Re:Well, videogames aren't about the story.
on
Once Upon A Game
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
"A game is great becuase it plays well and is fun. Story is just the icing on the cake, and does not alone make a great game"
Absolutely true. But story isn't really what great literature is about -- the plot is a device to carry a theme, or multiple themes. The trappings are what make great literature great -- imagery, etc. And there's the inherent problem with videogames -- images are laid out for the player/viewer. Timing (which is cornerstone of Hitchcock's famous knack for suspense) is in the hands of the player, not the director/designer.
This is a major problem with video games as art -- the viewed product is never exactly as the developer intended. Whereas a great artwork is typically a 'finished' product by the artist, often with many revisions before achieving the piece intended, video games are never a single version. What we see in most artful videogames is, instead, the creation of a mood or atmosphere. Without complete control over the user experience, it's hard to have the same kind of art as the 'traditional' masterpieces of literature or film. And if the designer did have complete control of the user experience, well, then it's an animated movie.
As the industry (and its audience!)continues to mature, I think we'll see more games based on story. I can't imagine myself playing a twitch game when I'm 70 (even if I had the reflexes then, I'm not sure I'd want to risk the heart attack), but a good story might really appeal.
Supply and demand -- despite the fact that you dismiss it in your question, these are really the determining factors.
If you want to look in more depth, why is the supply limited?
For starters, how about a limited field of experts who are will and able to write a reference book? Especially since their labor can often be put to use in a more financially rewarding manner?
Other limits to supply are the high costs of bringing reference texts to market (manufacturing, shipping, cost of unsold inventory, advertising/marketing, etc). Publishers just aren't willing to operate at a loss (not unlike most companies:) )
Rather than dismissing supply and demand, look deeper at the root causes of limited supply.
"You can still get trichonosis or tapeworm from infected meat, like regular pork."
Both trichinosis and tapeworm are now extremely rare in commercial hogs, which is why many restaurants will serve pork at a 'medium' doneness if asked.
Even if you purchase meat from an infected hog, cooking thoroughly will prevent infection by parasites.
Not that I'd advocate eating pork sushi, but pork is much safer than people believe.
" would define "property" to be a social contract for establishing the rights of people to use something that, by its nature, may only be used by a limited number of people or in a limited number of ways at a time"
The 'bolded' part is what I find to be arbitrary. Establishing a limit on what can be considered property just because of one aspect of its nature? Why should social contracts be limited this way?
" If you are willing to say that it's about controlling an object than you are doing exactly what you accused me of--assuming that all property must be, by definition, an object. Since you refused to accept that position, you can not now assume it unless you intend to recant.
You miss my point, please consider the meaning of the word 'object' in terms of sentence structure. Even had I not meant it that way, 'object' is in no way limited to corporeal or physical things.
"Therefore, as a logical consequence, if you wish to control the use of ideas by others you must control the people since you can't control the ideas."
And how is this any different from restricting others from using, say, your house? I know you'd like to make the distinction that it's a physical object that can only be occupied by limited people, but your ownership of a house deprives me the use of it. You're controlling me by keeping me out, no?
"Lets see how this works in practice. You write a song and claim to own it. I hear it, and decide to sing it. Incessantly. What exactly, are you going to do about it?"
That's why there is a social contract to enforce my ownership of the song. You can sing it all you want -- but if you want to make money off it, I have recourse through law, which is social contract.
Please explain why any notion of ownership does not, as a direct result of ownership, result in others' actions being controlled. All ownership is theoretical, I see no reason to arbitrarily limit a theoretical construct to corporeal objects.
"Exactly. Your definition isn't about "property" per se, but about the control of others through the use of force.
No, that is what defines property -- who has the right of use, which is the same as control. Use of force is only one method by which right of use is established. Social contract via law or custom is another, as is secrecy. Not only that, but 'controlling who uses something' is not the same as 'controlling others'. I did not say 'control the people who use it,' nor did I intend that meaning. You're reading into my statements to achieve what you want me to be saying. Please stop setting up the same old tired straw man. You still haven't even attempted to establish your own definition of property that follows your requirements.
"Your definition is not circular; as I noted, you simply moved the requisite specificity from 'property' to 'ownership.'"
Are you unfamiliar with the parts of speech? Property is the object to which ownership applies. Giving specificity to ownership is the same as giving specificity to property.
"Not so fast. You clearly stated that it was about control. As for "the right of use"...
What do you think control of an object is? It's the right of use of that object. Control of people is another thing -- it's not about controlling people. It's about controlling an object (eg, having the right of use). You choose to deliberately conflate the concepts when there are big differences, so I tried to help you understand the difference. Besides, what do you think physical property rights are, if not controls on the behavior of others?
"No, your definition at the most basic level is the "right" to control/prevent use by others. You have made that quite clear, and ought not try to dodge the point here, as it's the cornerstone of your whole argument. If you back away from it, you will be left with nothing since it is only the control of the actions of others that supports your definition of "ownership" on which you base your definition of "property."
"
Are you trying to be daft? I respected your thought process earlier, but you select this quote without understanding, or apparently reading, the sentences that preceded it. I was distilling it for you so that you could understand what I meant by the term control, and how you chose to take it out of context and misinterpret it. Control of an object means right of use, which it not nearly the same thing as control of a person. Just because you do something that limits my behavior does not mean you control me.
