just fine, with their $10/mo account fees, $35/check overdraft fees, tiny interest payouts, near-usurious interest on loans, and one-sided credit management.
Yeah, you're right. I guess the rest of my paranoia kind of obviated my initial paranoia. However, the independently verified and checksummed software on the counting machines would still be a must-have.
Now, if we could just sell the idea to people who are empowered to actually execute it. Haha.;-)
Your grandmother loses her life savings. She sure had it coming because she couldn't tell the difference between bankofamerica.com and bank0famerica.com. Foolish her, she definitely deserves to be forced to go back to work at Wal-Mart for minimum wage so she can live like a college student again. Old bitch totally had it coming-- and it's wrong of her to seek reimbursement for wire fraud.
I've been giving some thought to your comments about an ideal e-voting system. I mostly agree, with a couple addenda:
The voting terminals should not be networked in any way-- not to each other, not to a server, and certainly not to a public W/LAN
The software used on the voting machines should be provided as a CF card, or something similar, which has been independently varified by several agencies (the political parties, the gov't, private auditing firms, etc)
The voting terminal itself will have an md5sum, or something similar, programmed into it *by hand* by an election official. If the CF card doesn't match the md5sum, the machine will refuse to function.
Using an integral printer, after a person has voted, the machine should produce a *completely human readable* ballot. No bar codes, no extra markings at all, except a clean, legible ballot page.
The user will then take the ballot to a locked box, and deposit it in there.
Counting can then be done via machine using high speed OCR. Since the text on the page will be in standardized locations, it wouldn't be hard to create such a counting machine.
In the event of a recount, or suspicious results in general, the paper ballots are still available.
Perhaps my plan is a bit paranoid, but it's the only way I can think of to assure the computers can't be rigged. Also, the computers would in no way *replace* the existing human oversight procedures our respective countries already have.
Trust me though, my friend, even a tedious handcount of paper ballots is still better than... well, a de facto coup de'tat. Just as an example.
You are very confused on the concept. Making money is the point and you readily admit that will happen-- so by definition they are not ruining it. They are doing what makes sense when you produce television purely for the purpose of generating revenue.
So, do you really believe that, or are you just taking a contrary point for shits and giggles? Should all media be remade and redone, to increase the profits of the companies which control the rights to said media? Should Sony change the lyrics to Beatles songs, and re-release them, in order to make money?
Regardless if you perceive Star Trek as art, or just a campy old TV show, you can't deny that it's a piece of world culture at this point. To change it, even for the best reasons, is simply unacceptible. To change it simply for profit is not only greedy, but short sighted and crass.
I know-- we should re-film all the Hitchkok movies in color, using prettier actors! Those will sell great! Or, how about we go back and cut out all the hippie nonsense in "Easy Rider"-- and film a new ending where they all become accountants. That'll sell some tickets! Let's re-write and sell 1984, this time without the memory hole, and a happy ending.
If people want to make new art, then go out and make new art. Just changing things we already have is disingenuous and creepy.
Slashdot Mirror
You've gotta pay people to work on deadlines sometimes. I've done volunteer work which has led to paying work, driven by nessecity. Most volunteers have day jobs, and aren't extremely wealthy. If they're being asked to put in a lot of hours, it's only fair to compensate them for the time they can't spend working at their normal job, be it freelancing, a normal desk job, or whatever.
I think three things we can agree on:
Actually, I like you-- this has been one of the better discussions I've had recently. Thanks!
Hey, I calls 'em likes I sees 'em. Is there such a thing as "a little bit free?"
/., but there's a difference between making a moral call regarding the *crushing of people with tanks* and simply disliking the Chinese for their innate Chinese-ness.
Freedom is important, regardless of who you are or where you are. Yeah, there are a lot of racist, ignorant, wrongminded, poorly spoken assholes on
I've known honest-to-god Chinese people, naturalized Chinese, and even had a first generation Chinese-American as my first girlfriend, so I guess I should make it clear that my comments are not just me being an asshole.
I also know that the vast majority of Chinese feel the same as I do-- killing people is wrong, and it's wrong to help a gov't who kills people. This is also why I regularly protest the actions of the US gov't. Occasionally, I even protest both at once. The (Communist || Republican || Democratic) Party can kiss my pasty caucausian ass if it offends them to be reminded of their past misdeeds.
Since when does technological innovation have it's roots in "beating the other guy".
Since the first guy picked up a rock and used it as a weapon.
