Now, I don't know much about how Warner "ordered" youtube to pull the videos, but whatever the case, I'm not sure they have the authority to do so. One of youtube's legal defenses to having copyrighted materials on youtube is that they don't know who posts videos. Indeed, it could be the copyright holder. If any of Warner's artists have a contract where they have any distribution rights over their videos, they have a right to post their own videos, and warner cannot pull them off. Indeed, depending on what authority Warner is using, this could potentially be a DMCA violation and against the law for Warner to make such a demand. Now, that's speculation on my part, but it is almost certainly true that Warner cannot make a blanket order to remove all videos of their artists.
to be clear on this as well, under 17 usc 512(f), anyone who knowingly materially misrepresents a claim under the DMCA is liable for any damages, includign attorney's fees. So it is a bad idea to make a false claim under the DMCA.
just to be clear...you are correct, DMCA claims can be contested. Actually, under 17 USC 512 (c), the internet service provider (here youtube), after receiving a notice of the potentially infringing material must respond expiditiously to remove the material. However, the ISP must also send notice to the person who had placed the recording on youtube, under 512(g). Then, if that person sends counter notice to whoever sent the first request for removal, the ISP must put the potentially infringing material back on line unless the first person files a court action. If the person files a court action, then the material will be removed until after it. If the first person does not, then the material should be placed back online, i believe.
I must admit, I'm torn up about the episode. Part of me loves it. That was the absolutly most dramatic way it could end. Tony getting out of the business would have been sappy, overdone, and (I think) not in line with the rest of the show. Tony and the family getting killed would have been expected, overly dramatic, and not really in line with the rest of the show. But the way it did end was like "well, that's it..." with an elipsis. Just like the show has always been, an elipsis. No conclusions. No TV drama. It, more than most shows, did not cave in to television/movie conventions. It was not a story about a TV family; it was a story about a 'real' family. Yours or mine. This one just happens to be a mafia family, but its really not so different from anyone elses. And it ends in the in a very 'realistic' way: that is to say, it doesn't. As the last words in the episode say: "Don't stop..." Our minds fill in the "believin'."
So I loved the ending, right? well, yes I did. But at the same time, I think it was a little bit of a cop out. This was probably the easiest way for the writters to end the serries: without doing anything. Indeed, they build all that tension in the final scene (more on that in a second), but then the show ends before even a hint of a payoff. Again, I get it. And part of me really likes it. But as realistic as this is...as much of a docudrama about an american family it is, it is still a television show. And we, as faithful viewers need some closure. Instead we get a/shrug "who knows" sort of ending. And a "wait till we cash in on a movie we say we aren't going to make, but then do when everyone wants another paycheck." So, on that level, it annoys me just a bit.
But I still loved it. When the show ended, I said, out loud, "What the f***!" I honestly thought my TiVo didn't record everything. It was an amazing, gut reaction. It will be remembered.
Now, a few quick points. I don't think that Tony dies after the black out. First, that is the TV drama ending that everyone expects. And, as we have seen, Sopranos does not give you what you expect. Second, it doesnt seem to fit with the "Families don't get hurt" stuff and the resolutions made in the final episode. Still, there was all that tension in the final scene. What I think that is is the life that Tony lives and will always live: there will always be that threat out there. So, the final scene is filled with tension. How much suspense can be built from Meadow trying to park a car? Holy crap! But its all a red herring. Its there but it isn't there. We see the suspicious guy sitting at the bar. We see the suspicious guy with the hat. But that doesn't mean they are killers. The point is: they could be... in the life of Tony. The threat is there but it is not there. Families don't go to war now. The real threat in Tony's life is from the upcomming indictments, not the guy at the bar. But Tony will be forever suspicious. So, he will always raise his head when someone comes in the door, just in case. In case it is a killer or a FBI. Who knows?
But what about the 5 or so seconds of black without any music? Good question. It could signify death, but I think that is too obvious. I think this is the 'the series is over' queue, not the 'the family is over' queue. It was like lowing the curtain and the lights. The play is done. What happens happens. Life goes on, but the Sopranos show is done. There are stories that will never be told... and they will be more stories of a family just like yours and mine. Music would have suggested a continuance--some sort of resolution. Instead you have none--just like life. In life there aren't resolutions. There is just life.