Still waiting for your definition -- can you do it, or do you have a double standard for definitions?
Re: Exceptions, what I meant is that whether something is determined as 'property' is not a function of the nature of the object, but instead a function of how we treat the object. Therefore, there is nothing that is intrinsically excepted from being property except for thos things that it is physically impossible to control the use of -- natural laws (gravity, etc). However, it is possible to control references to gravity (theoretically), so, if someone had sufficient force, they could have as their property the term 'gravity' -- but not the natural law itself.
You have my position correct in general, but you're a bit off on your interpretation. You make a distinction between control of PP and control of IP by saying that one is controlled directly and one is controlled by exerting influence on others. First, please re-read my definition. It's not about control, it's about the right of use, which, be it PP or IP, can only be enforced by actions upon others -- whether by societal contract (law), or by preventing access by physical means, or what-have-you. We have a law that says I won't use your rock for my own benefit without permission, which is no different than a law that says you won't use my idea without permission for your own benefit.
re: control of the use or disposition of,[1] '7' or 'green', I could not claim them as property since I have no means of controlling who uses them. But if I had the physical force or legal means to prevent anyone from using those terms, then I could claim the terms as property. Hence, copyright, which allows me to define strings of letters as my property -- there is a societal contract (law) that defines them as my property and gives me recourse to enforce in some manner how the string is used.
Re: circular definition, if you think my definition is circular, then all definitions are circular, since all depend upon common understanding of other terms. My definition, at its most basic level, is just the right of use. Rights as established by social contract or by coercion, and I don't think we need to define 'use' to prevent circular definitions.
[1] That's the important part -- not just 'control of' but 'the right to control of the use or disposition of'.
"And while one can't technically "own" ideas, one can "own" the algamation that is your creation, as well as the physical embodiment (something a lot of slashdotters forget is that physical embodiment* is a requirement to getting a copyright, or patent). "
I'm going to disagree with that. Ownership = control, so one could own both the idea and the physical construct. Co-ownership (therefore shared property) of the idea would extend to anyone else to also has knowledge of the idea, whether you told them it, or they came up with it themselves. The ownership can be diluted greatly by sharing the idea with the public -- to the point at which effective control becomes impossible, and therefore the idea is no longer property (and therefore owned by no one).
Never said it was. Said it was an effort to maintain control (ownership), same as IP laws are. My hiding a rock doesn't prevent you from going to get your own rock, any more than your prime number example.
"But that aside I'll accept this as a possibility if you can provide:
An alternative non-circular definition of property, without recourse to an arbitrary lists of what is or isn't property.
An example of something that wouldn't be property under your definition. "
1. Property is a term used to describe that which somebody can have the sole or shared ability to control the use or disposition of. Legal property is that which law has assigned the right to sole or shared use or disposition of.
2. There is nothing that, in theory, cannot be considered property, since the right to ownership is established by the community (whether voluntarily or through coercion matters not). However, all notions of ownership are theoretical, so this does not affect my point at all -- please explain why it's necessary for you to accept an exception in my definition. But to give you an example, the moon is not property. Not because it can't be (someone could claim ownership of it) but because no one has agreed to acknowledge claim to ownership of it.
Please go ahead define ownership in your own terms using your constraints. I'm very curious as to whether your definition can meet your own criteria, particularly the arbitrary list of what is/what's not property.
There is no lack of understanding on my part -- believe me, I've read enough of it on Slashdot to understand your arguments perfectly well. Just because I disagree doesn't mean that I don't understand. It's not that I fault your logic, it's that I fault the presumptions to your arguments.
Why my opinion differs from the other peoples', in this thread, is a basic disagreement in the definition of property and ownership, as well as your arbitrary decision that physical items must be treated differently from non-physical items simply because the differ in some properties. If you decide to base ownership upon an arbitrary line based on whether you [can take it with you|can replicate it|can touch it] you miss the whole theoretical point of ownership, which is control.
Quite simply, ownership = control over the use or disposition of a discrete something. That something can be a physical object, it can be land, it can be an idea. Regardless of what it is, ownership just reflects the ability to control the use of that thing.
Whether that control is protected by law, by secrecy, or by physical force doesn't matter. Whether the item is replicable, or unique, doesn't matter. Whether 'property' protections are codified by law or not, doesn't matter -- the concept of ownership as control has been around, and is just as natural for humans to do it as it is for animals.
Property laws, whether those against physical theft or destruction, or those associated with IP, all do the same thing -- preserve the notion of personal control over something.
People who are extremely against IP laws because they believe intangible items cannot be controlled or owned, should also be vehemently against the notion of being able to own land, or, for that matter, the notion of having a right to own anything.
PS. Re: talking about cross purposes, that's right -- I disagreed with something written in the OP -- is it wrong to disagree and explain why? Or should everyone here on Slashdot just slap eachother on the back and celebrate being one with the herd?
"Nope - you're talking about keeping secrets. Keeping a secret is different fron 'owning' an idea.
"
You're right, but you're misunderstanding my point. Keeping a secret is one way of maintaining control (control == ownership) of an idea. Whether it was legal ownership (as you said, a Renaissance invention) or ownership protected by secrecy, or strongarm enforcement by associations, the concept of IP is very old. Knowledge has been considered a resource for millenia, and control of a resource = ownership of it.
