I completely disagree with you on many of these issues. The US is not a democracy. Ostensibly it's a Republic or a Democratic Republic. But in actuality the US is a coporate state. The US is NOT a free market. The economic system practiced here is NOT capitalism. US corporations lobby to have laws passed which maximize their profits and increase their market share. If you don't have the funds to influence law, then your business will be at a disadvantage in the US economy.
China is a totalitarian state where a few individuals control all aspects of the economy and the law. In the US this system is essentially replicated with leaders of major corporations controlling US economy and law.
Google is censored in China to protect those in charge: totalitarian political leaders. GOOGLE IS CENSORED IN THE US to protect those in charge: our corporate totalitarian leaders. THE US WAS THE FIRST COUNTRY TO CENSOR GOOGLE! Just because it wasn't our "government" doing it doesn't make much difference. The "government" in the US is rich corporations.
I remember Brin of Google (or was it the other one?) on an NPR interview a couple of years ago. It went something like this:
NPR Host (Terry Gross): blah blah Brin of Google. Blah blah countries want to censor Google. Are there a lot of countries that want you to censor search results?
Brin: Oh yeah.
Gross: Like what countries?
Brin: Well, the United States.
Gross: Oh I'm sorry, I wanted to know which countries forced Google to censor their search results....
Brin: Yes, the United States.
Gross: I'm sorry?
Brin: US corporations force us, using political and legal pressure, to censor websites they claim are stealing their intellectual property. The Digital Millenium Copyright Act - bitch!
This intellectual property thing is BS, just so you peanut gallery people know. The church of Scientology has successfully used IP law to force Google to censor sites that criticize Scientology. I'm sure there is other stupid BS like that around too. Type "xenu" into Google and scroll to the bottom.
The US is no different than China. Google censors sites for the totalitarians of the US just as they do for China. I guess everyone wants to believe that the US is some bastion of "freedom" but give me a break! There is a ruling class in every country and these overlords do everything they can to maintain and increase their power. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer and that's it. Welcome to the real world. Stop getting your panties in a bunch over this "freedom" propaganda.
1) Outlook's built-in ability to read an email and automatically run its attachment is the sole reaon why virii are a problem.
2) IE's Active X controls, with the ability to download and run a program without user knowledge by simply surfing to a website, is the sole reason spyware and adware are such huge problems.
Last I looked, only Windows has these problems. Yeah, Outlook's on the Mac, but it's not widespread and the virus attachents seem to be written for Windows. Also, many Mac users may not use Outlook.
If I'm wrong, someone please tell me. And while you're at it, please tell me why the Outlook problem exists. Are there really that many users who need their attachments to execute when they read the body of an email? Why can't you turn that shit off?
Ironically, to me, your post exemplifies why and how Wikipedia works. And also why it's the most trusted authority regarding information on the entire Internet. You see a problem? Change it. You see a mistake? Fix it.
You've corrected the Wikipedia article on Slashdot, why not correct it on Wikipedia?
As for people reversing corrections and arguing back and forth, well need I remind you that the truth is the truth by consensus. That's why an encyclopedia is valuable, because it gives you the mainstream, consensual, objective opinions on a subjects. If there is contention, and it's not a minority opinion, then that contention becomes a part of the consensual opinion.
The Wikipedia has succeeded because it is the essence of what an encyclopedia is: a consensual, mainstream opinion. Wikipedia entries are honed and shaped by millions of visitors from all sorts of different backgrounds from all over the world. What you get in the end is valuable not because it is accurate, but because the majority of people think it's accurate.
But if you have any faith in the intelligence of crowds, then you will have faith that Wikipedia entries will become ever more accurate with every new reader.
I have no idea why anyone would trust a handful of "experts" over the intelligence of the mob. Who are those experts? Who determines the choice of experts? Who makes sure the experts are correct? Obviously, once you've designated an authority in a certain area, that authority can never be criticized. You just have to trust them. This old-school approach to encyclopedias is quite simply madness.
I want to hear the opposite argument: Why is the fascist, totalitarian, despotic encyclopedia superior to the Wiki? Why is it better to trust a dozen people over millions?
The way I see it, the despot-o-pedia is also a consensus, but a consensus of the experts who were able to - through whatever means - win favor from the despotopedia's main despot. Who knows how this process works?