So yea, I was frustrated by the episode. And I wish that there were answers. But this ending was amazing nevertheless. I am sure that people will disagree with me, but that is just another reason the episode was so great: it leads to coversations.
Does anyone know how this cloak was authenticated? The only reason I ask is because if it was lost for 30 years and then rented out to other studios, it seems that said cloak could have easily been misplaced, replaced, taken by someone to give to his/her kid, etc. I'm not saying that it ISN'T the real thing... and I'm certain that there was authentication, but I'm just curious if anyone out there knows how it was done. I ask because its my understanding that in like the art world, there is a lot of forgery going around a lot of the time, and they have very strict authentication standards. I'm curious if the same is true for amazingly famous movie props.
I have to say, I love having my laptop in school. I am currently a law student in my second year, and have been using my laptop to take notes in every class and write every exam since I started. And I love it. My handwriting is very bad, gets much worse as I am rushed and nervous (like class can make you), and have always had difficutly taking notes in class. But no more. Now I usually try to type down everything the professor says that I feel is important and I go over my notes within a few days and pull out what is important. Then I take that and put it into a collection of everything that is important (what most law students would call their "class outline."). Furthermore, now when I take an exam, my professor can actually read my answer, as opposed to the past when my "chicken scratch" surely gave more than one headache. Its great. Now, I never use my computer for non-class purposes while actually in class (honestly), but a lot of my fellow students do--at least a little bit. And professors don't like it much when people are surfing instead of paying attention. But if they took away my ability to use my laptop, I would be screwed. I simply not be able to keep up and perform as well as I know that I can without it. Of course, I realize that I am very different than an 8th grader, and my commitment to using my laptop for school purposes/professional attitude is probably much stronger, but I still think that younger students can benefit from using the computer. (I have suffered from a congenital tremor for my entire school career which makes my hands shake and consequently my penmanship extremely bad and--again--taking notes/exam writing difficult). The simple solution is not allow wireless access to the students. Sure that won't solve everything, but it is a start. Then, of course, you could simply take away their ability to use their computers if they screw around. So I obviously agree with anyone who points out that limiting access to the wireless is a good idea. Whatever is done, I think that the computers should stay because I think they could really help a lot of kids.
to answer one thing that might come up in replies to this post (if anyone reads it and feels so inclined). I will not necessarily be screwed when I take the BAR exam. Some states already allow people to take it on computer and more are on the way. And yes, I plan to take the BAR on my computer. And if I can't for some reason... well.. we will deal with that when it happens.:)
It was at Oberlin College in Ohio. They have something there called the "ExCo"--the expiramental college. In it, students create and teach classes. Obviously, seriousness and commitment varies widely, but the Starcraft class that I took was actually very demanding. We had lecture (strategy, techniques, attack patterns, etc.) followed by practical application (i.e. playing) and it was difficult to master all of the things that we were taught. It was edu-tainment at its finest.
To be clear... I didn't say that I don't complain. I do. So I'm not sure that I "make it bad for everyone else who does complain and try to get their money's worth." I think that's a little unfair/harsh, don't you. But I'm not going to cancel my account because the server is down. You see, WoW is AMAZINGLY FUN and some hardware issues are not going to make me quit unless they were literally all the time (which they are not).
Well, maybe not an addict so much as a user and ocassional abuser. Yes, despite the continual annoyances of crashing servers and obnoxious players, Blizzard has my monthly $15. And I'm perfectly happy with that. I remember first playing the original Warcraft so long ago and Blizzard had me at "work work work." (If you don't get the reference, I'm sorry...). And Starcraft is still one of the best games I've ever played. I even took a starcraft strategy class in college--for credit! The thing that I really feel that Blizzard does better than perhaps any video game company out there is that they are not caught up in the push to release things too fast. It seems to me that artificially set release dates and production times are often extremely destructive to the final product. (Consider the film industry too--how often do movies look like they needed extra time to be just right). But Blizzard is not afraid to delay their final product so that it is as ENJOYABLE as possible. Think about how long it was before Warcraft III was released. And Starcraft: Ghost has been pushed back indefinatly, last I heard. And it is all in the quest for perfection. And I love that. They are not afraid to wait and make the product that they envision. Sadly, the waits can be painful, but to this date the end product has always been worth it.