"but a parcel of land is a physical item & doesn't really relate to the discussion at hand."
Sure it does. Part of the discussion became about whether ideas can be considered property, and ownership of land refutes directly an argument made as to why indeas cannot be property.
I think you misunderstand my point (or I misexplained it) -- the concept of information having discrete value is as old as human society (and, as you point out, in the rest of the animal kingdom as well). The concepts are directly related, since ownership equates to control. This is exactly what 'ownership' of land is -- the right to control its use. Secrecy is one way to maintain control, or ownership -- IP laws are another way to maintain control, or ownership.
"P.S. As for wolves marking territory, that's physical property. And the very fact that wolves do it means that it's natural by any sane definition of natural.
As I said, it's natural. Again, it's an issue of ownership == control, and the method used to enforce both. Ownership of land is no less theoretical as ownership of an idea. The difference is, you can keep the existence of the land secret, or you can build a wall of wood around it to keep people off. With an idea, you can keep it secret, or you can build a wall of law around it.
As you clearly point out, and I am in full agreement with, IP laws were intended to remove the disincentive to make knowledge public -- and that they have gone too far in recent years.
The problem with applying conservation laws to determine whether something is property is that property, in that argument, is arbitrarily defined as physical property. I believe that many anti-IP people misdefine property, and the basic misunderstanding of terms leads to logical arguments, that while the arguments are fine, the presuppositions are not -- and therefore the argument doesn't work.
"No, the computer is "mine," and as such, I am the one who should decide what I do with it. If you don't want me using your information as I see fit, then don't make it available. If you make it available, don't be surprised when I treat it in ways that are natural to its laws of physics (that is to say, manipulate it and duplicate it freely). I know that you would LIKE control over everything, but I don't want to surrender control over myself or my computer, so you will just have to pick a more fitting business/legal model.
I understand what you're saying -- but then people should respect the decision of MS to not open up its code, etc. I personally have a lot of problems with current IP law, but my point is that IP is in no way unnnatural. Knowledge has always been a key to power.
It's not that IP Laws are just, or that they are natural. My point is that in most of mankind's history, information was protected by secrecy -- now it is protected by law instead, which I believe allows for more innovation and progress. There are definite problems, and kinks to be worked out... and recently, any resolution of these problems have come about to benefit the IP holder, not the public.
But it's not just a problem with IP laws -- it's a problem with the US government, and who is really being served by it.
If you prefer to have all knowledge guarded like the treasure it would be without IP laws, you're welcome to that belief. If you prefer to have cartels control all the knowledge, and therefore the power, you're entitled to that belief.
If you want to live in a society where ignorance is forced upon you because there is a huge disincentive to release ANY information that could result in profits, you're welcome to that belief.
I, for one, believe that IP laws in the US have tipped way too far, but that IP laws, done properly, would be a great benefit to society. Especially since the OS model still works in certain areas, so those who wish to operate outside of it still can.
"Where is are the "natural boundaries" of Rap? Or of lavender?"
I don't know if there are natural boundaries to Rap, other than the natural boundaries of human population. But lavender, on the other hand:
Wikipedia: "The lavenders Lavandula are a genus of about 25-30 species of flowering plants in the mint family, Lamiaceae, native from the Mediterranean region south to tropical Africa and east to India."
"There isn't even any analogy in the animal kingdom "
Wrong. Wolves and other animals mark their territory -- yet physical property ownership is just as theoretical as IP ownership, only it has a longer history. It's the threat of retribution that keeps other wolves from trespassing.
In human history, IP protection has been the norm for millenia. Why do you think tradespeople kept their techniques secret? Why do you think guilds were formed? To suggest that IP is a modern invention is way off base. What's relatively new is the structure of law encouraging distribution of knowledge by protecting profit incentive to innovate. Whether it's a good idea or not, I'd rather not get into -- but IP is as old as human invention.
If I ever read the phrases, "kindred spirit," "more blessed to give than to receive," and "the meek shall inherit the earth" in a tech blog again, I'm going to scratch my eyes out.
Don't get me wrong, kindred spirits are nice and everything, but if you're discussing IPR from a business standpoint (which is what the essay is really about) why would you reference the Bible?
The bottom line is that there are no natural boundaries for open source or for IPR. All boundaries are created by government law and structure of markets. Take away the law, and you've eliminated all boundaries, since business will have to compete on different things.
I think what the author should have asked, is "With the current US IP law structure, what markets will be best served by open source?"
Or perhaps," Can everyone tell me what markets are underserved by businesses with open-source as a model, so I know where to direct my investments?" That's the question I'd ask. Especially with the glut of VC in the market coming up, there is a fortune to be made by the wily early investor.
I think the OP read this in TFA: By allowing force-carrying gravitational particles, known as the gravitons, to become heavier, they found that the unexpectedly large gravitomagnetic force could be modelled.
But gravitons (which theoretically still have lots of problems, see wikipedia for a brief analysis -- apparently they have problems with models that particles like photons don't) are ridiculously small. So small, that gravitational waves are impossible to measure. Small enough in relation to the size of the system that measuring any change in mass of them would be impossible.
