What if I want to set up a network of personnel across the country who live-blog every NCAA sporting event, and broadcast it on a web site. Maybe one with ads. And then I pay people to live blog for me. At every event. And maybe all of those people can have computers with cameras, and stream video as well. Well, why not? I should be able to do that, right? No? Where do you draw the line?
And why should this be a problem? Yes, they haven't paid for the right to do so. But why ought that to be a requirement for being allowed to talk about a sponsored event? There's no other reason than that the powers that be decided that way.
Historically speaking, only people with money had access to a press, which means that only people with money had the ability to cover events. This in turn meant that it was possible to ask for money when providing access to media people, without preventing everyone else from participating in the event in their normal fashion. Today however, everyone can cover an event, and pretty much everyone does. This means that preventing someone with official press credentials from live-casting, blogging, vlogging (or via any other lexical abomination) an event only means that that person will try to do so without press credentials next - because the press credentials make no difference to the end-product. What's next? You can't talk about an event, unless you paid the governing body money? That's just madness in the making, and a ticket to oblivion for the event in question. Obviously, that's not a solution.
The problem with the NCAAA's approach not that an article in a blog is magically different from an article in a newspaper. The problem is that the logical conclusion of this approach is that anyone electronically disseminating an account of an event like this opens him/herself up to litigation for breach of contract, TOS, EULA or whatever else is in play. Personally, I'd say that all these rules should be declared against the public interest of being able to talk about the game in a way that goes beyond face to face or the phone. Organizations like the MLB could then do the same thing that videogame makers do: have an "Official" voice that gets primo access, and everyone else can do whatever they want, short of disrupting operations and the flow of the event.
Will this mean that traditional media takes another hit? Sure does. Do I care? No. No one is entitled to a revenue stream just because they had one in the past.
Finally, this is also a lesson in why you should always answer your rhethorical questions: it ensures that you get the right reaction from your audience.
I've also seen that the tab doesn't select drop-downs, though I suspect there's some way of getting to it with a keyboard that I just haven't found yet.
As for tabbing between documents, try ALT+~. Generally, what I found is that if I try to apply Windows behavior to OS X, I'm slowed down tremendously. Fortunately, I've also found that OS X has shortcuts that work differently, but have the same result as in Windows (see ALT+~), as well as a shortcuts that make working in OS X a lot easier (working with iWeb comes to mind).
In short, if you're going to spend some time with OS X, spend some time searching for short cuts on the web. I was pleasantly surprised by what I found, and I think you might be too.
Thank you for one of the most cogent posts on the difference between science, faith and morality I've seen on slashdot. I especially appreciate the reference to Kant and Hume. They struggled with this problem for a long time, and I haven't found any argument that would invalidate their conclusions. Sometimes it does pay off to read the classics.:)
As of right now, that shift hasn't happened - if anything, iTunes success has increased, despite the continuing existence of various P2P networks. I question whether your assumption is plausible...
Are you saying that iTunes is not a viable business model? I'm confused... by all metrics, iTunes has been profitable since day 1. Why is it not a viable business model?
I don't want a maximally efficient government. I like the fact that no one can push a button, and find out what I have eaten in the last two weeks.
If I'm in a Western Democracy that is reasonably well-off and free-market oriented, I like my government to be small, with little insight into what I'm doing or how I'm doing it. As a matter of fact, I'd like my government to be on permanent vacation, and only convene during emergencies. Law enforcement can be efficient and on the job, but should not make me do its surveillance job, nor should it rely on technology to do the peacekeeping (which includes rounds on foot).
That's my creed, and I'm sticking to it. I just wish there were a party for me.
In light of a rumored bill before Congress to retroactively extend the limited copyright in the US to 25000 years after the death of the author (or the destruction of the last copy of the work, whichever comes last), we are investigating several potential copyright infringements in your last op-ed entitled "A Great Idea Lives Forever. Shouldn't Its Copyright?".
Descendants of James Madison request to be compensated for any citation, partial or full, of any of his works. Descendants of Hammurabi (currently estimated at about 127 million) claim copyright on any western law text and discussion thereof, as they are all derivative works of Hammurabi's Code of Law. Finally, there have been claims by descendants of Evander, son of the Sybil, that all Roman letters fall under their copyright, and that therefore any text using them needs to pay them a fair share of proceeds.
