Unfortuntately, Verant has never surprised me with their marketing moves. And by marketing moves, I mean "game-related decisions." Honestly when I played EQ it felt like every move they made was catered towards making money. They were the uber timesink, lvl=power game, a fading genre which I feel is better off dead.
Their EQ2 decision to allow for real-money transactions, and this SWG decision have only reinforced what I have long known to be true. Even Planetside, which had the ability to be an awesome niche game, was destroyed by their desire to make it more "fair", "playable", "newb-friendly", in a word "profitable."
As such, they want Kazaa masterminds Nikki Hemming and Kevin Bermeister to go to jail term.
Actually, they want no such thing.
From the article: Counsel for the record industry, Tony Bannon, said his side "didn't want" an imprisonment outcome, but argued that Sharman had failed to comply with the order.
One target is to install living computers in unmanned aircraft so they can be deployed on missions too dangerous for humans.
I think one question has to be asked here. First and foremost, I don't believe the US, or any other country for that matter, has even considered placing autonomous AI on combat-capable aircraft. Doing so would be of the utmost lunacy, and I fail to see how whether the brain is organic or a computer makes any difference in that. In fact, in the only missions I am aware of that the US is using fairly autonomous aircraft, the aircraft have a flight plan installed prior to takeoff, they are not armed, and, most importantly, the software used to control them ALREADY WORKS FINE.
Secondly, I think there is a dangerous undertone to the above passage from the article. We are growing other organisms so that we don't have to endanger human organisms. Certainly this is an unnecessary intrusion into the question of animal rights. Hell, I'm a hunter, fisher, and all-around PETA-hater, and even I see the fallacy here. I simply dont see the need to use organic brains, brains which, once complex enough to do more than just maintain level flight in an airplane, a task even a child could accomplish with ease, would quite possible be able to have some minor form of self-awareness, and, as a necessity, feel both positive and, most importantly, negative feedback (i.e. pain). What is wrong with the current state of computer-based AI, so much so that we must grow brains to replace them? I've played many a flight simulator, and I can tell you this: the AI's in most of them are HARD, and they are running on medium-end PCs with ease. Take one of these boys, put some experts on it for a few years, slap it on a top of the line dedicated computer, and you've probably got a pretty hotshot drone. Not only that, but you've got one that won't have any issues with morality, emotion, or the other baggage that comes with complex thought.
That is, assuming you actually are crazy enough to arm a completely autonomous vehicle...
Is it censorship to kick out the student of a private university for violating that university's honor code? One could argue that it would be just as deplorable to "censor" the university, a private organization. After all, while the student may have a right to express his viewpoint, the university does too. Slashdot doesn't post that many pro-Microsoft articles, yet I see a pro-linux/open source article almost once an hour. Is Slashdot censoring the pro-Microsoft crowd? Hardly, they are just expressing THEIR OWN viewpoint.
The bottom line is this: the student was not prohibited from expressing his viewpoint, and therefore it was NOT censorship. He is still free to post his blog, and still free to express a negative opinion about his professors, classmates, or anything else. The university only removed him from the student body, and in doing so enforced THEIR right to freedom of speech, in this case by saying that the student violated the honor code, and therefore was no longer welcome in their membership.
I fail to see your point.
You simply missed it. I wasn't arguing that politicians may or may not recieve benefits from their positions, but rather, that they will not, as the original poster put it, only "do what is best, for the government person's self or family or friends," but will, instead, generally do what is best for their constituents. They may do this simply to earn votes, or, most likely, out of a genuine desire to help, but if they want to remain in power, they will do it nonetheless. In the process, sure, they may benefit themselves, and they may benefit their friends, but I would argue that in most cases, this is not their sole motivation.
I'd take it a step further. Any elected official who does only "what is best, for the government person's self or family or friends," is an elected official who will soon be returning to private life. If you don't at least pretend to place society's goals above your own, to some degree or another, you will most likely not be reelected.
Consequently, we have programs like welfare. I doubt too many within the liberal elite have many friends or family among those who recieve aid from this program, yet it exists nonetheless. Why? Perhaps because Roosevelt was simply out looking for votes among the poor and minority categories. Perhaps because we simply like spending money. But I would bet that if you asked FDR why he implemented such a system, he'd tell you it was because he though it would help a lot of people, and likely people that he never met or knew. This isn't the only example, and anyone who fails to find them daily in government is someone who doesn't pay attention.
I am downloading the SWG Trial at 80kb/s on "high-speed" internet. And for the record, my cable modem was faster 4 years ago than it is today, on average. If we are making progress, it sure as hell isn't in the commercial sector.
But if you have to fight to the death, chances are at least one passenger is going to die as well. Personally, I'm willing to spend 10-15 minutes extra on the few times I fly than have to "fight to the death" a highly-devoted religious zealot who wants to kill me and doesn't care if it costs him his own life to do it.