Finally, logically, even if the mass of the system were measured, it wouldn't show that the gravitons gained mass. Anything in the system could have gained mass. The only way to approximate proof that it is a gravitational field that was created is to eliminate all other known possibilities while showing it to act in a manner consistent with natural gravitational fields.
" But the industry purposedly avoids them, choosing tiny incremental changes instead and investing in graphics, sound, and NOT playablity or ideas."
Well, what do you expect with dev costs so high? That level of risk is unacceptable when you have a proven revenue stream from releasing moderately upgraded versions of a game.
Also, why does something have to be 'new' or 'different' to be good? If it ain't broke don't fix it. If you can improve it, do it.
Eventually franchises get stale, and then the franchise either gets revamped (like FF) or it dies off and another one takes its place. When ROI of a rehashed release is less than the ROI on a revamp or a new title, then we'll see companies making more creative games.
Don't forget, for every Morrowind or Half-Life out there, there are a dozen games that tried and failed. To a business with an established product line and reputation to protect, the risk just isn't worth it.
"Because it seems to me that the only way they could be certain it was gravitational influence and not some other phenomenon is if they also saw an apparent increase in the mass of the system."
You're kidding, right? Mass is independent of gravity. That's second-grade knowledge.
Do you mean weight? If so, you're talking about measuring weight of affected objects within the system, not the weight of the entire system.
And depending on how you're measuring, anything that exerts a force upon what you're measuring can affect its weight.
I think there's more to it than that. All the responsibilities of adulthood make a lot of casual gamers stop playing. So, if you are an adult and pay video games, chances are that you take them seriously, or are a pretty avid player.
Or, maybe you've just had more time to get addicted to them.
You're right -- but then again, there were handheld versions of football and baseball before there were PC or console versions.
I like the fact that there are annual releases of good sports games -- I buy Madden every three years or so, and it always seems like a major upgrade to me. Plus, since I don't need to have all the current players, I buy the previous year's release used for $10-$20.
If the game is good, there's no reason to reinvent the wheel every year when you update the players and toss in some better graphics. And for a casual gamer like me, there's no reason to buy every new version.
And the older games were not copies of other games?
"And where are NEW games?
Double Dribble vs. NBA Live'06 Basketball
Karate Champ vs. DOA 4 Martial Arts competitions
Tennis vs. Top Spin 2 Uhhh... tennis, like on a clay court Bard's Tale vs. WOW (there were quite a few warcrafts/starcrafts/etc before) Dungeons and Dragons
Rad Racer vs. PGR 3 NASCAR, F1, etc.
Ice Hockey vs NHL 2006 Real Ice Hockey
10 yard fight vs Madden NFL 06 NFL/USFL football
Punch Out vs Fight Night round 3 Boxing
I think in your eagerness to point out how unoriginal games are today, you missed the observation that all of the older games listed are just videogame versions of other games. There is no originality there.
Very few people become writers. Good penmanship is necessary in offices, in workshops, in many other places. Keyboards are far from ubiquitous -- and schools would be doing a huge disservice to those whose work is not solely in front of a computer.
"So why are you advocating hand writing? Far more people can type without looking at the keyboard than can write without looking at the paper. When I am taking notes in a talk I usually have my screen backlight turned off (which adds about an hour to my battery life) and so there is nothing to look at except the person giving the talk.
If you've managed to get to college without being able to handwrite while only occasionally looking at the paper, then you haven't done enough writing. Just my $.02
"This varies from person to person. When I type, the recording process is handled entirely via my hind-brain and spinal cord, so I can actually pay attention."
The point is that you distill what is important, and write it down. The fact that it takes more of your brain is a positive, that's why recall is better from hand-written than from typed notes.
I'm sure there is variation from person to person -- but I'd be willing to bet cash that fewer than 1 in a 1000 people retain typed info better than handwritten.
I had a professor who did this at Rutgers. He even took it a step further and would ban ALL note-taking for portions of some lectures.
A lot of people were very upset, of course -- they wanted to get through the class by rote learning and regurgitation. If it matters, it was Medicinal Chemistry...
In the long run, I think hand-writing notes is better than typing them. For one thing, people remember things better when they hand-write them. Second, good notetaking by hand requires you to organize your thoughts, and the lecture points, in order to take effective notes. Third, the eye-contact barrier is definitely an issue for lecturers, who (if they're any good) need the eye contact both for feedback and to maintain the attention of the class.
My strategy was to take handwritten notes, then type them up in outline format in the evening while the lecture was still fresh in my mind. I'd retain much of the information just by that process -- the lectures where I didn't do this is where I had difficulty.
At any rate, I believe it's her lecture, and her right to ban laptops, recorders, or anything else. Students who don't like it are missing out on gaining experience in critical listening. Also, the real post-college world will frown upon you taking your laptop to a business dinner so you can remember what was discussed.
Finally, just a note on the complaining students -- you can't always have everything the way you want it. If you have a medical reason why you can't handwrite notes, I'm sure they will make an exception. Otherwise, suck it up and handwrite your notes, and be thankful that you have the opportunity to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
"A game is great becuase it plays well and is fun. Story is just the icing on the cake, and does not alone make a great game"
Absolutely true. But story isn't really what great literature is about -- the plot is a device to carry a theme, or multiple themes. The trappings are what make great literature great -- imagery, etc. And there's the inherent problem with videogames -- images are laid out for the player/viewer. Timing (which is cornerstone of Hitchcock's famous knack for suspense) is in the hands of the player, not the director/designer.