Preliminary calculations put the projected statutory infringement fines at 4.2 trillion dollars. This number may change as more claimants come forward. As it is unknown how much more the US Congress is going to extend copyrights, we suggest to settle sooner rather than later.
Interesting idea. I was tempted to write an op-ed opinion in reply, but I think your idea will demonstrate far better than any abstract argument what the impact of a permanent copyright is.
Agreed. Arguments for perpetual copyright always smell like "I'm not making enough dough" or "I want to work less for more money". Little attention is paid by its proponents to the societal cost of a perpetual copyright, or to the benefits that come from releasing an idea or an abstract into the public domain. Interestingly, it also seems that the same proponents fail to see how much they benefited from ideas and works in the public domain.
Besides the numerous reasons why a permanent copyright is completely untenable, counterproductive and idiotic, I'm always curious why some artists think that they deserve to be paid forever for something they did once. Write Happy Birthday? Get paid forever. Yes, yes, it's a nifty little dilly. But why should that piece of work allow someone to sit on his/her fat ass for the rest of their lives? The reason that everybody else works is that physical stuff is either consumed or breaks down. As a result, if you create some bread, you need to make more, and since it is an arduous process, you're actually doing something that has value. Just copying an idea involves very little work and very little cost these days. Not only that, but the original creator generally is not involved in the copy process.
So again - why do some artists think they ought to do work once, then collect checks in perpetuity? I have an answer for that, but I would love to hear from someone who thinks it doesn't involve "cheap lazy selfish narcissistic assholes who don't understand that their work is not nearly as original as they think it is."
I guess I'm also in the minority about shelling out $50 for what is essentially the same game.:)
I do agree that one of the good things about SC is that it is indeed a very deep game - the balance is good enough that there isn't just one strategy to rule them all, and the rock-paper-scissor units mean that every game plays differently, because someone decided to mix up his units a bit.
That said (and yes, I do realize I'm probably in the minority here), I've been waiting for three things in RTS games that I really haven't seen yet: interactive terrain, some real AI and a strategic approach to battles, rather than tactical. I was hoping SC 2 would bring those, but then again, I should have known better: Blizzard isn't known for major changes in its game series (though WC3 was markedly different from WC2), and it wouldn't dream of alienating its most important market: professional gamers in Korea.
Every example you brought up of how a new unit would change the way the game plays has already been in SC: dropships/overlords/protoss robot ships, units and counter-units, armor/damage types.... the videos in SC 2 can be analyzed in the exact same way SC videos are analyzed: what's the effect of one unit against another, how do we get around choke points and how do we build our bases for maximum defensive/offensive efficiency.
I'm convinced that there will be no major changes to how SC plays for one reason: professional players will leave the SC series for another game. This way, everyone who has invested his life into SC can pick up right where he left of with SC, and there is no reason to even look at another game.
Why do you think the game was revealed in Korea first? Because it is a game aimed at the Korean professional SC scene. Not only will the changes be incremental, but the impact will be incremental as well... I expect most SC strategies to be very nicely replicated in SC 2 (zerg single unit rush, protoss stealth and warp attacks, terran drops and hit and run). I like your comparison to Diablo, because Diablo 2 was indeed a very incremental change. Though its incremental change dealt with some massive flaws in Diablo (very few builds where viable in the end game, an environment that felt very flat, security of online play etc), which managed to put Diablo 2 in the realm of a great game. I'm not sure I see that here, as none of the issues in SC that I considered major (and here, I am generally in the minority) seem to be addressed: too much emphasis on micromanagement, an atrocious AI, openings that are very, very limited in scope, and a near-complete abscence of actual strategy (like supply lines).
I was hoping to see those things, but that's not to be.
Didn't buy Quake 2 after Quake 1. Didn't buy Total Annihilation, so I don't know. Same for FF series, though I'd venture to say that RPGs are a bad example to bring up here. I'm in the same boat with Halo 3. Never bought GT2. And Far Cry is Doom 2 with a better graphics engine? Have you played Doom 2? There's some real differences there.
Yes, I honestly think at this point that it'll be SC with a new veneer. I can even pick out the old strategies from the screenshots and video: warping for Protoss, single Protoss unit strength against sneakiness by Terrans and burrowing/numbers by Zerg.