We may have some deterrance in the terrorists knowing that any intelligent group of people would fight them tooth and nail before letting them have control of an aircraft, but think about it: The people on Flight 93 on 9/11 were willing to fight the terrorists, which they did. They may have saved thousands of lives by doing so, but it cost them their own lives and those of the rest of the passengers on the plane. Why would it not be worth answering a few simple questions to avoid that?
Most of the time I agree with the pro-privacy stuff brought up on Slashdot...most of the time. No fly lists are bad in my book simply because of the likelihood of error, let alone the privacy considerations. But come on, its not like you are REQUIRED to fly, and its not like they are doing a background check every time you hop on a jet. If you aren't a terrorist, and you aren't smuggling drugs, just say "no" and get on the plane. If you are, well, then not only are you an incredible moron for trying to get on a plane, but you DESERVE TO GET CAUGHT!
And for the record, they've been doing pretty much this exact thing for years now. Hasn't anyone ever asked you if your bags have been out of your possession before? Well, this is pretty much the same thing, except instead of relying on the judgement abilities of an underpaid airport employee, they are using a sophisticated computer to tell if you are lying.
I'll start worrying when they are strapping electrodes to my balls and running up a life history before I can hop in a car. But a little inconvenience at the airport is, for me at least, reassuring.
Thats just what we need, giving the courts even more control over our lives. In today's world, at least in America, people are all to ready to attempt to accomplish through the courts what they can't do through the legislature or on their own through such techniques as boycotting or simply speaking out.
If Sony violated a law, let them be held accountable. However, I'm not so sure that they did (although, not being a lawyer, I can't say for sure). If they didn't, lets leave the courts out for once.
If you wan't to make a change, do it the way democracy is supposed to be done: by contacting your elected officials and telling them that you don't like this, and they should do something about it. If that doesn't work, launch a boycott, using the internet or whatever else you can think of to get the word out.
While I am certainly as outraged as the rest of us as to the intrusiveness and poor (not to mention psuedolegal) practice employed by Sony in this regard, I think there is a positive that could arise from this. DRM had the potential to be employed slowly, behind the scenes, and if done in this manner, a frightening age could have befallen us. As it is, it appears Sony has actually provided the best, if not necessarily the first, legal argument AGAINST DRM. This incident has the possibility to expose DRM to the masses, not as a hated-but-necessary step in the progression of digital technology, but as an unthinkable encroachment into the rights of consumers. This could very well set back the progression of DRM for years to come, and if more companies adopt similar "protections", we could very well see legislation that would very well stop practices like this once and for all (well, perhaps thats a bit optimistic). I for one am grateful to Sony for giving us the legal and moral high ground necessary to fight this fight beyond the borders of our techie world.
Thank you mr. flibuste, for providing yet another example of French elitism at its best.
Perhaps the greatest distinction of propaganda is that it often relies on a distorted or dogmatic viewpoint that only tells one side of a story, and often does it without evidence. Last time I watched Fox new or CNN, they definantly discussed the riots. They also analyzed them (and yes, there were opposing viewpoints), their histories, and many of the programs and situations that experts believe could have led to this. They also cited specific examples. So please, before you go waving your nose in the air about an issue you clearly have not researched, indeed, before you start sprouting anti-CNN and anti-Fox News propaganda, do a little reasearch.
I have no pity for the French, nor do any of my "neighbors." If you ask me, I'd say let the country burn. Then, when France has been taken over for the umpteenth (how many times has it been?) time (and this time by children, no less), the U.S., this big, evil, self-centered and selfish tyrannical beast, will rear its ugly head and not only save France once more, but provide aid and help.
Maybe they are telling us this because the government really ISN'T the Consipiracy Theory, Enemy of the State bad guy that everyone thinks it is? Perhaps there really are a few people in government, people we elected, that actually care about freedom and democracy?
This country seems to have developed a liberal Hollywood view of the government in recent years. Crackpots like Michael Moore definantly don't do much to help people get a realistic look either. When one steps back and really looks at the big picture, they will soon realize that while there may be a fair helping of scandal in the government, our elected officials really aren't out making secret deals with the terrorists, the communists, and the aliens. Most of what I hear time and again spouted off in this forum seems to border on pure paranoia, without much more than a smattering of purely circumstantial evidence.
Lets face it, things really aren't as covert and intentionally misleading as they appear. Everything except for the moon landing, that is. We all know that shit is fake.
So let me get this straight.
We now have the fair use doctrine, which is supposed to be a consumer protection that should, in theory, allow for personal modification of fairly and legally purchased material (including software).
We also have the DMCA, which expressly forbids modifying such software if one has to bypass a security device to do so.
And now we have a precedent saying that personal modification of software is legal.
Good thing we've got all this cleared up...
