If you're honestly suggesting that Dr. Paul will do a single thing to restrict corporations in any single way you are seriously deluded.
Paul is a Libertarian, which means (in case you don't realize this) that you can do anything you want as long as you can afford to do so... Nothing in there about limiting corporations. In fact, deregulation would be the watchword under Dr. Paul's regime.
Maybe, just MAYBE he'd have a bit more sane foreign policy than Shrub-n-Gang, but spare me the 'he's in it for the little guy' rhetoric, there's no evidence for it.
Oh, and one more thing, he's one of those racists who is insulted if you call him a racist, because, you know, he's not RACISTS he's just telling FACTS.
right, but any and all further versions (and all new code therein) are bound by the NEW license, right? So no updates without a license update, right? Or am I mistaken...
I think I might be wrong in my assumption about MS's problem here. I know that GPL2 code doesn't automagically turn into GPL3 code until it's redistributed as such, I though the problem was with new GPL3 code being implemented, like in package updates.
Yes, that's right, except that I thought that once it was changed in the backchannels BEHIND you that you were stuck with the version they applied or a later one, but you couldn't revert to an older version.
Oh, no. See, you're forgetting something.... Many of you are actually...
The GPLv2 has a clause in it (a clause AGREED to apparently) that lets the author upgrade the license at will to a greater version of the GPL, like, say, some GPLv3 that might come along some day.
It's in the license they agreed to, there's nothing 'retroactive' about this switch to GPLv3, it's stated right in the text, this isn't some inference from some archaic legal concept.
They are UNDENIABLY bound to the GPLv2, even the part that binds them to the GPLv3 if the author so chooses.
Personally I think it's even MORE amusing watching the army of ACs who like to be derisive of FOSS software come out all of the sudden with the position at licenses don't REALLY matter after all.
Where are all the Kerry bashers with the flip-flops when you need them?
Well, you theory can be tested by looking at the security quality of their OTHER main product... Diebold ATM machines.
No, incompetence is not the answer, or the streets would be flooded with $20s by now, it's intent, not 'opps, I'm so silly'. This company knows how to do security right, they just can't be bothered in this instance.
Three guesses as to why it's not a priority to them, like, say, ATM security is.
Yeah, just because cyber-warfare doesn't happen with men running around with SMGs and headsets talking about "they've breached the perimeter, hurry up!" and all that cool +soundtrack action you see in the movies doesn't mean it's not having real effects on peoples lives and the economy. Get your head out of Hollywood's ass and read a newspaper. If hacking is such a joke, how would all of the billions of dollars each year going to computer security be justified?
Just because something isn't larger-than-life and doesn't come with a soundtrack in the background doesn't mean it's not real. In fact, it probably means it is, and that you should pay attention and see how it might be effecting the world around you.
Jesus, the more I think about your post, the more I can't understand how you could even think such simplistic utopian ideas about today's society... Like everything is mystically okay because you can still get a Big Mac and a peek at the brat-packs snatches.
Oh, and the fact that script-kiddies exist doesn't disprove the whole class of actual "hackers" (I hate that word too, but it IS the colloquialism) it actually kinda proves it's existance... Who wrote the scripts that all the 'totally elite technowizards' use? Foolishness. Or do you just think it can't be done because YOU can't do it, that is, you wanted to be 'l33t' but all the scripts you downloaded were out of date and didn't work so you gave up, thinking 'it's ghey'?
Really, I'm not trying to be a (complete) troll, but where do you justify this attitude with the full-on knowledge of system-compromising exploits being brought up every day, by people who ABSOLUTELY have the kind of skills that I refered to as 'magic' earlier. (oh, and by the way, I made it clear that I meant 'magic' as a skill level above what laypersons can comprehend) I think the problem here is that 'magic' is so appropriate a word that you, a layperson, are having a hard time even comprehending the possible applications of this skill set, makign it almost mystical. Certainly the word 'occult' (at least when thought of in context of it's lingual root) applies, as the secrets of this world apparently remain hidden from the masses.