My beef is that so far, it looks to play the same exact way SC did. When I fork over $50 for a game, I expect something new, rather than a graphics upgrade - especially in a game whose strength and playstyle is completely independent of its graphics. Take WCIII for example: the inclusion of heroes, a focus on small-group combat and actual 3D made for a very different game from both WC2 and SC. Strategies were vastly different, both on a combat and exploration level.
Yes, this is early - very early. Things can change. I remember that originally, SC was accused of being WC2 in space. It ended up being vastly more polished, with a much better mix of units and balance (though I still think that Terrans are the red-headed step children in any Blizzard world;) ). I'm just saying that at this point, I'm thoroughly underwhelmed. And this is coming from someone who has been playing SC since day 1.
If it's the same as Starcraft, why release a new game? I was hoping I'd get a new game, not what amounts to an expansion pack with a 3D graphics engine.
I have to admit, I'm terribly disappointed so far. From what little screenshots and descriptions there, it's basically Starcraft with new Units. The 3D seems to be strictly for graphical effects, as is the Physics engine. Quite frankly, it seems that they decided not to mess with a winning combination, and just updated the looks and units. Terrain and unit collisions seem identical (3 heights, height differences impassible for general units, units occupy their own space).
Mind you, it looks very pretty. But I'm getting the feeling that it is going to play almost exactly like Starcraft. And here I was hoping they'd go for a bit more realism - actual 3D terrain, units better proportioned, a tweak on manufacturing or the tech tree implementation.... ah hell, who am I kidding. This is the company that sold us Diablo in Warcraft World as a new game. It looks like we're getting Starcraft - in 3D! as a new game now. I suspect that Blizzard will soon find out that polish can carry a game only so far... at some point, it has to be interesting and an actual improvement over the original.
Namely, that we can exterminate the little buggers.
Here's the problem with an approach like that: any civilization, save the most pacifist ones, that is at least equal to you in firepower, can exterminate us just as easily. The benefits of trying to be friendly is that anything less than xenophobes on your scale could be influenced to accept us, regardless of their technological prowess. In other words, you've just increased your chance of finding a hospitable planet to live on.
Then there's the slight problem of reputation: if there are more civilizations out there, and word gets out we're sadistic buggers who exterminate anybody in our way, we might face some issues in keeping the planets we have.
Just because distances suddenly become interstellar does not mean that the basic calculations of regional politics have vanished. They simply have scaled up - in both risk as well as reward.
Read up, buttercup. Specifically, read the journal articles referenced there, or meander through the links and find an IPCC reference that discusses your point.
Arguments from incredulity hold no water.
The issue though is not that we do not have control planets for verifying the CO2 impact on temperature. Those are two different issues that are tied together via physical models.
We have two data sets: CO2 and temperature. Your example of eastern Canada having cyclic ice sheets is one data point in the larger data set of local temperatures from all over the world. As a result, it has little bearing on the data set of CO2 concentrations. It could have an impact on the link between the two, but now you're talking about one data point invalidating an entire data set that was used to establish that correlation. Which is not the right approach.
I agree that it is a handy reference list - just like about a million others there. It's nice though that it comes from a source whose main goal is not related to Global Climate Change. And yes, discussion and education about the basic principles influencing climates is important.
However, in the context of slashdot, I haven't seen a new argument in about a year, with the lone exception being perhaps the impact of interstellar radiation on cloud formation. It seems the people left arguing against Global Climate Change simply refuse to even consider the possibility that they might be wrong. The old saw about leading a horse to water comes to mind.
Then again, I guess I could also just ignore the articles.:)
I'm a firm believer in verifying scientific claims, especially when they are used to drive policy on a global scale. I just think that a) the topic has been played out, and b) Climate change discussions on slashdot have moved from discussing the science behind it to silly flame wars (I know so, because I pretty much started one the last time around).
I seriously would like to put a moratorium on these stories until there are some new and credible theories that come up. Relinking to the same old arguments (both ways) does nothing to advance the discussion, or the knowledge of the topic.
Slashdot Mirror
And why should this be a problem? Yes, they haven't paid for the right to do so. But why ought that to be a requirement for being allowed to talk about a sponsored event? There's no other reason than that the powers that be decided that way.
