Sexuality is downplayed in our media because it's portrayal naturally incites sexual thinking (which leads to sexual behavior) in people to a far, far greater degree than violence. Our society has real and severe problems with people (especially kids/young people/whatever you want to call them) having sex and getting into trouble (diseases, teen pregnancies, damaged psyches, etc.).
Our society does not have severe problems with people running around with assault rifles and rocket launchers (sure there are isolated cases, but the sexual problems in our society are many orders of magnitude greater).
So, let's just cut out the stupid "They forbid sex but promote violence! How stupid!" arguments. There's a reason why the two are treated so differently in the media. There's no lesson here, or in other US media, that "killing is good and sex is evil". The idea that there is arises from something inside the people who are thinking it.
Not every bit. They want a five-year commercial-only copyright term; allowing for non-commercial copying and use during that period.
That's probably the simplest and most sensible thing that should be done with respect to copyright law. Get rid of perpetual copyrights and bring back sane limits.
The U.S. Constitution puts it pretty succinctly: to promote the progress of science and useful arts.
It's quite clear that modern copyright laws do the exact opposite.
Pointing to a statement like this as if it supported your position is simply intellectually dishonest. It's like when false Christians point to Bible verses to support murder and hatred (e.g. The Crudases, slavery, bigotry, etc.) when it supports no such thing.
I'm getting the impression that a lot of people/business seem to think that selling music without Digital Restrictions Management and other anti-consumer technology is somehow difficult or not expected to be successful. Um, hello? Does nobody remember the Cassette era, when purchased music was freely recordable and many players had two decks in order to facilitate copying? I don't recall any sort of music industry collapse back then. Sure we didn't have the internet back then, but people still traded music. A lot.
*SHOCK* *AWE* You can make money selling music that people can freely copy? ZOMG!!1!
Businesses who think that selling unrestricted music that people can freely copy need only look to the bottled water industry to see that it's possible. In the west we have (effectively) free, clean drinking water, yet people spend billions each year buying it from stores. Sure, anyone can "turn on the tap" of the internet and get their fill of mp3s, but that doesn't mean stores can't make a huge profit selling those exact same mp3s.
Bottled water sells because of psychological tricks and convenience. MP3s can sell the same way.
"...the protection of intellectual property rights...significantly and positively impacts economic growth, technological innovation, and most importantly, the confidence of customers who count on the integrity and quality of their products.'"
+5 Funny
(or, better yet, +5 The Exact Opposite Is True:-P )
However, what we really need is gameplay innovation. Actually, what we really need is for developers to stop making every last first person game a damn shooter. Can't they do anything else with a first person perspective. The potential here is enormous and yet it looks like developers have a fetish with gunplay.
The answer to this, if I may quote the character of Michael Scott from the US version of The Office (fantastic show, BTW):
"What is the most exciting thing that can happen on TV or in movies, or in real-life? Somebody has a gun. That's why I always start with a gun, because you can't top it. You just can't."
Life starts to make a lot more sense when you realize Scott Adams' PHB and The Office's Michael Scott are not charicatures...
It's funny how the industry always says Digital Restrictions Management and copy-prevention technology "keeps an honest person honest" (or something to that effect), when, in fact, it does the exact opposite.
I had some email correspondance with one game developer who flat out told me all these terrible stories were "urban legends" and just "bullshit". Then, in all seriousness, he went on to describe how only a few people in the studio worked more than 50 hours a week, and that during "crunch time" he might work upwards of 85 hours a week for a few months.
"This release will only be available for a limited time: from September 12th to December 31st."
Is anyone really stupid enough to think this marketing tactic will work in the age of P2P? What the hell do they think is gonna happen on January 1st when net-savvy customers can't find the movie in the stores?
(4) A difference in medical culture, where doctors in the US are more likely to diagnose and attempt to treat problems that doctors in the UK would just tell their patients to live with?
Judging by the things listed on the chart, I don't think there are many things that a doctor could not report and just tell his patient to 'live with it'. Diabetes? Cancer? Stroke?