As far as Sony's obsession with proprietary formats goes, I am still amazed that they haven't yet given up on the MiniDisk. I've known exactly one person who ever owned a MD player, and beyond my own experience, it has never seemed to catch on beyond the "hey, those little disks are cute" phase. But still, Sony just won't let it die. I can't say that I fully understand. Especially today with the current MP3 player madness. I wonder if Blue-Ray will be similar. It may catch on in the computer market (especially for backing up purposes), and it has the PS3 to force it into the hands of gamers (albeit, those with a spare $600 laying around), but I can't tell if its ever going to catch on as widely as plain old DVD (or even HD-DVD). And if it doesn't, I wonder if Sony will jump ship this time... some how I doubt it. I would expect blue-ray to be around even if it isn't popular. Who knows, tho... we shall see
First, I just have to write that I really miss good, old fashioned 2D games. Sure, there may be a bit of a rebirth of the genre, but nothing with the shear fun/greatness of those old Konami games (the up, up, down, down crowd) like Contra and Lifeforce. Does anyone else remeber Rush 'n Attack? That game was awesome, and all you did was run and stab. A game company could never make something like that now adays. Gamers everywhere would say "what, only 1 knife? And no camo changes? And what's with all the lineral movement?"
But I digress. Part of me actually likes the idea of an episodic game. Not only does it allow a company to develop a game and its story over time. But it also allows the designers to correct gameplay issues or shortcommings as they develop. The Gamer effectively becomes a test market. As much as Blizzard annoys me with their constant server screw-ups often related to patches and tinkering with their systems, I do love the fact that WoW is continually developing. When weaknesses are shown, they can be fixed.
At the same time, another part of me I really doesn't like the idea of episodic gaming. Do you have to buy all of the episodes to play one? What if I get to the game late, do I have to start from the beginning? Or what if I just don't want to shell out the $15 some month? My WoW fee annoys me enough, but this seems somehow even more insideous. It could be like those micro-payment systems that are comming around that are designed to get people comfortable with many small payments, rather than just one big initial payment for the game. And in the end you spend more than you ever would have initially. Somehow WoW's subscription fee feels less creapy to me...
I guess I just don't know... we shall see...
It seems to me that the.xxx distinction would be a little like a scarlet letter to slap on a porn site so the whole world will be told a)that the people who run it are perverts and b)that who ever visits the site is a pervert without even having to find out what the site is..xxx = bad. Who knows how long after that then.xxx start being banned by ISPs. And then what, give Deomcrat and Republican websites disctinctions of.dem and.rep. And then how long after that might an ISP block access to one or the other because of the political leanings of the owner. And since it is far to easy to track a person's movement on the net, how fast will a catalog of users who visit.xxx (or.dem or.rep) sites be developed and exploited. Any regulation of the net scares me. Any attempt to ostrasize and/or single out on class scares me. Especially when it has to do with out freedom of speech, something which must be protected.
The first thing I thought of was "Mr. Fusion." If it doesn't make sense, go back and watch Back to the Future I and II. Second, now all we have to do is make the world ACTUALLY REALIZE that we need to embrace alternate fuel sources, rather than just playing lip service to the idea, then going back and drilling holes in the sand. I honestly think that that is just as important as developing the methods themselves. Sadly, I fear that most of us have trouble seeing past the immediate and I fear that a lot of people talk about alternate fuel sources because it sounds good, its en vogue. Who knows, though.... hopefully I'm wrong.