Historically speaking, only people with money had access to a press, which means that only people with money had the ability to cover events. This in turn meant that it was possible to ask for money when providing access to media people, without preventing everyone else from participating in the event in their normal fashion. Today however, everyone can cover an event, and pretty much everyone does. This means that preventing someone with official press credentials from live-casting, blogging, vlogging (or via any other lexical abomination) an event only means that that person will try to do so without press credentials next - because the press credentials make no difference to the end-product. What's next? You can't talk about an event, unless you paid the governing body money? That's just madness in the making, and a ticket to oblivion for the event in question. Obviously, that's not a solution.
The problem with the NCAAA's approach not that an article in a blog is magically different from an article in a newspaper. The problem is that the logical conclusion of this approach is that anyone electronically disseminating an account of an event like this opens him/herself up to litigation for breach of contract, TOS, EULA or whatever else is in play. Personally, I'd say that all these rules should be declared against the public interest of being able to talk about the game in a way that goes beyond face to face or the phone. Organizations like the MLB could then do the same thing that videogame makers do: have an "Official" voice that gets primo access, and everyone else can do whatever they want, short of disrupting operations and the flow of the event.
Will this mean that traditional media takes another hit? Sure does. Do I care? No. No one is entitled to a revenue stream just because they had one in the past.
Finally, this is also a lesson in why you should always answer your rhethorical questions: it ensures that you get the right reaction from your audience.
I've also seen that the tab doesn't select drop-downs, though I suspect there's some way of getting to it with a keyboard that I just haven't found yet.
As for tabbing between documents, try ALT+~. Generally, what I found is that if I try to apply Windows behavior to OS X, I'm slowed down tremendously. Fortunately, I've also found that OS X has shortcuts that work differently, but have the same result as in Windows (see ALT+~), as well as a shortcuts that make working in OS X a lot easier (working with iWeb comes to mind).
In short, if you're going to spend some time with OS X, spend some time searching for short cuts on the web. I was pleasantly surprised by what I found, and I think you might be too.
Thank you for one of the most cogent posts on the difference between science, faith and morality I've seen on slashdot. I especially appreciate the reference to Kant and Hume. They struggled with this problem for a long time, and I haven't found any argument that would invalidate their conclusions. Sometimes it does pay off to read the classics. :)
As of right now, that shift hasn't happened - if anything, iTunes success has increased, despite the continuing existence of various P2P networks. I question whether your assumption is plausible...
Are you saying that iTunes is not a viable business model? I'm confused... by all metrics, iTunes has been profitable since day 1. Why is it not a viable business model?
I don't want a maximally efficient government. I like the fact that no one can push a button, and find out what I have eaten in the last two weeks.
If I'm in a Western Democracy that is reasonably well-off and free-market oriented, I like my government to be small, with little insight into what I'm doing or how I'm doing it. As a matter of fact, I'd like my government to be on permanent vacation, and only convene during emergencies. Law enforcement can be efficient and on the job, but should not make me do its surveillance job, nor should it rely on technology to do the peacekeeping (which includes rounds on foot).
That's my creed, and I'm sticking to it. I just wish there were a party for me.
Dear Mr Helprin,
:)
In light of a rumored bill before Congress to retroactively extend the limited copyright in the US to 25000 years after the death of the author (or the destruction of the last copy of the work, whichever comes last), we are investigating several potential copyright infringements in your last op-ed entitled "A Great Idea Lives Forever. Shouldn't Its Copyright?".
Descendants of James Madison request to be compensated for any citation, partial or full, of any of his works. Descendants of Hammurabi (currently estimated at about 127 million) claim copyright on any western law text and discussion thereof, as they are all derivative works of Hammurabi's Code of Law. Finally, there have been claims by descendants of Evander, son of the Sybil, that all Roman letters fall under their copyright, and that therefore any text using them needs to pay them a fair share of proceeds.
Preliminary calculations put the projected statutory infringement fines at 4.2 trillion dollars. This number may change as more claimants come forward. As it is unknown how much more the US Congress is going to extend copyrights, we suggest to settle sooner rather than later.
Sincerely,
Howard Howe,
Dewey, Chetham & Howe, LLP
Please reprint and distribute freely.