I think what people are really uncomfortable with is that the Internet has completely and utterly destroyed the concept of "authority". An authority has traditionally been someone who possessed or had access to exclusive information. Now, in the age of information technology, information is free. Information is no longer a commodity that "authorities" possess and control. Now information is accessible to all. and it will only get more free in the years ahead. There is no longer any such thing as an "authority". Authorities were only make believe anyway. We are all fallible. We can all happen upon something another might have overlooked. When you grow up, you see that daddy is just a man like yourself.
To be an expert in the age of free information, you'll have to back up your arguments. You'll have to be convincing and methodical. You'll have to accept that mere novices will challenge you and sometimes be right - especially when you err. Yes, perhaps this was always the case, but with the two-way communication of the Internet, an "expert" can be challenged much more readily. No longer do you need to write a letter to the Britannica's editors. Now you can change the Wikipedia's entry to suit your sense of the facts - but beware, you better back up your claims, because you too will likely be challenged.
If you're an intellectual, the Wikipedia has to be one of the most exciting things to have happened in the history of knowledge. Perhaps second only to the printing press.
One more point: There's one area where the Wikipedia consistently and will always beat out the despotopedias: Sheer volume of knowledge. If you have knowledge of a subject, and want to share it with the world, you can create a Wikipedia entry. Let me ask you despotopedia fans a question: Does any despotopedia include an article on the video game "The Curse of the Azure Bonds"? [Wikipedia entry]. This is an article I stumbled across while researching MMORPG
Go one station at a time. You should be able to find open source equivalents (or nix equivalents) for all your software. Once you've worked out the bugs on one station, mirror it and move onto the next. Also, you're working out the bugs with the user too.
It's an experiment, and you have to find employees of the right temperment to experiment on, but it can be done. In the long run you'd save uncountless time and money.
I completely and totally understand your world. I was there doing the same job you were doing in the same way.
Your management is absolutely, positively, undeniably, incompetent. They probably don't understand what you have to do to keep the network running and they don't care. All they care about is squeezing as much money out of their business as possible before they sell it or retire.
I guarantee you have tons of malware hiding on your system right now. Anti-virus software is completely inadequate in a Windows environment. As for Windows anti-spyware/adware software suitable for a business environment, it doesn't exist.
That your management can't justify the expense of a single full-time IT employee is not only short-sighted, it's complete incompetence.
I am sure your coworkers experience numerous frustrations caused by malware every single day - they just don't know it. You probably don't even know it because you don't have the time to investigate your network.
It is now - especially after this exploit - undeniable that Windows is an inadequate OS.
Yeah, switching to another OS would be painful in the short term. Of course. But in the long run it would save your business untold hours of productivity (due to improved security and stability) and cold hard cash. Working in a Windows environment you are constantly forced to upgrade (ie purchase) software. Not so true of the open source model.
If you're running a Windows network at your business then you'd be a fool not to be experimenting with open source right now. You should have at least one station on your network (preferably manned by a demanding employee) running on as much open source software as possible. Once that station is running smoothly, the configuration could be mirrored to other stations. Your server could come last.
I understand your situation. I was once there. I also understand that your management is filled with complete techno-idiots. The difference between open source and Windows is as stark as the difference between businesses that use computers and businesses that don't.
You sir are too good for that place and should seek employment elsewhere. Preferably where the management respects their employees and values their contributions to the organization. By not adequately protecting their IT infrastructure, your business is not only endangering their own network (and someday the chickens WILL come home to roost) but also endangering every network connected to the Internet. Not only is your management incompetent, but they should be put up on criminal charges. What the virus/adware/spyware writers do is evil, but neglect is also evil.
I'm writing because Rockstar Games North is at the center of the future. The Hot Coffee Mod has propelled you to the front lines of the culture wars. For many hundreds of years, crafty and selfish politicians have used the empty and meaningless phrase "family values" to enrage an otherwise apathetic public and solidify their power.
The most recent self-aggrandizing political power-monger to attempt a power grab by denigrating the invented enemies of children and the family is Hillary Clinton. How hypocritical for a woman whose own family life is a public embarrassment to now attack a supposed enemy of the family. But of course it's no coincidence - it is precisely because her own family life is a joke that she must become a defender of the family. For what better way to advance her political career?