This is a major problem with video games as art -- the viewed product is never exactly as the developer intended. Whereas a great artwork is typically a 'finished' product by the artist, often with many revisions before achieving the piece intended, video games are never a single version. What we see in most artful videogames is, instead, the creation of a mood or atmosphere. Without complete control over the user experience, it's hard to have the same kind of art as the 'traditional' masterpieces of literature or film. And if the designer did have complete control of the user experience, well, then it's an animated movie.
As the industry (and its audience!)continues to mature, I think we'll see more games based on story. I can't imagine myself playing a twitch game when I'm 70 (even if I had the reflexes then, I'm not sure I'd want to risk the heart attack), but a good story might really appeal.
Supply and demand -- despite the fact that you dismiss it in your question, these are really the determining factors.
:) )
If you want to look in more depth, why is the supply limited?
For starters, how about a limited field of experts who are will and able to write a reference book? Especially since their labor can often be put to use in a more financially rewarding manner?
Other limits to supply are the high costs of bringing reference texts to market (manufacturing, shipping, cost of unsold inventory, advertising/marketing, etc). Publishers just aren't willing to operate at a loss (not unlike most companies
Rather than dismissing supply and demand, look deeper at the root causes of limited supply.
"You can still get trichonosis or tapeworm from infected meat, like regular pork."
Both trichinosis and tapeworm are now extremely rare in commercial hogs, which is why many restaurants will serve pork at a 'medium' doneness if asked.
Even if you purchase meat from an infected hog, cooking thoroughly will prevent infection by parasites.
Not that I'd advocate eating pork sushi, but pork is much safer than people believe.
" would define "property" to be a social contract for establishing the rights of people to use something that, by its nature, may only be used by a limited number of people or in a limited number of ways at a time"
The 'bolded' part is what I find to be arbitrary. Establishing a limit on what can be considered property just because of one aspect of its nature? Why should social contracts be limited this way?
" If you are willing to say that it's about controlling an object than you are doing exactly what you accused me of--assuming that all property must be, by definition, an object. Since you refused to accept that position, you can not now assume it unless you intend to recant.
You miss my point, please consider the meaning of the word 'object' in terms of sentence structure. Even had I not meant it that way, 'object' is in no way limited to corporeal or physical things.
"Therefore, as a logical consequence, if you wish to control the use of ideas by others you must control the people since you can't control the ideas."
And how is this any different from restricting others from using, say, your house? I know you'd like to make the distinction that it's a physical object that can only be occupied by limited people, but your ownership of a house deprives me the use of it. You're controlling me by keeping me out, no?
"Lets see how this works in practice. You write a song and claim to own it. I hear it, and decide to sing it. Incessantly. What exactly, are you going to do about it?"
That's why there is a social contract to enforce my ownership of the song. You can sing it all you want -- but if you want to make money off it, I have recourse through law, which is social contract.
Please explain why any notion of ownership does not, as a direct result of ownership, result in others' actions being controlled. All ownership is theoretical, I see no reason to arbitrarily limit a theoretical construct to corporeal objects.
"Exactly. Your definition isn't about "property" per se, but about the control of others through the use of force.
No, that is what defines property -- who has the right of use, which is the same as control. Use of force is only one method by which right of use is established. Social contract via law or custom is another, as is secrecy. Not only that, but 'controlling who uses something' is not the same as 'controlling others'. I did not say 'control the people who use it,' nor did I intend that meaning. You're reading into my statements to achieve what you want me to be saying. Please stop setting up the same old tired straw man. You still haven't even attempted to establish your own definition of property that follows your requirements.
"Your definition is not circular; as I noted, you simply moved the requisite specificity from 'property' to 'ownership.'"
Are you unfamiliar with the parts of speech? Property is the object to which ownership applies. Giving specificity to ownership is the same as giving specificity to property.
"Not so fast. You clearly stated that it was about control. As for "the right of use"...
What do you think control of an object is? It's the right of use of that object. Control of people is another thing -- it's not about controlling people. It's about controlling an object (eg, having the right of use). You choose to deliberately conflate the concepts when there are big differences, so I tried to help you understand the difference. Besides, what do you think physical property rights are, if not controls on the behavior of others?
"No, your definition at the most basic level is the "right" to control/prevent use by others. You have made that quite clear, and ought not try to dodge the point here, as it's the cornerstone of your whole argument. If you back away from it, you will be left with nothing since it is only the control of the actions of others that supports your definition of "ownership" on which you base your definition of "property." "
Are you trying to be daft? I respected your thought process earlier, but you select this quote without understanding, or apparently reading, the sentences that preceded it. I was distilling it for you so that you could understand what I meant by the term control, and how you chose to take it out of context and misinterpret it. Control of an object means right of use, which it not nearly the same thing as control of a person. Just because you do something that limits my behavior does not mean you control me.
Still waiting for your definition -- can you do it, or do you have a double standard for definitions?
If he was a real pirate, he would have brought a cutlass. His own fault that he lost, really.
/Yarrrr.