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't, which is why I never made that claim.
Unfortuntately, Verant has never surprised me with their marketing moves. And by marketing moves, I mean "game-related decisions." Honestly when I played EQ it felt like every move they made was catered towards making money. They were the uber timesink, lvl=power game, a fading genre which I feel is better off dead. Their EQ2 decision to allow for real-money transactions, and this SWG decision have only reinforced what I have long known to be true. Even Planetside, which had the ability to be an awesome niche game, was destroyed by their desire to make it more "fair", "playable", "newb-friendly", in a word "profitable."
As such, they want Kazaa masterminds Nikki Hemming and Kevin Bermeister to go to jail term.
Actually, they want no such thing.
From the article:
Counsel for the record industry, Tony Bannon, said his side "didn't want" an imprisonment outcome, but argued that Sharman had failed to comply with the order.
One target is to install living computers in unmanned aircraft so they can be deployed on missions too dangerous for humans.
I think one question has to be asked here. First and foremost, I don't believe the US, or any other country for that matter, has even considered placing autonomous AI on combat-capable aircraft. Doing so would be of the utmost lunacy, and I fail to see how whether the brain is organic or a computer makes any difference in that. In fact, in the only missions I am aware of that the US is using fairly autonomous aircraft, the aircraft have a flight plan installed prior to takeoff, they are not armed, and, most importantly, the software used to control them ALREADY WORKS FINE.
Secondly, I think there is a dangerous undertone to the above passage from the article. We are growing other organisms so that we don't have to endanger human organisms. Certainly this is an unnecessary intrusion into the question of animal rights. Hell, I'm a hunter, fisher, and all-around PETA-hater, and even I see the fallacy here. I simply dont see the need to use organic brains, brains which, once complex enough to do more than just maintain level flight in an airplane, a task even a child could accomplish with ease, would quite possible be able to have some minor form of self-awareness, and, as a necessity, feel both positive and, most importantly, negative feedback (i.e. pain). What is wrong with the current state of computer-based AI, so much so that we must grow brains to replace them? I've played many a flight simulator, and I can tell you this: the AI's in most of them are HARD, and they are running on medium-end PCs with ease. Take one of these boys, put some experts on it for a few years, slap it on a top of the line dedicated computer, and you've probably got a pretty hotshot drone. Not only that, but you've got one that won't have any issues with morality, emotion, or the other baggage that comes with complex thought.
That is, assuming you actually are crazy enough to arm a completely autonomous vehicle...
Is it censorship to kick out the student of a private university for violating that university's honor code? One could argue that it would be just as deplorable to "censor" the university, a private organization. After all, while the student may have a right to express his viewpoint, the university does too. Slashdot doesn't post that many pro-Microsoft articles, yet I see a pro-linux/open source article almost once an hour. Is Slashdot censoring the pro-Microsoft crowd? Hardly, they are just expressing THEIR OWN viewpoint.
The bottom line is this: the student was not prohibited from expressing his viewpoint, and therefore it was NOT censorship. He is still free to post his blog, and still free to express a negative opinion about his professors, classmates, or anything else. The university only removed him from the student body, and in doing so enforced THEIR right to freedom of speech, in this case by saying that the student violated the honor code, and therefore was no longer welcome in their membership.
I fail to see your point. You simply missed it. I wasn't arguing that politicians may or may not recieve benefits from their positions, but rather, that they will not, as the original poster put it, only "do what is best, for the government person's self or family or friends," but will, instead, generally do what is best for their constituents. They may do this simply to earn votes, or, most likely, out of a genuine desire to help, but if they want to remain in power, they will do it nonetheless. In the process, sure, they may benefit themselves, and they may benefit their friends, but I would argue that in most cases, this is not their sole motivation.
I'd take it a step further. Any elected official who does only "what is best, for the government person's self or family or friends," is an elected official who will soon be returning to private life. If you don't at least pretend to place society's goals above your own, to some degree or another, you will most likely not be reelected.
Consequently, we have programs like welfare. I doubt too many within the liberal elite have many friends or family among those who recieve aid from this program, yet it exists nonetheless. Why? Perhaps because Roosevelt was simply out looking for votes among the poor and minority categories. Perhaps because we simply like spending money. But I would bet that if you asked FDR why he implemented such a system, he'd tell you it was because he though it would help a lot of people, and likely people that he never met or knew. This isn't the only example, and anyone who fails to find them daily in government is someone who doesn't pay attention.
I am downloading the SWG Trial at 80kb/s on "high-speed" internet. And for the record, my cable modem was faster 4 years ago than it is today, on average. If we are making progress, it sure as hell isn't in the commercial sector.