It's for advancement of society, for curiousity, for problem solving. Just because China does some research doesn't mean it's trying to win a "race". Sure they might have wanted in the past to play catch up in technological progress, but why are we so quick to assume it's a race? Why not just assume they're doing it for the betterment of society?
The betterment of whose society? Their own? Censorship, control, brainwashing, newspeak?
Why would they want to help our society? Altruism?
Where does all this xenophobia come from?
Tiananmen Square, 1989. Among other examples.
The average Chinese citizen doesn't feel this way towards Americans, but for some reason, we are so paranoid about them.
I'm not afraid of the average Chinese citizen. I empathize with them, in fact. I'm afraid of their government. And, if they were smart, they'd be afraid of my government, too, just like I am. I'm sure they're just as smart as I am, and are able to make the distinction between the citizens of a country and that country's leadership.
Just my two cents.
Tiananmen Square? I still haven't forgotten that, dispite the best efforts of the new, cuddly, friendly Party.
2 0massacre&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=iw (451 matches)s sacre&btnG=Google+Search (~731,000 matches)
How many years did those dissidents that Yahoo turned in get?
Are those things propaganda?
How about these comparative Google search results for "Tiananmen massacre"?
Chinese version: http://www.google.cn/search?hl=zh-CN&q=Tiananmen%
US version: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Tiananmen+ma
It's not like it was under Chairman Mao, of course, but let's not forget who we're dealing with, just because they've been playing nice recently.
So, er, who's gonna make stuff? Oh, wait, that means that all the western nations who's economies are moving ever closer to being entirely reliant on intellectual property with a real value of nil and are banking on the force of law and international treaties to bouy their economies up whilst shifting the manufacture of real goods to China will have to start making stuff themselves again. Right now China has got us all over a barrel because they're where we get the majority of our goods, why would they fritter it all away moving to an economic model like ours?
I've been worried about this, too. However, of late, I've come to the conclusion that it's really a non-issue. Here in the states, we'll go back to what we were doing before we outsourced everything to China. We'll outsource it all to Central and South America. Some stuff we'll go back to making domestically, and our new factories will in fact be better than our old, defunct ones. China's industrial technology all comes from either the US, EU, or Japan, and it's out of date. The US has the money to burn on ramping up domestic production again. I see China almost as like the neighborhood kid who cuts the lawn for you-- you could do it yourself, it's just more convenient to have them do it. However, if the kid is no longer availible, we could always go back to cutting our own grass; it's not like we don't know how.
Actually, this plan is a no-go. Too much space, satellites are too small, and you'd have to use too big of a rocket to put enough debris up there to make an effective 'cloud' of the little guys. Now, a small orbital rocket launcher, with precise guidance control, that'd be a satellite killer.
Well, and, being educated and outspoken in China is seldom a good career move. Let's not forget this is stil the government who crushed their own people with tanks at Tiananamen Square.
You're a pleasant fellow, aren't you? I'd love to discuss politics or religion with you, based on how nicely you've handled a discussion regarding something that's --entirely pointless-- for both of us.
Some people like records; some people like CDs. To my ears, a record sounds better, the same way to my eyes, a Rembrandt is nicer than a Munch. ***It is an entirely subjective analysis***
For an accurate technical analysis, take a really nice, high quality oscilloscope, and record the sine waves coming from the line output of a CD player and a turntable playing the same song. Then, overlay one wave atop the other. They will *not* be the same. It's up to you to decide which one you think sounds better.
See above: Neither is better, they're *different.* Apples and oranges.
Yeah, and I had a cousin's friend's neighbour who had a Jaguar, too, but the one time he let me drive it, I couldn't tell the difference between it and my 1988 Nissan! They were both motor vehicals, with wheels and gearshifts and stuff. I think he way overpaid. ;-)
Haha.
c =2&category=45 No geek in the world could look at that and not think it was cool. I dare you. I mean, it's got three motors and weights 32kg, for the love of god.
Hmm... I got trolled (lame, btw, I could do so much better), so I'll take ten minutes off from my frustrating day at work to look at pictures of cool turntables, so I can make a decent response. Har-har, joke's on you mate, I had fun. http://www.needledoctor.com/s.nl/it.A/id.888/.f?s
Not so, actually. A CD contains a digital representation of the original analog signal. The record contains *the original analog signal.*
If you ever get the chance, listen to an mp3 (most dramatic), or even a cd (closer, but no cigar), and then listen to the same track from a vinyl record. The difference will blow your mind-- the record will sound clearer and more detailed, even if it's old and scratched. The sound is far more lifelike in the way our ears handle it.