You have a choice. Rockstar Games North has created the most aesthetically important piece of art since Andy Warhol was alive. Never in the history of the narrative form has a piece encouraged with such audacity the audience's identification with an anti-social character. And yet, it's a hit. Grand Theft Auto is one of the most popular video game series of all time. The question people should be asking is why do so many people dream of being an outlaw in their personal life rather than what effect this piece of art is having on our children.
Then again, the outlaw has been a staple of the narrative form ever since the inception of the story. Men have always thrilled to tales of the criminal, the social deviant, and the outlaw. Obviously, part of the attacks on Grand Theft Auto are spurred by an anti-technological bias. It's likely that many who criticize have never even played a video game. It's even more likely that those who criticize have never played through a single game of Grand Theft Auto.
Many criticisms are based on single, isolated elements of the game, and yet where's the criticism of the game as a whole? Criticizing GTA for a single element is like criticizing Huckleberry Finn or The Catcher in the Rye for a single word.
The suggestion that Grand Theft Auto could somehow harm children is laughable. How is it possible for a video game to nullify the effects of poverty, racial discrimination, lack of opportunity, and - most importantly - the natural slights children experience as a result of interacting with other children? It's not possible. And for someone to suggest that a video game has a greater influence than any of these effects, combined or individually, on the personality of a growing child, is ridiculous. Your company is being attacked and demonized by individuals and organizations concerned only with increasing their own power. Clinton's and other groups' intentions are naked, obvious, and reprehensible.
How many of us experienced violent content in art while growing up? How many of us experienced sexual content while growing up? Almost all of us. The Bible itself is full of violence and sex. Yet most of us are law-abiding citizens. In fact, I believe if the GTA audience were researched, we'd find that they are less likely to commit a crime than the general population. How likely is someone to be a criminal when they have the tenacity to make it through a 40+ hour narrative? How likely are they to be a criminal if imaginary anti-social acts satisfy them?
You need to break yourselves off from Take Two and fight the good fight. You're established now. GTA will always sell. You can make other games that push the boundaries of the art form. And, if you follow this road, you'll have no competition. Almost all other companies will be cowed and scared.
Slashdot Mirror
I completely disagree with you on many of these issues. The US is not a democracy. Ostensibly it's a Republic or a Democratic Republic. But in actuality the US is a coporate state. The US is NOT a free market. The economic system practiced here is NOT capitalism. US corporations lobby to have laws passed which maximize their profits and increase their market share. If you don't have the funds to influence law, then your business will be at a disadvantage in the US economy.
China is a totalitarian state where a few individuals control all aspects of the economy and the law. In the US this system is essentially replicated with leaders of major corporations controlling US economy and law.
Google is censored in China to protect those in charge: totalitarian political leaders. GOOGLE IS CENSORED IN THE US to protect those in charge: our corporate totalitarian leaders. THE US WAS THE FIRST COUNTRY TO CENSOR GOOGLE! Just because it wasn't our "government" doing it doesn't make much difference. The "government" in the US is rich corporations.
I remember Brin of Google (or was it the other one?) on an NPR interview a couple of years ago. It went something like this:
NPR Host (Terry Gross): blah blah Brin of Google. Blah blah countries want to censor Google. Are there a lot of countries that want you to censor search results?
Brin: Oh yeah.
Gross: Like what countries?
Brin: Well, the United States.
Gross: Oh I'm sorry, I wanted to know which countries forced Google to censor their search results....
Brin: Yes, the United States.
Gross: I'm sorry?
Brin: US corporations force us, using political and legal pressure, to censor websites they claim are stealing their intellectual property. The Digital Millenium Copyright Act - bitch!
Here's the interview.
This intellectual property thing is BS, just so you peanut gallery people know. The church of Scientology has successfully used IP law to force Google to censor sites that criticize Scientology. I'm sure there is other stupid BS like that around too. Type "xenu" into Google and scroll to the bottom.
The US is no different than China. Google censors sites for the totalitarians of the US just as they do for China. I guess everyone wants to believe that the US is some bastion of "freedom" but give me a break! There is a ruling class in every country and these overlords do everything they can to maintain and increase their power. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer and that's it. Welcome to the real world. Stop getting your panties in a bunch over this "freedom" propaganda.