Re: Exceptions, what I meant is that whether something is determined as 'property' is not a function of the nature of the object, but instead a function of how we treat the object. Therefore, there is nothing that is intrinsically excepted from being property except for thos things that it is physically impossible to control the use of -- natural laws (gravity, etc). However, it is possible to control references to gravity (theoretically), so, if someone had sufficient force, they could have as their property the term 'gravity' -- but not the natural law itself.
You have my position correct in general, but you're a bit off on your interpretation. You make a distinction between control of PP and control of IP by saying that one is controlled directly and one is controlled by exerting influence on others. First, please re-read my definition. It's not about control, it's about the right of use, which, be it PP or IP, can only be enforced by actions upon others -- whether by societal contract (law), or by preventing access by physical means, or what-have-you. We have a law that says I won't use your rock for my own benefit without permission, which is no different than a law that says you won't use my idea without permission for your own benefit.
re: control of the use or disposition of,[1] '7' or 'green', I could not claim them as property since I have no means of controlling who uses them. But if I had the physical force or legal means to prevent anyone from using those terms, then I could claim the terms as property. Hence, copyright, which allows me to define strings of letters as my property -- there is a societal contract (law) that defines them as my property and gives me recourse to enforce in some manner how the string is used.
Re: circular definition, if you think my definition is circular, then all definitions are circular, since all depend upon common understanding of other terms. My definition, at its most basic level, is just the right of use. Rights as established by social contract or by coercion, and I don't think we need to define 'use' to prevent circular definitions.
[1] That's the important part -- not just 'control of' but 'the right to control of the use or disposition of'.
"And while one can't technically "own" ideas, one can "own" the algamation that is your creation, as well as the physical embodiment (something a lot of slashdotters forget is that physical embodiment* is a requirement to getting a copyright, or patent). "
I'm going to disagree with that. Ownership = control, so one could own both the idea and the physical construct. Co-ownership (therefore shared property) of the idea would extend to anyone else to also has knowledge of the idea, whether you told them it, or they came up with it themselves. The ownership can be diluted greatly by sharing the idea with the public -- to the point at which effective control becomes impossible, and therefore the idea is no longer property (and therefore owned by no one).
"because secrecy isn't the same as control. "
Never said it was. Said it was an effort to maintain control (ownership), same as IP laws are. My hiding a rock doesn't prevent you from going to get your own rock, any more than your prime number example.
"But that aside I'll accept this as a possibility if you can provide: An alternative non-circular definition of property, without recourse to an arbitrary lists of what is or isn't property. An example of something that wouldn't be property under your definition. "
1. Property is a term used to describe that which somebody can have the sole or shared ability to control the use or disposition of. Legal property is that which law has assigned the right to sole or shared use or disposition of.
2. There is nothing that, in theory, cannot be considered property, since the right to ownership is established by the community (whether voluntarily or through coercion matters not). However, all notions of ownership are theoretical, so this does not affect my point at all -- please explain why it's necessary for you to accept an exception in my definition. But to give you an example, the moon is not property. Not because it can't be (someone could claim ownership of it) but because no one has agreed to acknowledge claim to ownership of it.
Please go ahead define ownership in your own terms using your constraints. I'm very curious as to whether your definition can meet your own criteria, particularly the arbitrary list of what is/what's not property.
Straw man, there, with the economic assumptions.
There is no lack of understanding on my part -- believe me, I've read enough of it on Slashdot to understand your arguments perfectly well. Just because I disagree doesn't mean that I don't understand. It's not that I fault your logic, it's that I fault the presumptions to your arguments.
Why my opinion differs from the other peoples', in this thread, is a basic disagreement in the definition of property and ownership, as well as your arbitrary decision that physical items must be treated differently from non-physical items simply because the differ in some properties. If you decide to base ownership upon an arbitrary line based on whether you [can take it with you|can replicate it|can touch it] you miss the whole theoretical point of ownership, which is control.
Quite simply, ownership = control over the use or disposition of a discrete something. That something can be a physical object, it can be land, it can be an idea. Regardless of what it is, ownership just reflects the ability to control the use of that thing.
Whether that control is protected by law, by secrecy, or by physical force doesn't matter. Whether the item is replicable, or unique, doesn't matter. Whether 'property' protections are codified by law or not, doesn't matter -- the concept of ownership as control has been around, and is just as natural for humans to do it as it is for animals.
Property laws, whether those against physical theft or destruction, or those associated with IP, all do the same thing -- preserve the notion of personal control over something.
People who are extremely against IP laws because they believe intangible items cannot be controlled or owned, should also be vehemently against the notion of being able to own land, or, for that matter, the notion of having a right to own anything.
PS. Re: talking about cross purposes, that's right -- I disagreed with something written in the OP -- is it wrong to disagree and explain why? Or should everyone here on Slashdot just slap eachother on the back and celebrate being one with the herd?
"Nope - you're talking about keeping secrets. Keeping a secret is different fron 'owning' an idea. "
You're right, but you're misunderstanding my point. Keeping a secret is one way of maintaining control (control == ownership) of an idea. Whether it was legal ownership (as you said, a Renaissance invention) or ownership protected by secrecy, or strongarm enforcement by associations, the concept of IP is very old. Knowledge has been considered a resource for millenia, and control of a resource = ownership of it.