Really though, as a slashdot reader you SHOULD already know that there are new ways to bypass security and run code on someone elses box all the time. All the fake movies like 'Hackers' in the world can't:
A) Make that kind of bullshit applicable to real life computer security OR
B) Do anything about the reality of the methods that work IRL
What I mean is, because lame ass false-info movies are made that doesn't magically make all the real-life people who actually DO things like read hidden corporate documents they've found whilst out 'exploring'. How many stories are there about databases FULL of credit card numbers disappearing?
You'll be what's colloquially known as '0wn3d' if you attempt such foolishness.
This is in no way a threat, I'm not one of the people you'd be doing your little expose on or have their abilities, it's just common sense. Really now, think about it for a second, you're targeting people who have (for all intents and purposes to the layman) magical powers that are so grand they can effect corporations, something most armies would be hard pressed to do. It would be insanity for an individual to deliberately provoke that whole community.
It would be like a one man U.S. Revolution, you and your Glock vs. the U.S. Army. It would not be pretty.
I bet many slashdotters would find both the analogy and the expose bit amusing to watch, sadistic bastards.;-)
Who picks those ratings? Why are so many shows with a more historical angle rate TVPG and shows that are full of nothing but snide sarcastic abuse rated TVY or TVY7? There is why this is a bad idea, molding together a moral system that seems to me to be lacking of any morals whatsoever.
You can turn it off, and get none of the benefits, or you can turn it on and get access to an exclusive whitelist that is assembled by people who definitely do not have MY morals in mind whilst making these decisions. A series of tags that describe show content would be a far more useful system, but again, what tags would be left out? I doubt sarcasm would make the cut, but many child psychologists will tell you that sarcasm is absolutely harmful to young minds (under 7 especially). But it's there (in fact, it's the Hot New Thing, and has been for years now, you know, Edgy) and so are other activities that I don't approve of.
So what do I do? I'm a Nazi when it comes to my kids' TV access. I mean straight-up jackboot. They pretty much are free to watch PBSKids, and most of Noggin before 6PM, no cartoon network, no nick, no disney. Even some PBS shows don't make the cut, but that's the effort I had to make to do what I needed. Reliance on this simplistic 'let them tell me what's okay' system would have me frustrated at my kids' cruelty wondering who in school they learned it from, because it couldn't be the TV, I use the V-chip!
Sorry if my post is a ramble, I'm ill and on meds, but I think I got the point across.
Oooo, what a nice fairy tale... can you do Cinderella next?
That whole train of thought should be dismissed by anyone with a 9th grade education. How much democracy building has the U.S. EVER accomplished in all its attempts? Not counting, of course, the South American countries that began building democracies after throwing off U.S. backed political groups...
And by the way, how is all that 'creeping democracy' working in the FAR East? China? Ooo, touchy subject. Korea? Sorry, didn't mean to bring THAT up...
Any time the U.S. resorts to strong arm tactics in order to 'free' some people, those same people end up either revolting against our help, being subjected to atrocities masking as help, or both.
Though I don't support Mr. Paul, it is because of his fiscal policies. See, I don't personally agree with the level of regulation (specifically the lack thereof) Mr. Paul would apply to businesses.
Having said that, you are 100% correct in your rant about why MANY of the people who are against Ron Paul are so. He's a thoughtful man who wants to pull the U.S. out of the foreign and fiscal policy mudpit it's been pulled into for the past 25 years (60 years if you want to go back to the roots, but the past 25 have seen a strong ramp-up period of stupidity). His foreign policy is a little isolationist to me, but a refreshing breath of air compared to what's going on now. The lame ass "lunatic fringe" argument bursts immediately upon the realization that the CURRENT administration is filled with the REAL lunatic fringe, as you so aptly demonstrated in your post.
If you don't like Ron Paul it should be because of your LIBERAL tendencies, as the man is obviously an original old-school conservative. If you don't like Ron Paul because he's not Republican enough for you, well, then you've been tricked by some rather simple distractions.
