I agree. As a certain Supreme Court justice said about obscenity "I know it when I see it." The only way to draw the line responsibly is to have a morally upright and responsible individual vet all adult content and rule on whether is "art" or merely smut. I hereby volunteer myself for this important community service.
Just wanted to chime in and agree with you wholeheartedly there. Darklands is one of the best, if not the best, RPG I've ever played. Why don't they remake games like that? I can't help feeling a little bored with the D&D sword and sorcery thing; I mean, how many variations can you do of the same basic fanatasy setting?
An interesting point, but no defense in this case. Either way they violated JMRI's copyright. If they argue that the GPL is not a valid contract, then you are basically admitting that they infringed on the copyright without the author's express permission. A different situation, because you still own the thing you purchased if a EULA is not valid, whereas if the GPL is not valid the copyright still defaults to the original holder.
Really. If you're willing to *honestly* fill in a form that discloses your religion, sexual orientation, etc., on the internet, you deserve to have that information disseminated. Posting on the internet is like shouting in the public square. Everyone has the right to do it, but don't complain when someone remembers what you said.
P.S. Implementing this idea would also mean that people would soon lose the ability to read the vast body of works already written in English; a huge translation effort would have to be undertaken, and a lot of works would still remain untranslated. Such a loss is not acceptable (unless you have Orwellian intentions in mind).
Gotta disagree with that. Reading Shakespeare isn't very difficult at all, despite the archaisms and odd spelling. Hell, you can even read Middle Engligh (Chaucer, for example) without too much trouble.
A good point, but I think that's even more unlikely than changing the spelling. The language evolved away from those archaic pronunciations largely because it's easier to say it the modern way (Like "knight" for example, which formerly WAS pronounced as a Python-esque "ku-nikht") I can't even imagine the futility of trying to get people to go BACK to something that is a) more difficult, b)unfamiliar. Spelling tends to evolve just fine on its own when it's necessary, and what we consider "modern spelling" is just a snapshot of something in flux, representing what most people can easily understand and sgree on. That's what language is.
That is an excellent argument, and I am inclined to agree with you. However, I have to play devil's advocate and point to Japan, where the culture of unpaid overtime and long hours is worse (most people I know here don't even *use* all their allotted vacation!) but people are, on average, healthier.
First of all, if the point is madatory surveillance of everyone, why would they even use a monitor (you can see where it is and avoid its gaze) when there are tiny fiber optic cameras that can do the same thing better and be undetected? Second, why exactly would someone be interested in watching you while you work at your computer? I can't speak for everyone, but I don't do anything particularly interesting at my desk, I'm just staring at the screen. I'd be a lot more worried about "them" seeing what's *on* my monitor, rather than a feed of me looking at it.
where they're coming from with this. Running a website isn't cheap, and bandwidth isn't delivered to your servers every night by helpful magic gnomes. Personally, I just use Adblock to block ads that I consider annoying and/or intrusive. Otherwise I'm not bothered by ads in principle, they might even (gasp!) have information about something I want to buy.
Because energy companies have all the infrastructure in place to continue profiting off of petroleum. Switching over to alternative fuels would require massive restructuring of their operations and investment in new infrastructure. Oil companies are not necessarily averse to alternative fuels per se, but at the moment their cost-benefit analyses will tell them that its easier and more profitable to continue focusing on petroleum. When there is little enough oil left that it becomes unprofitable to keep extracting and selling it, the move to alternative technologies will make more sense (at least, that's the business perspective).
And, as another poster pointed out correctly, I shoould have said "the next twenty years."
I would certainly trust an architect who could use AutoCAD properly but didn't spend his time drafting with pencil and paper. And besides, if I had seen some of the architect's other work and was impressed by it, why should I care whether he can sketch or not? The point is whether or not he can design a building.
I've done plenty of drawings both on paper and with design software and I certainly don't think either one is easier than the other; They are different mediums with different challenges. Sure, sketches are part of the process of creating a paper drawing; that doesn't mean that's the only way to create art. You can't just go into Illustrator and pull a complete drawing out of nowhere, it takes time and revision just like a paper sketch. On a computer the revisions are more convenient but that's not a bad thing, in my book.
If someone thinks they can make a finished work on the computer just by laying down a few vectors and gradients it's because they're a bad artist, not because of technology. That's the same person who would stick with their first draft of a drawing because "It's good enough."
If you don't care that the artwork is unique... what do you care about? Not trying to flame, just wondering...
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. As a certain Supreme Court justice said about obscenity "I know it when I see it." The only way to draw the line responsibly is to have a morally upright and responsible individual vet all adult content and rule on whether is "art" or merely smut. I hereby volunteer myself for this important community service.
Ahem. I believe the correct quote is... "Fool me once, shame on you... uh, fool me... you won't get fooled again." With apologies to George Bush ;)
I agree, Zoidberg drops some awesome one-liners. I consistently crack up at the end of "Love and Rocket" when he says "...and me, Zoidberg!"
I second Morbo.
"How's the family, Morbo?"
"NUMEROUS AND AGGRESSIVE!"