"but a parcel of land is a physical item & doesn't really relate to the discussion at hand."
Sure it does. Part of the discussion became about whether ideas can be considered property, and ownership of land refutes directly an argument made as to why indeas cannot be property.
I think you misunderstand my point (or I misexplained it) -- the concept of information having discrete value is as old as human society (and, as you point out, in the rest of the animal kingdom as well). The concepts are directly related, since ownership equates to control. This is exactly what 'ownership' of land is -- the right to control its use. Secrecy is one way to maintain control, or ownership -- IP laws are another way to maintain control, or ownership.
"P.S. As for wolves marking territory, that's physical property. And the very fact that wolves do it means that it's natural by any sane definition of natural.
As I said, it's natural. Again, it's an issue of ownership == control, and the method used to enforce both. Ownership of land is no less theoretical as ownership of an idea. The difference is, you can keep the existence of the land secret, or you can build a wall of wood around it to keep people off. With an idea, you can keep it secret, or you can build a wall of law around it.
As you clearly point out, and I am in full agreement with, IP laws were intended to remove the disincentive to make knowledge public -- and that they have gone too far in recent years.
The problem with applying conservation laws to determine whether something is property is that property, in that argument, is arbitrarily defined as physical property. I believe that many anti-IP people misdefine property, and the basic misunderstanding of terms leads to logical arguments, that while the arguments are fine, the presuppositions are not -- and therefore the argument doesn't work.
"No, the computer is "mine," and as such, I am the one who should decide what I do with it. If you don't want me using your information as I see fit, then don't make it available. If you make it available, don't be surprised when I treat it in ways that are natural to its laws of physics (that is to say, manipulate it and duplicate it freely). I know that you would LIKE control over everything, but I don't want to surrender control over myself or my computer, so you will just have to pick a more fitting business/legal model.
I understand what you're saying -- but then people should respect the decision of MS to not open up its code, etc. I personally have a lot of problems with current IP law, but my point is that IP is in no way unnnatural. Knowledge has always been a key to power.
It's not that IP Laws are just, or that they are natural. My point is that in most of mankind's history, information was protected by secrecy -- now it is protected by law instead, which I believe allows for more innovation and progress. There are definite problems, and kinks to be worked out... and recently, any resolution of these problems have come about to benefit the IP holder, not the public.
But it's not just a problem with IP laws -- it's a problem with the US government, and who is really being served by it.
If you prefer to have all knowledge guarded like the treasure it would be without IP laws, you're welcome to that belief. If you prefer to have cartels control all the knowledge, and therefore the power, you're entitled to that belief.
If you want to live in a society where ignorance is forced upon you because there is a huge disincentive to release ANY information that could result in profits, you're welcome to that belief.
I, for one, believe that IP laws in the US have tipped way too far, but that IP laws, done properly, would be a great benefit to society. Especially since the OS model still works in certain areas, so those who wish to operate outside of it still can.
"Where is are the "natural boundaries" of Rap? Or of lavender?"
I don't know if there are natural boundaries to Rap, other than the natural boundaries of human population. But lavender, on the other hand:
Wikipedia: "The lavenders Lavandula are a genus of about 25-30 species of flowering plants in the mint family, Lamiaceae, native from the Mediterranean region south to tropical Africa and east to India."
"There isn't even any analogy in the animal kingdom "
Wrong. Wolves and other animals mark their territory -- yet physical property ownership is just as theoretical as IP ownership, only it has a longer history. It's the threat of retribution that keeps other wolves from trespassing.
In human history, IP protection has been the norm for millenia. Why do you think tradespeople kept their techniques secret? Why do you think guilds were formed? To suggest that IP is a modern invention is way off base. What's relatively new is the structure of law encouraging distribution of knowledge by protecting profit incentive to innovate. Whether it's a good idea or not, I'd rather not get into -- but IP is as old as human invention.
If I ever read the phrases, "kindred spirit," "more blessed to give than to receive," and "the meek shall inherit the earth" in a tech blog again, I'm going to scratch my eyes out.
Don't get me wrong, kindred spirits are nice and everything, but if you're discussing IPR from a business standpoint (which is what the essay is really about) why would you reference the Bible?
The bottom line is that there are no natural boundaries for open source or for IPR. All boundaries are created by government law and structure of markets. Take away the law, and you've eliminated all boundaries, since business will have to compete on different things.
I think what the author should have asked, is "With the current US IP law structure, what markets will be best served by open source?"
Or perhaps," Can everyone tell me what markets are underserved by businesses with open-source as a model, so I know where to direct my investments?" That's the question I'd ask. Especially with the glut of VC in the market coming up, there is a fortune to be made by the wily early investor.
I think the OP read this in TFA:
By allowing force-carrying gravitational particles, known as the gravitons, to become heavier, they found that the unexpectedly large gravitomagnetic force could be modelled.
But gravitons (which theoretically still have lots of problems, see wikipedia for a brief analysis -- apparently they have problems with models that particles like photons don't) are ridiculously small. So small, that gravitational waves are impossible to measure. Small enough in relation to the size of the system that measuring any change in mass of them would be impossible.