Not that I'm ragging on digital music-- I have a large collection, and listen to it frequently. The simple truth of the matter is that records offer a more accurate recreation of the original audio, simply because their 'resolution' is (for all intents and purposes) infinite, where a digital recording is limited by the encoding rate of the ADC (analog-to-digital converter, for the non-crazy). If you don't have a top-notch stereo, the difference isn't as noticeable, but I've found that as I've become more familiar with the hobby and upgraded my kit, my records sound better and better, while I listen to my mp3s less and less.
There's a trend among young technophile types (myself included) to discount analog technology, because of a perceived 'obsolescense'. However, to compare analog music storage directly to digital technology is a disservice, because both types actually serve different types of functions and users. Analog is for when portability doesn't matter, sound quality is a priority, and simplicity of design is of a premium. Digital is what you use when you need something that can be easily modified, portable to multiple types of devices, and easily transported over a variety of communication links.
However, when I'm in my living room, listening to my hand-crafted speakers, etc, etc, I want the best audio quality possible, so I'm willing to make a concession on portability in favor of that.
It's not for everyone, granted, but I'm happy to see more bands releasing albums on vinyl. I just feel better about spending money on records, because at least I have a large, tangible thing. Kind of like buying a book. I can download all the pirated books from the net that I could ever want, but there are times when being able to hold the dead-tree version in your hands is priceless.
As you wish it: http://www.elpj.com/
Agh! All-plastic construction. A real turntable should double as a deadly bludgeon! You couldn't even give someone a headache with that! ;-)
A note on garage sale turntables: Use caution with them-- many of the old models from the fifties and sixties have needles (styli) which are quite a bit inferior to modern ones. Without going into hardcore details, the point of the styli are oftentimes extremely worn, and will damage your delicate records. I highly recommend anyone just getting into this hobby get a 'good' turntable, with a detachable headshell (the bit at the end of the arm, which holds the cartridge and needle), and buy a new cartridge for it. A decent beginner model will cost less than $50.
Not a shill, just a hobbiest-- needledoctor.com. Check out the high dollar models, very geek drool-worthy. Failing that, go to eBay and pick up a nice Dual or Technics.
Would you rather have braking or steering?
Would you rather have vision or hearing?
Would you rather have a coffee, or a cup to put it in?
Would you rather have electricity or running water?
Would you rather have a plate or silverware?
Would you rather have hands or feet?
Would you rather have housing or transit?
The world must know!
Who decides who has access to what technology? Many more elderly fall for telephone scams than computer scams, and you very rarely hear about people lobbying to take telephones away from old people. ;-)
Belgium (been there, btw-- lovely country, very nice people) is more socially enlightened than the States. Despite your problems with your retirement system, I can scarely imagine how it could be worse than our Social Security program. Anyway, though, America will cheerfully dump old people on the street-- I see them pushing shopping carts filled with old clothes on a daily basis.
Now, I'm not saying that all homeless have been defrauded, or that their own actions haven't led to their situations. In most cases, they probably have.
However, my point is that someone's life shouldn't be ruined because of a single mistake made on the internet. The cost to the entire society is too high at that point, because poor people turn to crime, they get sick more often, they're more likely to be victims of crime themselves, etc. I'd much rather pay a few bucks via my income taxes into FDIC (the US bank insurance agency), than pay a lot more bucks via my taxes for services designed to help the destitute. Given my preference, I'd rather they never became destitute at all.
Rehasing classics, by way of new productions: Yes. I've personally seen at the very least three different versions of "Hamlet."
Replacing bits of classics, while leaving other bits intact, skewing the line between what is new and what is original: Unacceptible. Shouldn't do it; terrifying implications.
Now, this is just Star Trek we're talking about here, so don't think I'm getting too frothy at the mouth. My objection is this: Sure, they're only changing the special effects now; but how about when they decide to re-release 'The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn'-- this time without anything objectionable! Or, let's digitally 'remaster' famous rock protest songs... only this time, we'll make them sing in *support* of Vietnam!
I know that I'm almost to move into tinfoil-hat territory, but I really believe that the editing and remixing of classic art, culture, literature, etc, should not be socially acceptible. People who want to do alternate performances, fine. People who want to do covers, fine. Even people who want to write books using characters from other books are fine. What's not fine is blurring the line between what's original, and what's remade. Enough gradual changes, and people will forget whatever made the orignal worth knowing; and that scares me.