Interesting idea. I was tempted to write an op-ed opinion in reply, but I think your idea will demonstrate far better than any abstract argument what the impact of a permanent copyright is.
Agreed. Arguments for perpetual copyright always smell like "I'm not making enough dough" or "I want to work less for more money". Little attention is paid by its proponents to the societal cost of a perpetual copyright, or to the benefits that come from releasing an idea or an abstract into the public domain. Interestingly, it also seems that the same proponents fail to see how much they benefited from ideas and works in the public domain.
Besides the numerous reasons why a permanent copyright is completely untenable, counterproductive and idiotic, I'm always curious why some artists think that they deserve to be paid forever for something they did once. Write Happy Birthday? Get paid forever. Yes, yes, it's a nifty little dilly. But why should that piece of work allow someone to sit on his/her fat ass for the rest of their lives? The reason that everybody else works is that physical stuff is either consumed or breaks down. As a result, if you create some bread, you need to make more, and since it is an arduous process, you're actually doing something that has value. Just copying an idea involves very little work and very little cost these days. Not only that, but the original creator generally is not involved in the copy process.
So again - why do some artists think they ought to do work once, then collect checks in perpetuity? I have an answer for that, but I would love to hear from someone who thinks it doesn't involve "cheap lazy selfish narcissistic assholes who don't understand that their work is not nearly as original as they think it is."
Extrapolate from there.
I guess I'm also in the minority about shelling out $50 for what is essentially the same game. :)
I do agree that one of the good things about SC is that it is indeed a very deep game - the balance is good enough that there isn't just one strategy to rule them all, and the rock-paper-scissor units mean that every game plays differently, because someone decided to mix up his units a bit.
That said (and yes, I do realize I'm probably in the minority here), I've been waiting for three things in RTS games that I really haven't seen yet: interactive terrain, some real AI and a strategic approach to battles, rather than tactical. I was hoping SC 2 would bring those, but then again, I should have known better: Blizzard isn't known for major changes in its game series (though WC3 was markedly different from WC2), and it wouldn't dream of alienating its most important market: professional gamers in Korea.
Every example you brought up of how a new unit would change the way the game plays has already been in SC: dropships/overlords/protoss robot ships, units and counter-units, armor/damage types.... the videos in SC 2 can be analyzed in the exact same way SC videos are analyzed: what's the effect of one unit against another, how do we get around choke points and how do we build our bases for maximum defensive/offensive efficiency.
I'm convinced that there will be no major changes to how SC plays for one reason: professional players will leave the SC series for another game. This way, everyone who has invested his life into SC can pick up right where he left of with SC, and there is no reason to even look at another game.
Why do you think the game was revealed in Korea first? Because it is a game aimed at the Korean professional SC scene. Not only will the changes be incremental, but the impact will be incremental as well... I expect most SC strategies to be very nicely replicated in SC 2 (zerg single unit rush, protoss stealth and warp attacks, terran drops and hit and run). I like your comparison to Diablo, because Diablo 2 was indeed a very incremental change. Though its incremental change dealt with some massive flaws in Diablo (very few builds where viable in the end game, an environment that felt very flat, security of online play etc), which managed to put Diablo 2 in the realm of a great game. I'm not sure I see that here, as none of the issues in SC that I considered major (and here, I am generally in the minority) seem to be addressed: too much emphasis on micromanagement, an atrocious AI, openings that are very, very limited in scope, and a near-complete abscence of actual strategy (like supply lines).
I was hoping to see those things, but that's not to be.
Somebody mod this guy informative or insightful. :) This is pretty much my price point for SC right now.
Didn't buy Quake 2 after Quake 1.
;) ). I'm just saying that at this point, I'm thoroughly underwhelmed. And this is coming from someone who has been playing SC since day 1.
Didn't buy Total Annihilation, so I don't know.
Same for FF series, though I'd venture to say that RPGs are a bad example to bring up here.
I'm in the same boat with Halo 3.
Never bought GT2.
And Far Cry is Doom 2 with a better graphics engine? Have you played Doom 2? There's some real differences there.
Yes, I honestly think at this point that it'll be SC with a new veneer. I can even pick out the old strategies from the screenshots and video: warping for Protoss, single Protoss unit strength against sneakiness by Terrans and burrowing/numbers by Zerg.