Finally, logically, even if the mass of the system were measured, it wouldn't show that the gravitons gained mass. Anything in the system could have gained mass. The only way to approximate proof that it is a gravitational field that was created is to eliminate all other known possibilities while showing it to act in a manner consistent with natural gravitational fields.
" But the industry purposedly avoids them, choosing tiny incremental changes instead and investing in graphics, sound, and NOT playablity or ideas."
Well, what do you expect with dev costs so high? That level of risk is unacceptable when you have a proven revenue stream from releasing moderately upgraded versions of a game.
Also, why does something have to be 'new' or 'different' to be good? If it ain't broke don't fix it. If you can improve it, do it.
Eventually franchises get stale, and then the franchise either gets revamped (like FF) or it dies off and another one takes its place. When ROI of a rehashed release is less than the ROI on a revamp or a new title, then we'll see companies making more creative games.
Don't forget, for every Morrowind or Half-Life out there, there are a dozen games that tried and failed. To a business with an established product line and reputation to protect, the risk just isn't worth it.
"Because it seems to me that the only way they could be certain it was gravitational influence and not some other phenomenon is if they also saw an apparent increase in the mass of the system."
You're kidding, right? Mass is independent of gravity. That's second-grade knowledge.
Do you mean weight? If so, you're talking about measuring weight of affected objects within the system, not the weight of the entire system.
And depending on how you're measuring, anything that exerts a force upon what you're measuring can affect its weight.
I think there's more to it than that. All the responsibilities of adulthood make a lot of casual gamers stop playing. So, if you are an adult and pay video games, chances are that you take them seriously, or are a pretty avid player.
Or, maybe you've just had more time to get addicted to them.
You're right -- but then again, there were handheld versions of football and baseball before there were PC or console versions.
I like the fact that there are annual releases of good sports games -- I buy Madden every three years or so, and it always seems like a major upgrade to me. Plus, since I don't need to have all the current players, I buy the previous year's release used for $10-$20.
If the game is good, there's no reason to reinvent the wheel every year when you update the players and toss in some better graphics. And for a casual gamer like me, there's no reason to buy every new version.
And the older games were not copies of other games? "And where are NEW games?
Double Dribble vs. NBA Live'06
Basketball
Karate Champ vs. DOA 4
Martial Arts competitions
Tennis vs. Top Spin 2
Uhhh... tennis, like on a clay court
Bard's Tale vs. WOW (there were quite a few warcrafts/starcrafts/etc before)
Dungeons and Dragons
Rad Racer vs. PGR 3
NASCAR, F1, etc.
Ice Hockey vs NHL 2006
Real Ice Hockey
10 yard fight vs Madden NFL 06
NFL/USFL football
Punch Out vs Fight Night round 3
Boxing
I think in your eagerness to point out how unoriginal games are today, you missed the observation that all of the older games listed are just videogame versions of other games. There is no originality there.
Very few people become writers. Good penmanship is necessary in offices, in workshops, in many other places. Keyboards are far from ubiquitous -- and schools would be doing a huge disservice to those whose work is not solely in front of a computer.
"So why are you advocating hand writing? Far more people can type without looking at the keyboard than can write without looking at the paper. When I am taking notes in a talk I usually have my screen backlight turned off (which adds about an hour to my battery life) and so there is nothing to look at except the person giving the talk.
If you've managed to get to college without being able to handwrite while only occasionally looking at the paper, then you haven't done enough writing. Just my $.02
"This varies from person to person. When I type, the recording process is handled entirely via my hind-brain and spinal cord, so I can actually pay attention."
The point is that you distill what is important, and write it down. The fact that it takes more of your brain is a positive, that's why recall is better from hand-written than from typed notes.
I'm sure there is variation from person to person -- but I'd be willing to bet cash that fewer than 1 in a 1000 people retain typed info better than handwritten.
"Let's not use this one example to come to a conclusion that laptops or no laptops are the best way to run every single classroom."
You must be new here. Many people here don't even need one example to come up with a universal solution to a problem.
Besides, why not read some opinions on what might be good, general solutions? What's the point of data if it's not used to extrapolate or predict?
I had a professor who did this at Rutgers. He even took it a step further and would ban ALL note-taking for portions of some lectures.
A lot of people were very upset, of course -- they wanted to get through the class by rote learning and regurgitation. If it matters, it was Medicinal Chemistry...
In the long run, I think hand-writing notes is better than typing them. For one thing, people remember things better when they hand-write them. Second, good notetaking by hand requires you to organize your thoughts, and the lecture points, in order to take effective notes. Third, the eye-contact barrier is definitely an issue for lecturers, who (if they're any good) need the eye contact both for feedback and to maintain the attention of the class.
My strategy was to take handwritten notes, then type them up in outline format in the evening while the lecture was still fresh in my mind. I'd retain much of the information just by that process -- the lectures where I didn't do this is where I had difficulty.
At any rate, I believe it's her lecture, and her right to ban laptops, recorders, or anything else. Students who don't like it are missing out on gaining experience in critical listening. Also, the real post-college world will frown upon you taking your laptop to a business dinner so you can remember what was discussed.
Finally, just a note on the complaining students -- you can't always have everything the way you want it. If you have a medical reason why you can't handwrite notes, I'm sure they will make an exception. Otherwise, suck it up and handwrite your notes, and be thankful that you have the opportunity to do so.