"Just deal with it, mate. It was only a little heart attack.":-P
Or, for you Pythonites:
"The doctor told me I had cancer."
"Cancer?"
"...I got better."
It's going to end up being called...
on
Both Sides of Wii
·
· Score: 2, Funny
It's going to end up being called a "Nintendo". "Did you buy an XBox or a Nintendo?" 'Wii' is such a ridiculously bad choice for a name. No self-respecting teen/young-adult is going to walk into a store and ask for a 'Wii'.
I've seen a prototype of Nintendo's next project. They are collaborating closely with EA on this one to bring an even more realistic gaming experience to the customer. The game has a custom controller with a pointed ovoid shape. You snap the ball in the game by taking the controller and pulling it up and back between your legs. You throw the ball in the game by making a throwing motion with the controller. It's really supposed to simulate the feel of playing football.
Also, it's going to support a multiplayer mode where you actually throw the controller to the other players! It's going to be awesome!
Why can't the Windows installer have different configuration sets? The setup screen could simply ask if the user is setting up a home PC or if he is an IT admin for business who wants an enterprise-level install? Each option could have a link beside it that explains what the initial settings are.
I think game movies suck mainly because the people making them think "We have a built in audience that will pay to see this movie no matter how good/bad it is, so who gives a rats ass how much effort we put into the film". I mean, honestly: how much effort is someone going to put into a film to make it appeal to a large demographic when they think there's already a set demographic ready to hand over their money just because someone made a movie out of their favorite game.
"Viewing a film based on a computer game is like hanging around in an amusement arcade, peering over the shoulders of other people playing video games. It has less to do with story-telling than conceptual shelf-stacking."
What an asinine thing to say. This article is nothing but a worthless attempt at shifting the blame for crappy movies which are based on the same story that some video game was based on away from the people who deserve it. Just because a video game was made of a story does not mean a movie made of the same story can't be great.
Today it's virtually impossible to turn on the television without being told to 'press the red button for more options', or to phone an 0870 number and vote for your favourite contestant.
Since we've seen that the Revolution isn't revolutionary hardware-wise...
I know you are talking about processing power (I think the Rev is only supposed to be three times as powerful as the Cube), but it should be said that the controller idea they have come up with could be considered pretty revolutionary hardware.
And Nintendo still claims there are other as-yet-undisclosed surprises...
"Hmm, wasn't one of the arguments for intelligent design that the fundamental constants had to be "just right" for the universe to exist? If the shifts of other dimensions causes shifts in our universal constants...another nail in the necessity-of-God argument's coffin?"
The summary brought up ID in my mind, too, but in the opposite way: that the universe was being tweaked to affect some unknown purpose.
Slashdot Mirror
Sexuality is downplayed in our media because it's portrayal naturally incites sexual thinking (which leads to sexual behavior) in people to a far, far greater degree than violence. Our society has real and severe problems with people (especially kids/young people/whatever you want to call them) having sex and getting into trouble (diseases, teen pregnancies, damaged psyches, etc.).
Our society does not have severe problems with people running around with assault rifles and rocket launchers (sure there are isolated cases, but the sexual problems in our society are many orders of magnitude greater).
So, let's just cut out the stupid "They forbid sex but promote violence! How stupid!" arguments. There's a reason why the two are treated so differently in the media. There's no lesson here, or in other US media, that "killing is good and sex is evil". The idea that there is arises from something inside the people who are thinking it.
Not every bit. They want a five-year commercial-only copyright term; allowing for non-commercial copying and use during that period.
That's probably the simplest and most sensible thing that should be done with respect to copyright law. Get rid of perpetual copyrights and bring back sane limits.
People like to take the time to look at car accidents, but that doesn't mean car accidents are a good thing.
...unless, I suppose, the vehicles involved where ones containing chaufferred MPAA executives. But, I digress...
It's quite clear that modern copyright laws do the exact opposite.