My beef is that so far, it looks to play the same exact way SC did. When I fork over $50 for a game, I expect something new, rather than a graphics upgrade - especially in a game whose strength and playstyle is completely independent of its graphics. Take WCIII for example: the inclusion of heroes, a focus on small-group combat and actual 3D made for a very different game from both WC2 and SC. Strategies were vastly different, both on a combat and exploration level.
Yes, this is early - very early. Things can change. I remember that originally, SC was accused of being WC2 in space. It ended up being vastly more polished, with a much better mix of units and balance (though I still think that Terrans are the red-headed step children in any Blizzard world
If it's the same as Starcraft, why release a new game? I was hoping I'd get a new game, not what amounts to an expansion pack with a 3D graphics engine.
I have to admit, I'm terribly disappointed so far. From what little screenshots and descriptions there, it's basically Starcraft with new Units. The 3D seems to be strictly for graphical effects, as is the Physics engine. Quite frankly, it seems that they decided not to mess with a winning combination, and just updated the looks and units. Terrain and unit collisions seem identical (3 heights, height differences impassible for general units, units occupy their own space).
Mind you, it looks very pretty. But I'm getting the feeling that it is going to play almost exactly like Starcraft. And here I was hoping they'd go for a bit more realism - actual 3D terrain, units better proportioned, a tweak on manufacturing or the tech tree implementation.... ah hell, who am I kidding. This is the company that sold us Diablo in Warcraft World as a new game. It looks like we're getting Starcraft - in 3D! as a new game now. I suspect that Blizzard will soon find out that polish can carry a game only so far... at some point, it has to be interesting and an actual improvement over the original.
Namely, that we can exterminate the little buggers.
Here's the problem with an approach like that: any civilization, save the most pacifist ones, that is at least equal to you in firepower, can exterminate us just as easily. The benefits of trying to be friendly is that anything less than xenophobes on your scale could be influenced to accept us, regardless of their technological prowess. In other words, you've just increased your chance of finding a hospitable planet to live on.
Then there's the slight problem of reputation: if there are more civilizations out there, and word gets out we're sadistic buggers who exterminate anybody in our way, we might face some issues in keeping the planets we have.
Just because distances suddenly become interstellar does not mean that the basic calculations of regional politics have vanished. They simply have scaled up - in both risk as well as reward.
... they can refer to scientific research.
Read up, buttercup. Specifically, read the journal articles referenced there, or meander through the links and find an IPCC reference that discusses your point. Arguments from incredulity hold no water.
I see - I misunderstood your example.
The issue though is not that we do not have control planets for verifying the CO2 impact on temperature. Those are two different issues that are tied together via physical models.
We have two data sets: CO2 and temperature. Your example of eastern Canada having cyclic ice sheets is one data point in the larger data set of local temperatures from all over the world. As a result, it has little bearing on the data set of CO2 concentrations. It could have an impact on the link between the two, but now you're talking about one data point invalidating an entire data set that was used to establish that correlation. Which is not the right approach.
The FSM approach applied to Science. Or alternatively, that because some dude was wrong somewhere sometime, nothing is true.
Tell me: does your computer work by having little pixies magically move the dots on your screen?
Anecdote, meet data.
I agree that it is a handy reference list - just like about a million others there. It's nice though that it comes from a source whose main goal is not related to Global Climate Change. And yes, discussion and education about the basic principles influencing climates is important.
:)
However, in the context of slashdot, I haven't seen a new argument in about a year, with the lone exception being perhaps the impact of interstellar radiation on cloud formation. It seems the people left arguing against Global Climate Change simply refuse to even consider the possibility that they might be wrong. The old saw about leading a horse to water comes to mind.
Then again, I guess I could also just ignore the articles.
I'm a firm believer in verifying scientific claims, especially when they are used to drive policy on a global scale. I just think that a) the topic has been played out, and b) Climate change discussions on slashdot have moved from discussing the science behind it to silly flame wars (I know so, because I pretty much started one the last time around).
I seriously would like to put a moratorium on these stories until there are some new and credible theories that come up. Relinking to the same old arguments (both ways) does nothing to advance the discussion, or the knowledge of the topic.