Damn I hate Terry Gross.
1) Outlook's built-in ability to read an email and automatically run its attachment is the sole reaon why virii are a problem.
2) IE's Active X controls, with the ability to download and run a program without user knowledge by simply surfing to a website, is the sole reason spyware and adware are such huge problems.
Last I looked, only Windows has these problems. Yeah, Outlook's on the Mac, but it's not widespread and the virus attachents seem to be written for Windows. Also, many Mac users may not use Outlook.
If I'm wrong, someone please tell me. And while you're at it, please tell me why the Outlook problem exists. Are there really that many users who need their attachments to execute when they read the body of an email? Why can't you turn that shit off?
You've corrected the Wikipedia article on Slashdot, why not correct it on Wikipedia?
As for people reversing corrections and arguing back and forth, well need I remind you that the truth is the truth by consensus. That's why an encyclopedia is valuable, because it gives you the mainstream, consensual, objective opinions on a subjects. If there is contention, and it's not a minority opinion, then that contention becomes a part of the consensual opinion.
The Wikipedia has succeeded because it is the essence of what an encyclopedia is: a consensual, mainstream opinion. Wikipedia entries are honed and shaped by millions of visitors from all sorts of different backgrounds from all over the world. What you get in the end is valuable not because it is accurate, but because the majority of people think it's accurate.
But if you have any faith in the intelligence of crowds, then you will have faith that Wikipedia entries will become ever more accurate with every new reader.
I have no idea why anyone would trust a handful of "experts" over the intelligence of the mob. Who are those experts? Who determines the choice of experts? Who makes sure the experts are correct? Obviously, once you've designated an authority in a certain area, that authority can never be criticized. You just have to trust them. This old-school approach to encyclopedias is quite simply madness.
I want to hear the opposite argument: Why is the fascist, totalitarian, despotic encyclopedia superior to the Wiki? Why is it better to trust a dozen people over millions?
The way I see it, the despot-o-pedia is also a consensus, but a consensus of the experts who were able to - through whatever means - win favor from the despotopedia's main despot. Who knows how this process works?
I think what people are really uncomfortable with is that the Internet has completely and utterly destroyed the concept of "authority". An authority has traditionally been someone who possessed or had access to exclusive information. Now, in the age of information technology, information is free. Information is no longer a commodity that "authorities" possess and control. Now information is accessible to all. and it will only get more free in the years ahead. There is no longer any such thing as an "authority". Authorities were only make believe anyway. We are all fallible. We can all happen upon something another might have overlooked. When you grow up, you see that daddy is just a man like yourself.
To be an expert in the age of free information, you'll have to back up your arguments. You'll have to be convincing and methodical. You'll have to accept that mere novices will challenge you and sometimes be right - especially when you err. Yes, perhaps this was always the case, but with the two-way communication of the Internet, an "expert" can be challenged much more readily. No longer do you need to write a letter to the Britannica's editors. Now you can change the Wikipedia's entry to suit your sense of the facts - but beware, you better back up your claims, because you too will likely be challenged.
If you're an intellectual, the Wikipedia has to be one of the most exciting things to have happened in the history of knowledge. Perhaps second only to the printing press.
One more point: There's one area where the Wikipedia consistently and will always beat out the despotopedias: Sheer volume of knowledge. If you have knowledge of a subject, and want to share it with the world, you can create a Wikipedia entry. Let me ask you despotopedia fans a question: Does any despotopedia include an article on the video game "The Curse of the Azure Bonds"? [Wikipedia entry]. This is an article I stumbled across while researching MMORPG
Go one station at a time. You should be able to find open source equivalents (or nix equivalents) for all your software. Once you've worked out the bugs on one station, mirror it and move onto the next. Also, you're working out the bugs with the user too.
It's an experiment, and you have to find employees of the right temperment to experiment on, but it can be done. In the long run you'd save uncountless time and money.
I completely and totally understand your world. I was there doing the same job you were doing in the same way.
Your management is absolutely, positively, undeniably, incompetent. They probably don't understand what you have to do to keep the network running and they don't care. All they care about is squeezing as much money out of their business as possible before they sell it or retire.
I guarantee you have tons of malware hiding on your system right now. Anti-virus software is completely inadequate in a Windows environment. As for Windows anti-spyware/adware software suitable for a business environment, it doesn't exist.