So even though this is just Star Trek, I'm seeing it as a slippery slope. In my mind, the show was just fine with it's original special effects, because the whole point was the story and dialog. No one's expecting an honest-to-god analysis of what aliens or starships or computers look like, in the same way that a cardboard and plywood set in Hamlet wouldn't make people say, "That doesn't really look like Denmark! My suspension of disbelief is totally shattered now!"
I agree with you in spirit, but in praticality, I don't think your ideas are particularly feasible.
Let's take the internet out of this, and look at it as a normal con-job. If someone masquerades as a bank official for the purpose of defrauding money from a bank client (ie, they put on a teller's uniform, call someone out of line at the bank, and say, 'I'll handle your deposit for you, one sec.'), the bank is obligated to prevent such fraud, regardless of the technology used to make the 'pitch.'
I wouldn't want to phone my bank when making an internet purchase, either. However, if the internet purchase is *for the entire balance of my account,* I'd probably appreciate the bank calling me, just to make sure I really do want to deplete it.
In the US, we have the FDIC, which insures deposits in banks. It's funded by taxpayers, and heavily regulated. Individuals pay into the system, but there is no such thing as an individual FDIC insurance policy-- it's the banks which are insured, not the bank's clients. The money to replace that lost due to fraud is from the FDIC-- not just out of the bank in question.
If an individual is defrauded, what's more *socially just?* For the person to perhaps lose their entire savings, retirement, college fund, etc? Or for the loss to be spread around all of society, costing us all a negligible amount in our income taxes? Naturally, we'd prefer not to pay said taxes. Of course, when it's *your* money which has been stolen, one would be glad to recieve the benefit of that safety net. Which is of greater cost for society as a whole-- millions of people tossing a few bucks a year to a federal fraud insurance program, or millions of homeless vagrants, victims of fraud?
Before you answer, think about this: During the 1930s, in the US's Great Depression, we tried the one with no FDIC, and millions of homeless. It was underwhelming, as you might well imagine.
Finally, fraud has always been a factor in bank managment. They *plan* for it, because it's a fact of doing business in that industry. I'm sure it's a line item on their budgets. Banks are also in competition with each other-- how many customers would a bank which makes their clients liable be able to attract, compared with those banks which don't?
Phishing is simply a new take on an ancient, ancient crime-- just tricking people out of their money. It's disingenuous for banks to act like it's an entirely new phenomena, and for them to hold thier customers liable is, well, just them being cheapskates. I'm sure they'll end up doing just fine, with their $10/mo account fees, $35/check overdraft fees, tiny interest payouts, near-usurious interest on loans, and one-sided credit management.
Yeah, you're right. I guess the rest of my paranoia kind of obviated my initial paranoia. However, the independently verified and checksummed software on the counting machines would still be a must-have.
;-)
Now, if we could just sell the idea to people who are empowered to actually execute it. Haha.
Example:
Your grandmother loses her life savings. She sure had it coming because she couldn't tell the difference between bankofamerica.com and bank0famerica.com. Foolish her, she definitely deserves to be forced to go back to work at Wal-Mart for minimum wage so she can live like a college student again. Old bitch totally had it coming-- and it's wrong of her to seek reimbursement for wire fraud.
Perhaps my plan is a bit paranoid, but it's the only way I can think of to assure the computers can't be rigged. Also, the computers would in no way *replace* the existing human oversight procedures our respective countries already have.
Trust me though, my friend, even a tedious handcount of paper ballots is still better than... well, a de facto coup de'tat. Just as an example.
You are very confused on the concept. Making money is the point and you readily admit that will happen-- so by definition they are not ruining it. They are doing what makes sense when you produce television purely for the purpose of generating revenue.
So, do you really believe that, or are you just taking a contrary point for shits and giggles? Should all media be remade and redone, to increase the profits of the companies which control the rights to said media? Should Sony change the lyrics to Beatles songs, and re-release them, in order to make money?
Regardless if you perceive Star Trek as art, or just a campy old TV show, you can't deny that it's a piece of world culture at this point. To change it, even for the best reasons, is simply unacceptible. To change it simply for profit is not only greedy, but short sighted and crass.
I know-- we should re-film all the Hitchkok movies in color, using prettier actors! Those will sell great! Or, how about we go back and cut out all the hippie nonsense in "Easy Rider"-- and film a new ending where they all become accountants. That'll sell some tickets! Let's re-write and sell 1984, this time without the memory hole, and a happy ending.
If people want to make new art, then go out and make new art. Just changing things we already have is disingenuous and creepy.