But if you have to fight to the death, chances are at least one passenger is going to die as well. Personally, I'm willing to spend 10-15 minutes extra on the few times I fly than have to "fight to the death" a highly-devoted religious zealot who wants to kill me and doesn't care if it costs him his own life to do it. We may have some deterrance in the terrorists knowing that any intelligent group of people would fight them tooth and nail before letting them have control of an aircraft, but think about it: The people on Flight 93 on 9/11 were willing to fight the terrorists, which they did. They may have saved thousands of lives by doing so, but it cost them their own lives and those of the rest of the passengers on the plane. Why would it not be worth answering a few simple questions to avoid that? Most of the time I agree with the pro-privacy stuff brought up on Slashdot...most of the time. No fly lists are bad in my book simply because of the likelihood of error, let alone the privacy considerations. But come on, its not like you are REQUIRED to fly, and its not like they are doing a background check every time you hop on a jet. If you aren't a terrorist, and you aren't smuggling drugs, just say "no" and get on the plane. If you are, well, then not only are you an incredible moron for trying to get on a plane, but you DESERVE TO GET CAUGHT! And for the record, they've been doing pretty much this exact thing for years now. Hasn't anyone ever asked you if your bags have been out of your possession before? Well, this is pretty much the same thing, except instead of relying on the judgement abilities of an underpaid airport employee, they are using a sophisticated computer to tell if you are lying. I'll start worrying when they are strapping electrodes to my balls and running up a life history before I can hop in a car. But a little inconvenience at the airport is, for me at least, reassuring.
Thats just what we need, giving the courts even more control over our lives. In today's world, at least in America, people are all to ready to attempt to accomplish through the courts what they can't do through the legislature or on their own through such techniques as boycotting or simply speaking out. If Sony violated a law, let them be held accountable. However, I'm not so sure that they did (although, not being a lawyer, I can't say for sure). If they didn't, lets leave the courts out for once. If you wan't to make a change, do it the way democracy is supposed to be done: by contacting your elected officials and telling them that you don't like this, and they should do something about it. If that doesn't work, launch a boycott, using the internet or whatever else you can think of to get the word out.
While I am certainly as outraged as the rest of us as to the intrusiveness and poor (not to mention psuedolegal) practice employed by Sony in this regard, I think there is a positive that could arise from this. DRM had the potential to be employed slowly, behind the scenes, and if done in this manner, a frightening age could have befallen us. As it is, it appears Sony has actually provided the best, if not necessarily the first, legal argument AGAINST DRM. This incident has the possibility to expose DRM to the masses, not as a hated-but-necessary step in the progression of digital technology, but as an unthinkable encroachment into the rights of consumers. This could very well set back the progression of DRM for years to come, and if more companies adopt similar "protections", we could very well see legislation that would very well stop practices like this once and for all (well, perhaps thats a bit optimistic). I for one am grateful to Sony for giving us the legal and moral high ground necessary to fight this fight beyond the borders of our techie world.
Thank you mr. flibuste, for providing yet another example of French elitism at its best. Perhaps the greatest distinction of propaganda is that it often relies on a distorted or dogmatic viewpoint that only tells one side of a story, and often does it without evidence. Last time I watched Fox new or CNN, they definantly discussed the riots. They also analyzed them (and yes, there were opposing viewpoints), their histories, and many of the programs and situations that experts believe could have led to this. They also cited specific examples. So please, before you go waving your nose in the air about an issue you clearly have not researched, indeed, before you start sprouting anti-CNN and anti-Fox News propaganda, do a little reasearch. I have no pity for the French, nor do any of my "neighbors." If you ask me, I'd say let the country burn. Then, when France has been taken over for the umpteenth (how many times has it been?) time (and this time by children, no less), the U.S., this big, evil, self-centered and selfish tyrannical beast, will rear its ugly head and not only save France once more, but provide aid and help.
Maybe they are telling us this because the government really ISN'T the Consipiracy Theory, Enemy of the State bad guy that everyone thinks it is? Perhaps there really are a few people in government, people we elected, that actually care about freedom and democracy? This country seems to have developed a liberal Hollywood view of the government in recent years. Crackpots like Michael Moore definantly don't do much to help people get a realistic look either. When one steps back and really looks at the big picture, they will soon realize that while there may be a fair helping of scandal in the government, our elected officials really aren't out making secret deals with the terrorists, the communists, and the aliens. Most of what I hear time and again spouted off in this forum seems to border on pure paranoia, without much more than a smattering of purely circumstantial evidence. Lets face it, things really aren't as covert and intentionally misleading as they appear. Everything except for the moon landing, that is. We all know that shit is fake.
So let me get this straight. We now have the fair use doctrine, which is supposed to be a consumer protection that should, in theory, allow for personal modification of fairly and legally purchased material (including software). We also have the DMCA, which expressly forbids modifying such software if one has to bypass a security device to do so. And now we have a precedent saying that personal modification of software is legal. Good thing we've got all this cleared up...