I will say this though, he seems to be honest and if the choice next November came down to Ron Paul or Hillary Clinton, my registered (D) ass would pull the (R) lever next to president without hesitation. I dislike compulsive lying even more than (what I consider to be) extremely conservative fiscal policies. I know all politicians lie, but that lady could school ole' Cheyney himself in the art of question dodging. Must've been paying attention to her husband, the best liar ever to grace the Oval Office whilst on TV. Not to say he wasn't a decent president, I personally think he was the best of my lifetime, which is to say a mediocre performance.
And before the deluge of comments telling me I'm wrong about Bill C. : I know, I know, Reagan is some sort of God or something, come back and talk to me about that AFTER we've paid off the debts we still have lying around from his 'greatness'.
Anyways, in summary, you're absolutely right about Ron Paul's detractor's foolishness, and any REAL conservative would be screaming this guy's name from the rooftops. Kinda like the 'liberals' who favor Hillary when Dennis Kucinich is the only ACTUAL liberal up there. Maybe Mike Gavel too, but he has some different ideas that put him in another category alltogether as far as I'm concerned.
Yes, I've noticed that idiots really DO feel quite uncomfortable around smarter people. It's the realization of inferiority that makes being here sting. Try MySpace, that'll probably be more familiar to you.
I hear that Saudi Arabia is really tough on crime. You should probably go check them out, sounds like your kind of government. In the mean time, keep the fuck away from my freedom. My original U.S. citizen ancestor came here a year before the country was founded to escape from goofy shits that wanted to clamp down on everything not deemed 'proper' by some asshole sitting in luxury somewhere. He fought a war and everything for that. I will too. Oh, and by the way, I'm one of those liberals who cherish (and practice!) the 2nd amendment just as much as the rest of the Bill of Rights.
I've found those that truly hate me for my freedom, and they live right in my own country. Flag-waving Freedom-hating To-Scared-to-Live simpletons who want daddy government to protect them from their own shadows.
What you're not understanding is that these ignorant apes believe that thinking the government should be limited to the powers granted it by the constitution equals being a 'liberal shill'.
After all, how is the president supposed to protect us from terrists if he's being held back by that "goddam piece of paper"?
That's right, you give up a little liberty for a little security, but don't come crying when you lose both, after all you've had the warning for over 200 years.
One final note, this whole plate scanning system will see many fascist government officials trying to pass laws allowing access to more and more databases and associated cross-references. For example, how long will it be before they start using it to decide who to pull over as being a 'high-potential criminal' or some such obnoxiousness because they are on probation/parole, or were once convicted of a felony. How about when they start linking in the crime-rates statistics from the census office and check your address? When they add in economic factors? (what the hell you doin in the well-to-do neighborhood boy, get your poor ass outta here)
I'm a tinfoil hat wearing loony, right? Okay then, what criteria do they use to put someone on a terrorist watchlist, or a no-fly list? Oh, you don't know do you. No, you don't, because they won't tell you. Won't even tell you what can get you on a blacklist. Brought to you by the same people that scan the plates.
I just don't understand why people have so much blind trust for other people with shiny badges on their shirts. Really now, I've had good encounters with police, I've had bad encounters with police. Some police were intelligent thoughtful people, some were drooling fucktards with guns. They are just people like you and me, some good, some bad, mostly just self-centered-kind-vaguely-good-if-its-not-to-much -bother. Oh, and with the added psychological twist of authority + physical-force-capable (especially the magical ability to call for backup, that's nearly impossible to beat). Blindly trusting that someone has your best interests in mind because of a piece of tin pinned to their shirt is ludicrous and asking me to do the same will be disappointing.
How do you interact emotionally with a painting or a film? The complete and utter LACK of ANY AI makes any connection (as you seem to be defining such a connection) impossible. The art EVOKES the emotional response through some sensory input (indeed each piece of art evokes mood differently, even if the difference is subtle) and there is nothing about a video game that cannot give you the same effect.
I disagree. You seem to be implying that art must be a static form, unchanged by the observer, and I cannot agree with such a stipulation.