Almost daily I am made more sad and more scared about the future of the internet. The internet is, without a doubt, the single greatest example of the poor-man's printing press of all time. And it seems almost daily that another challenge is issued trying to regulate it in the interest of "protection." But these people, out lawmakers, never, ever, ever, see the slipperty slope. They can't see beyond their own noses, beyond what is happening today and what ripple effects that a regulation on the internet could have. Start with a regulation on what people can look at where, and when does it stop? That is just the wedge to allow them to have some control, to allow them to work their way in ever further. And what is more, much proposed regulation is driven by lobbists for mega-corps that see vast fortunes that can be made if they control access to the internet. I realize that I'm sounding a little like a recent South Park episode, but perhaps that is a good thing. They were right to say that the first step toward censorship is a small one. I realize that there are "dangers" out there on the internet. I realize that parents are scared for their children. But the answer is not to put a Band-Aid on it and regulate the 'net. I am saddened and scared.
First... the word revolution is nearly impossible to pronounce by the Japanese. That means Nintendo (a Japanese company) would have to deal with that either by forcing Japanese people to pronounce 'Ls' or by significantly changing the name. Of course, that's not unheard of. But the word Wii is pronounceable pretty much by anyone.
Second... the word 'Ii' is one way to say yes in Japanese.
Third... this stays exactly in line with the "revolution" name by being a revolution unto itself. Game systems (especially recently) have had more aggressive, more game system sound-ish names. Xbox, playstation, genesis, saturn, dreamcast. Wii is totally different. Wii sounds like nothing you've heard of... one of the ideas behind the revolution itself.
Fourth... does anyone else remeber way back when what people said about the name "Nintendo." I do. I think it was something to the extent of: "what the hell is that?" Well, here Nintendo goes again. And I for one like it
Today... Google Maps. Tomorrow... GOOGLE DEATH RAY!!!! Blast your enemies with lasers from the sky!!! $19.95 for 3 blasts/per month or sign up for GOOGLE DEATH RAY PLATINUM and get UNLIMITED USES!!!!
I'm a little scared...:)
Out of curiosity... at that price (which is totally insane), is there a reason that everyone in Canada doesn't just buy their blank CDs on ebay? I don't know very much about Canada's tax laws, and it would be great if someone could shed some light on this.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, I don't know much about how Warner "ordered" youtube to pull the videos, but whatever the case, I'm not sure they have the authority to do so. One of youtube's legal defenses to having copyrighted materials on youtube is that they don't know who posts videos. Indeed, it could be the copyright holder. If any of Warner's artists have a contract where they have any distribution rights over their videos, they have a right to post their own videos, and warner cannot pull them off. Indeed, depending on what authority Warner is using, this could potentially be a DMCA violation and against the law for Warner to make such a demand. Now, that's speculation on my part, but it is almost certainly true that Warner cannot make a blanket order to remove all videos of their artists.
to be clear on this as well, under 17 usc 512(f), anyone who knowingly materially misrepresents a claim under the DMCA is liable for any damages, includign attorney's fees. So it is a bad idea to make a false claim under the DMCA.
just to be clear...you are correct, DMCA claims can be contested. Actually, under 17 USC 512 (c), the internet service provider (here youtube), after receiving a notice of the potentially infringing material must respond expiditiously to remove the material. However, the ISP must also send notice to the person who had placed the recording on youtube, under 512(g). Then, if that person sends counter notice to whoever sent the first request for removal, the ISP must put the potentially infringing material back on line unless the first person files a court action. If the person files a court action, then the material will be removed until after it. If the first person does not, then the material should be placed back online, i believe.
I must admit, I'm torn up about the episode. Part of me loves it. That was the absolutly most dramatic way it could end. Tony getting out of the business would have been sappy, overdone, and (I think) not in line with the rest of the show. Tony and the family getting killed would have been expected, overly dramatic, and not really in line with the rest of the show. But the way it did end was like "well, that's it..." with an elipsis. Just like the show has always been, an elipsis. No conclusions. No TV drama. It, more than most shows, did not cave in to television/movie conventions. It was not a story about a TV family; it was a story about a 'real' family. Yours or mine. This one just happens to be a mafia family, but its really not so different from anyone elses. And it ends in the in a very 'realistic' way: that is to say, it doesn't. As the last words in the episode say: "Don't stop..." Our minds fill in the "believin'."