That your management can't justify the expense of a single full-time IT employee is not only short-sighted, it's complete incompetence.
I am sure your coworkers experience numerous frustrations caused by malware every single day - they just don't know it. You probably don't even know it because you don't have the time to investigate your network.
It is now - especially after this exploit - undeniable that Windows is an inadequate OS.
Yeah, switching to another OS would be painful in the short term. Of course. But in the long run it would save your business untold hours of productivity (due to improved security and stability) and cold hard cash. Working in a Windows environment you are constantly forced to upgrade (ie purchase) software. Not so true of the open source model.
If you're running a Windows network at your business then you'd be a fool not to be experimenting with open source right now. You should have at least one station on your network (preferably manned by a demanding employee) running on as much open source software as possible. Once that station is running smoothly, the configuration could be mirrored to other stations. Your server could come last.
I understand your situation. I was once there. I also understand that your management is filled with complete techno-idiots. The difference between open source and Windows is as stark as the difference between businesses that use computers and businesses that don't.
You sir are too good for that place and should seek employment elsewhere. Preferably where the management respects their employees and values their contributions to the organization. By not adequately protecting their IT infrastructure, your business is not only endangering their own network (and someday the chickens WILL come home to roost) but also endangering every network connected to the Internet. Not only is your management incompetent, but they should be put up on criminal charges. What the virus/adware/spyware writers do is evil, but neglect is also evil.
I'm writing because Rockstar Games North is at the center of the future. The Hot Coffee Mod has propelled you to the front lines of the culture wars. For many hundreds of years, crafty and selfish politicians have used the empty and meaningless phrase "family values" to enrage an otherwise apathetic public and solidify their power.
The most recent self-aggrandizing political power-monger to attempt a power grab by denigrating the invented enemies of children and the family is Hillary Clinton. How hypocritical for a woman whose own family life is a public embarrassment to now attack a supposed enemy of the family. But of course it's no coincidence - it is precisely because her own family life is a joke that she must become a defender of the family. For what better way to advance her political career?
You have a choice. Rockstar Games North has created the most aesthetically important piece of art since Andy Warhol was alive. Never in the history of the narrative form has a piece encouraged with such audacity the audience's identification with an anti-social character. And yet, it's a hit. Grand Theft Auto is one of the most popular video game series of all time. The question people should be asking is why do so many people dream of being an outlaw in their personal life rather than what effect this piece of art is having on our children.
Then again, the outlaw has been a staple of the narrative form ever since the inception of the story. Men have always thrilled to tales of the criminal, the social deviant, and the outlaw. Obviously, part of the attacks on Grand Theft Auto are spurred by an anti-technological bias. It's likely that many who criticize have never even played a video game. It's even more likely that those who criticize have never played through a single game of Grand Theft Auto.
Many criticisms are based on single, isolated elements of the game, and yet where's the criticism of the game as a whole? Criticizing GTA for a single element is like criticizing Huckleberry Finn or The Catcher in the Rye for a single word.
The suggestion that Grand Theft Auto could somehow harm children is laughable. How is it possible for a video game to nullify the effects of poverty, racial discrimination, lack of opportunity, and - most importantly - the natural slights children experience as a result of interacting with other children? It's not possible. And for someone to suggest that a video game has a greater influence than any of these effects, combined or individually, on the personality of a growing child, is ridiculous. Your company is being attacked and demonized by individuals and organizations concerned only with increasing their own power. Clinton's and other groups' intentions are naked, obvious, and reprehensible.
How many of us experienced violent content in art while growing up? How many of us experienced sexual content while growing up? Almost all of us. The Bible itself is full of violence and sex. Yet most of us are law-abiding citizens. In fact, I believe if the GTA audience were researched, we'd find that they are less likely to commit a crime than the general population. How likely is someone to be a criminal when they have the tenacity to make it through a 40+ hour narrative? How likely are they to be a criminal if imaginary anti-social acts satisfy them?
You need to break yourselves off from Take Two and fight the good fight. You're established now. GTA will always sell. You can make other games that push the boundaries of the art form. And, if you follow this road, you'll have no competition. Almost all other companies will be cowed and scared.
Good luck. I hope you decide to fight.