Pointing to a statement like this as if it supported your position is simply intellectually dishonest. It's like when false Christians point to Bible verses to support murder and hatred (e.g. The Crudases, slavery, bigotry, etc.) when it supports no such thing.
*SHOCK* *AWE* You can make money selling music that people can freely copy? ZOMG!!1!
Businesses who think that selling unrestricted music that people can freely copy need only look to the bottled water industry to see that it's possible. In the west we have (effectively) free, clean drinking water, yet people spend billions each year buying it from stores. Sure, anyone can "turn on the tap" of the internet and get their fill of mp3s, but that doesn't mean stores can't make a huge profit selling those exact same mp3s.
Bottled water sells because of psychological tricks and convenience. MP3s can sell the same way.
+5 Funny
(or, better yet, +5 The Exact Opposite Is True :-P )
Just put it back and maybe they won't sue you for stealing their stuff.
The answer to this, if I may quote the character of Michael Scott from the US version of The Office (fantastic show, BTW):
"What is the most exciting thing that can happen on TV or in movies, or in real-life? Somebody has a gun. That's why I always start with a gun, because you can't top it. You just can't."
Life starts to make a lot more sense when you realize Scott Adams' PHB and The Office's Michael Scott are not charicatures...
I can't wait to harness this technology. I'll be able to make First Posts without actually having to be the first poster. I will rule Slashdot!!!
It's funny how the industry always says Digital Restrictions Management and copy-prevention technology "keeps an honest person honest" (or something to that effect), when, in fact, it does the exact opposite.
;-)
I guess denial is how he copes?
Or maybe he was just screwing with me. :-P
Is anyone really stupid enough to think this marketing tactic will work in the age of P2P? What the hell do they think is gonna happen on January 1st when net-savvy customers can't find the movie in the stores?
Judging by the things listed on the chart, I don't think there are many things that a doctor could not report and just tell his patient to 'live with it'. Diabetes? Cancer? Stroke?
"Just deal with it, mate. It was only a little heart attack." :-P
Or, for you Pythonites:
"The doctor told me I had cancer."
"Cancer?"
"...I got better."
"Hello. Do you have any Wiis..." (trails off)
"Any what, sir?
"Wiis" (quietly)
"I'm sorry, sir, I can't hear you."
"Wiis! I wanna Wii" (loudly)
"Washroom's at the back of the store."
Please tell me it's April 1st in Japan. Nintendo Revolution was the perfect name. "Wii" (pronounced "wheeeeee!") sounds too stupid.
Also, it's going to support a multiplayer mode where you actually throw the controller to the other players! It's going to be awesome!
Is that really all that hard to do?
I've had some before. I think they're, like, three bucks per container or so.
"Viewing a film based on a computer game is like hanging around in an amusement arcade, peering over the shoulders of other people playing video games. It has less to do with story-telling than conceptual shelf-stacking."
What an asinine thing to say. This article is nothing but a worthless attempt at shifting the blame for crappy movies which are based on the same story that some video game was based on away from the people who deserve it. Just because a video game was made of a story does not mean a movie made of the same story can't be great.
Today it's virtually impossible to turn on the television without being told to 'press the red button for more options', or to phone an 0870 number and vote for your favourite contestant.
What the hell are you talking about?!!
What do you think?
I think you should put down the crack pipe.
lucy-her-ucks-six
dri-wah-rop-two
skek-gull-four
lack-wop-seven
if-eeyaft-three
glid-tev-pos-eight
Maybe the last one seems pretty good for remembering...
I know you are talking about processing power (I think the Rev is only supposed to be three times as powerful as the Cube), but it should be said that the controller idea they have come up with could be considered pretty revolutionary hardware.
And Nintendo still claims there are other as-yet-undisclosed surprises...
I'm colorblind, you insensitive clod!
The summary brought up ID in my mind, too, but in the opposite way: that the universe was being tweaked to affect some unknown purpose.
Then what the hell am I paying $80/month for?