/shrug "who knows" sort of ending. And a "wait till we cash in on a movie we say we aren't going to make, but then do when everyone wants another paycheck." So, on that level, it annoys me just a bit.
So I loved the ending, right? well, yes I did. But at the same time, I think it was a little bit of a cop out. This was probably the easiest way for the writters to end the serries: without doing anything. Indeed, they build all that tension in the final scene (more on that in a second), but then the show ends before even a hint of a payoff. Again, I get it. And part of me really likes it. But as realistic as this is...as much of a docudrama about an american family it is, it is still a television show. And we, as faithful viewers need some closure. Instead we get a
But I still loved it. When the show ended, I said, out loud, "What the f***!" I honestly thought my TiVo didn't record everything. It was an amazing, gut reaction. It will be remembered.
Now, a few quick points. I don't think that Tony dies after the black out. First, that is the TV drama ending that everyone expects. And, as we have seen, Sopranos does not give you what you expect. Second, it doesnt seem to fit with the "Families don't get hurt" stuff and the resolutions made in the final episode. Still, there was all that tension in the final scene. What I think that is is the life that Tony lives and will always live: there will always be that threat out there. So, the final scene is filled with tension. How much suspense can be built from Meadow trying to park a car? Holy crap! But its all a red herring. Its there but it isn't there. We see the suspicious guy sitting at the bar. We see the suspicious guy with the hat. But that doesn't mean they are killers. The point is: they could be... in the life of Tony. The threat is there but it is not there. Families don't go to war now. The real threat in Tony's life is from the upcomming indictments, not the guy at the bar. But Tony will be forever suspicious. So, he will always raise his head when someone comes in the door, just in case. In case it is a killer or a FBI. Who knows?
But what about the 5 or so seconds of black without any music? Good question. It could signify death, but I think that is too obvious. I think this is the 'the series is over' queue, not the 'the family is over' queue. It was like lowing the curtain and the lights. The play is done. What happens happens. Life goes on, but the Sopranos show is done. There are stories that will never be told... and they will be more stories of a family just like yours and mine. Music would have suggested a continuance--some sort of resolution. Instead you have none--just like life. In life there aren't resolutions. There is just life.
So yea, I was frustrated by the episode. And I wish that there were answers. But this ending was amazing nevertheless. I am sure that people will disagree with me, but that is just another reason the episode was so great: it leads to coversations.
Does anyone know how this cloak was authenticated? The only reason I ask is because if it was lost for 30 years and then rented out to other studios, it seems that said cloak could have easily been misplaced, replaced, taken by someone to give to his/her kid, etc. I'm not saying that it ISN'T the real thing... and I'm certain that there was authentication, but I'm just curious if anyone out there knows how it was done. I ask because its my understanding that in like the art world, there is a lot of forgery going around a lot of the time, and they have very strict authentication standards. I'm curious if the same is true for amazingly famous movie props.
I have to say, I love having my laptop in school. I am currently a law student in my second year, and have been using my laptop to take notes in every class and write every exam since I started. And I love it. My handwriting is very bad, gets much worse as I am rushed and nervous (like class can make you), and have always had difficutly taking notes in class. But no more. Now I usually try to type down everything the professor says that I feel is important and I go over my notes within a few days and pull out what is important. Then I take that and put it into a collection of everything that is important (what most law students would call their "class outline."). Furthermore, now when I take an exam, my professor can actually read my answer, as opposed to the past when my "chicken scratch" surely gave more than one headache. Its great. Now, I never use my computer for non-class purposes while actually in class (honestly), but a lot of my fellow students do--at least a little bit. And professors don't like it much when people are surfing instead of paying attention. But if they took away my ability to use my laptop, I would be screwed. I simply not be able to keep up and perform as well as I know that I can without it. Of course, I realize that I am very different than an 8th grader, and my commitment to using my laptop for school purposes/professional attitude is probably much stronger, but I still think that younger students can benefit from using the computer. (I have suffered from a congenital tremor for my entire school career which makes my hands shake and consequently my penmanship extremely bad and--again--taking notes/exam writing difficult). The simple solution is not allow wireless access to the students. Sure that won't solve everything, but it is a start. Then, of course, you could simply take away their ability to use their computers if they screw around. So I obviously agree with anyone who points out that limiting access to the wireless is a good idea. Whatever is done, I think that the computers should stay because I think they could really help a lot of kids. to answer one thing that might come up in replies to this post (if anyone reads it and feels so inclined). I will not necessarily be screwed when I take the BAR exam. Some states already allow people to take it on computer and more are on the way. And yes, I plan to take the BAR on my computer. And if I can't for some reason... well.. we will deal with that when it happens. :)
It was at Oberlin College in Ohio. They have something there called the "ExCo"--the expiramental college. In it, students create and teach classes. Obviously, seriousness and commitment varies widely, but the Starcraft class that I took was actually very demanding. We had lecture (strategy, techniques, attack patterns, etc.) followed by practical application (i.e. playing) and it was difficult to master all of the things that we were taught. It was edu-tainment at its finest.