Just wanted to chime in and agree with you wholeheartedly there. Darklands is one of the best, if not the best, RPG I've ever played. Why don't they remake games like that? I can't help feeling a little bored with the D&D sword and sorcery thing; I mean, how many variations can you do of the same basic fanatasy setting?
An interesting point, but no defense in this case. Either way they violated JMRI's copyright. If they argue that the GPL is not a valid contract, then you are basically admitting that they infringed on the copyright without the author's express permission. A different situation, because you still own the thing you purchased if a EULA is not valid, whereas if the GPL is not valid the copyright still defaults to the original holder.
Girl saved, McGuffin recovered. Martini time!
Why doesn't congress reflect on that for a while.
You must be new here...
I'm amazed anyone would even have the gaul to propose this kind of thing, let alone try to actually pass it.
Actually, I've got just the Gaul to propose this kind of thing!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asterix
Who could say no to that lovable little guy?
Really. If you're willing to *honestly* fill in a form that discloses your religion, sexual orientation, etc., on the internet, you deserve to have that information disseminated. Posting on the internet is like shouting in the public square. Everyone has the right to do it, but don't complain when someone remembers what you said.
P.S. Implementing this idea would also mean that people would soon lose the ability to read the vast body of works already written in English; a huge translation effort would have to be undertaken, and a lot of works would still remain untranslated. Such a loss is not acceptable (unless you have Orwellian intentions in mind).
Gotta disagree with that. Reading Shakespeare isn't very difficult at all, despite the archaisms and odd spelling. Hell, you can even read Middle Engligh (Chaucer, for example) without too much trouble.
A good point, but I think that's even more unlikely than changing the spelling. The language evolved away from those archaic pronunciations largely because it's easier to say it the modern way (Like "knight" for example, which formerly WAS pronounced as a Python-esque "ku-nikht") I can't even imagine the futility of trying to get people to go BACK to something that is a) more difficult, b)unfamiliar. Spelling tends to evolve just fine on its own when it's necessary, and what we consider "modern spelling" is just a snapshot of something in flux, representing what most people can easily understand and sgree on. That's what language is.
Always... drink... your... Ovaltine?
Um, have you played Oblivion yet? You can walk through towns, listen to people's converesations with each other, and start quests based on them...
That is an excellent argument, and I am inclined to agree with you. However, I have to play devil's advocate and point to Japan, where the culture of unpaid overtime and long hours is worse (most people I know here don't even *use* all their allotted vacation!) but people are, on average, healthier.
Do you really need any other prize besides having frickin' /. in your design portfolio?
First of all, if the point is madatory surveillance of everyone, why would they even use a monitor (you can see where it is and avoid its gaze) when there are tiny fiber optic cameras that can do the same thing better and be undetected? Second, why exactly would someone be interested in watching you while you work at your computer? I can't speak for everyone, but I don't do anything particularly interesting at my desk, I'm just staring at the screen. I'd be a lot more worried about "them" seeing what's *on* my monitor, rather than a feed of me looking at it.
We all know 16k of storage is more than enough for anyone.
SHOCKED to hear that technology might be introducing the taint of elitism into the great Everyman's Sport that is golf.
where they're coming from with this. Running a website isn't cheap, and bandwidth isn't delivered to your servers every night by helpful magic gnomes. Personally, I just use Adblock to block ads that I consider annoying and/or intrusive. Otherwise I'm not bothered by ads in principle, they might even (gasp!) have information about something I want to buy.
Because energy companies have all the infrastructure in place to continue profiting off of petroleum. Switching over to alternative fuels would require massive restructuring of their operations and investment in new infrastructure. Oil companies are not necessarily averse to alternative fuels per se, but at the moment their cost-benefit analyses will tell them that its easier and more profitable to continue focusing on petroleum. When there is little enough oil left that it becomes unprofitable to keep extracting and selling it, the move to alternative technologies will make more sense (at least, that's the business perspective).
And, as another poster pointed out correctly, I shoould have said "the next twenty years."
I'll be interested to see how much the oil companies pay for his patent so they can bury it for the next fifty years.
That's "attorneys general" ;)
Last night's curry is causing Uranus to expand.
Thanks, I'll be here all week.
I would certainly trust an architect who could use AutoCAD properly but didn't spend his time drafting with pencil and paper. And besides, if I had seen some of the architect's other work and was impressed by it, why should I care whether he can sketch or not? The point is whether or not he can design a building. I've done plenty of drawings both on paper and with design software and I certainly don't think either one is easier than the other; They are different mediums with different challenges. Sure, sketches are part of the process of creating a paper drawing; that doesn't mean that's the only way to create art. You can't just go into Illustrator and pull a complete drawing out of nowhere, it takes time and revision just like a paper sketch. On a computer the revisions are more convenient but that's not a bad thing, in my book. If someone thinks they can make a finished work on the computer just by laying down a few vectors and gradients it's because they're a bad artist, not because of technology. That's the same person who would stick with their first draft of a drawing because "It's good enough." If you don't care that the artwork is unique... what do you care about? Not trying to flame, just wondering...