To be clear... I didn't say that I don't complain. I do. So I'm not sure that I "make it bad for everyone else who does complain and try to get their money's worth." I think that's a little unfair/harsh, don't you. But I'm not going to cancel my account because the server is down. You see, WoW is AMAZINGLY FUN and some hardware issues are not going to make me quit unless they were literally all the time (which they are not).
Well, maybe not an addict so much as a user and ocassional abuser. Yes, despite the continual annoyances of crashing servers and obnoxious players, Blizzard has my monthly $15. And I'm perfectly happy with that. I remember first playing the original Warcraft so long ago and Blizzard had me at "work work work." (If you don't get the reference, I'm sorry...). And Starcraft is still one of the best games I've ever played. I even took a starcraft strategy class in college--for credit! The thing that I really feel that Blizzard does better than perhaps any video game company out there is that they are not caught up in the push to release things too fast. It seems to me that artificially set release dates and production times are often extremely destructive to the final product. (Consider the film industry too--how often do movies look like they needed extra time to be just right). But Blizzard is not afraid to delay their final product so that it is as ENJOYABLE as possible. Think about how long it was before Warcraft III was released. And Starcraft: Ghost has been pushed back indefinatly, last I heard. And it is all in the quest for perfection. And I love that. They are not afraid to wait and make the product that they envision. Sadly, the waits can be painful, but to this date the end product has always been worth it.
As far as Sony's obsession with proprietary formats goes, I am still amazed that they haven't yet given up on the MiniDisk. I've known exactly one person who ever owned a MD player, and beyond my own experience, it has never seemed to catch on beyond the "hey, those little disks are cute" phase. But still, Sony just won't let it die. I can't say that I fully understand. Especially today with the current MP3 player madness. I wonder if Blue-Ray will be similar. It may catch on in the computer market (especially for backing up purposes), and it has the PS3 to force it into the hands of gamers (albeit, those with a spare $600 laying around), but I can't tell if its ever going to catch on as widely as plain old DVD (or even HD-DVD). And if it doesn't, I wonder if Sony will jump ship this time... some how I doubt it. I would expect blue-ray to be around even if it isn't popular. Who knows, tho... we shall see
First, I just have to write that I really miss good, old fashioned 2D games. Sure, there may be a bit of a rebirth of the genre, but nothing with the shear fun/greatness of those old Konami games (the up, up, down, down crowd) like Contra and Lifeforce. Does anyone else remeber Rush 'n Attack? That game was awesome, and all you did was run and stab. A game company could never make something like that now adays. Gamers everywhere would say "what, only 1 knife? And no camo changes? And what's with all the lineral movement?" But I digress. Part of me actually likes the idea of an episodic game. Not only does it allow a company to develop a game and its story over time. But it also allows the designers to correct gameplay issues or shortcommings as they develop. The Gamer effectively becomes a test market. As much as Blizzard annoys me with their constant server screw-ups often related to patches and tinkering with their systems, I do love the fact that WoW is continually developing. When weaknesses are shown, they can be fixed. At the same time, another part of me I really doesn't like the idea of episodic gaming. Do you have to buy all of the episodes to play one? What if I get to the game late, do I have to start from the beginning? Or what if I just don't want to shell out the $15 some month? My WoW fee annoys me enough, but this seems somehow even more insideous. It could be like those micro-payment systems that are comming around that are designed to get people comfortable with many small payments, rather than just one big initial payment for the game. And in the end you spend more than you ever would have initially. Somehow WoW's subscription fee feels less creapy to me... I guess I just don't know... we shall see...
It seems to me that the .xxx distinction would be a little like a scarlet letter to slap on a porn site so the whole world will be told a)that the people who run it are perverts and b)that who ever visits the site is a pervert without even having to find out what the site is. .xxx = bad. Who knows how long after that then .xxx start being banned by ISPs. And then what, give Deomcrat and Republican websites disctinctions of .dem and .rep. And then how long after that might an ISP block access to one or the other because of the political leanings of the owner. And since it is far to easy to track a person's movement on the net, how fast will a catalog of users who visit .xxx (or .dem or .rep) sites be developed and exploited. Any regulation of the net scares me. Any attempt to ostrasize and/or single out on class scares me. Especially when it has to do with out freedom of speech, something which must be protected.
The first thing I thought of was "Mr. Fusion." If it doesn't make sense, go back and watch Back to the Future I and II. Second, now all we have to do is make the world ACTUALLY REALIZE that we need to embrace alternate fuel sources, rather than just playing lip service to the idea, then going back and drilling holes in the sand. I honestly think that that is just as important as developing the methods themselves. Sadly, I fear that most of us have trouble seeing past the immediate and I fear that a lot of people talk about alternate fuel sources because it sounds good, its en vogue. Who knows, though.... hopefully I'm wrong.
Almost daily I am made more sad and more scared about the future of the internet. The internet is, without a doubt, the single greatest example of the poor-man's printing press of all time. And it seems almost daily that another challenge is issued trying to regulate it in the interest of "protection." But these people, out lawmakers, never, ever, ever, see the slipperty slope. They can't see beyond their own noses, beyond what is happening today and what ripple effects that a regulation on the internet could have. Start with a regulation on what people can look at where, and when does it stop? That is just the wedge to allow them to have some control, to allow them to work their way in ever further. And what is more, much proposed regulation is driven by lobbists for mega-corps that see vast fortunes that can be made if they control access to the internet. I realize that I'm sounding a little like a recent South Park episode, but perhaps that is a good thing. They were right to say that the first step toward censorship is a small one. I realize that there are "dangers" out there on the internet. I realize that parents are scared for their children. But the answer is not to put a Band-Aid on it and regulate the 'net. I am saddened and scared.
First... the word revolution is nearly impossible to pronounce by the Japanese. That means Nintendo (a Japanese company) would have to deal with that either by forcing Japanese people to pronounce 'Ls' or by significantly changing the name. Of course, that's not unheard of. But the word Wii is pronounceable pretty much by anyone. Second... the word 'Ii' is one way to say yes in Japanese. Third... this stays exactly in line with the "revolution" name by being a revolution unto itself. Game systems (especially recently) have had more aggressive, more game system sound-ish names. Xbox, playstation, genesis, saturn, dreamcast. Wii is totally different. Wii sounds like nothing you've heard of... one of the ideas behind the revolution itself. Fourth... does anyone else remeber way back when what people said about the name "Nintendo." I do. I think it was something to the extent of: "what the hell is that?" Well, here Nintendo goes again. And I for one like it
Today... Google Maps. Tomorrow... GOOGLE DEATH RAY!!!! Blast your enemies with lasers from the sky!!! $19.95 for 3 blasts/per month or sign up for GOOGLE DEATH RAY PLATINUM and get UNLIMITED USES!!!! I'm a little scared... :)
Out of curiosity... at that price (which is totally insane), is there a reason that everyone in Canada doesn't just buy their blank CDs on ebay? I don't know very much about Canada's tax laws, and it would be great if someone could shed some light on this.