In fact, I think that several thousand years from now (assuming a social trajectory without massive direction shifts) people may be arguing that a simple flat static painting cannot possibly be considered 'art' because of the lack of full sensory immersion.
Even IF art NEED be a static form, many games are static forms. Play Doom again, the monsters will still be where they were 15 years ago. Many games get around this (to allow for dynamic experience) with pseudo-random number generators, yet still it's a static form within the boundaries of the generator.
Maybe you're saying that art is some singular experience that the artist is trying to convey. Again, I disagree. Humans, being (seemingly at least) analog machines, no two having the same state ever (an assumption, but accurate enough for this discussion) cannot possibly be brought to the same exact singular state by ANY sensory input. The closest you can really come is strongly evoking a mood or environment which suggests and makes obvious the state of mind the artist wishes to convey. I see no reason why that cannot be accomplished with an interactive (uni- or multi-)sensory experience.
I'll take this a step farther. What exactly about running through one of Escher's stairways would reduce a person's ability to understand it's point? In fact I truly believe that with the proper camera angles you could suggest the dimension spanning cubism even more strongly than could be possible with a static 2D print. Imagine running into Dali's "Corpus Hypercubus" in a game, but watching the tesseract unfold before your very eyes then refold with the man's spirit taken along, that would be art if done right.
I appreciate the wiki link, lots of information if you follow the white rabbit into the link hole. After my first couple articles it's not looking great for the not-HIV side, IMHO. (not that my opinion means anything, it doesn't):-)
Slashdot Mirror
If you're honestly suggesting that Dr. Paul will do a single thing to restrict corporations in any single way you are seriously deluded.
Paul is a Libertarian, which means (in case you don't realize this) that you can do anything you want as long as you can afford to do so... Nothing in there about limiting corporations. In fact, deregulation would be the watchword under Dr. Paul's regime.
Maybe, just MAYBE he'd have a bit more sane foreign policy than Shrub-n-Gang, but spare me the 'he's in it for the little guy' rhetoric, there's no evidence for it.
Oh, and one more thing, he's one of those racists who is insulted if you call him a racist, because, you know, he's not RACISTS he's just telling FACTS.
Oh, it's about dicking around with OTHER people's property after they ASKED or *gasp* PAID him too.
He's gone too far, how DARE someone offer a service to someone...?
WTF are you trying to say here? What 'clue' are you talking about?
right, but any and all further versions (and all new code therein) are bound by the NEW license, right? So no updates without a license update, right? Or am I mistaken...
I think I might be wrong in my assumption about MS's problem here. I know that GPL2 code doesn't automagically turn into GPL3 code until it's redistributed as such, I though the problem was with new GPL3 code being implemented, like in package updates.
Yes, that's right, except that I thought that once it was changed in the backchannels BEHIND you that you were stuck with the version they applied or a later one, but you couldn't revert to an older version.
Oh, no. See, you're forgetting something.... Many of you are actually...
The GPLv2 has a clause in it (a clause AGREED to apparently) that lets the author upgrade the license at will to a greater version of the GPL, like, say, some GPLv3 that might come along some day.
It's in the license they agreed to, there's nothing 'retroactive' about this switch to GPLv3, it's stated right in the text, this isn't some inference from some archaic legal concept.
They are UNDENIABLY bound to the GPLv2, even the part that binds them to the GPLv3 if the author so chooses.
Personally I think it's even MORE amusing watching the army of ACs who like to be derisive of FOSS software come out all of the sudden with the position at licenses don't REALLY matter after all.
Where are all the Kerry bashers with the flip-flops when you need them?
Well, you theory can be tested by looking at the security quality of their OTHER main product... Diebold ATM machines.
No, incompetence is not the answer, or the streets would be flooded with $20s by now, it's intent, not 'opps, I'm so silly'. This company knows how to do security right, they just can't be bothered in this instance.
Three guesses as to why it's not a priority to them, like, say, ATM security is.
Yeah, just because cyber-warfare doesn't happen with men running around with SMGs and headsets talking about "they've breached the perimeter, hurry up!" and all that cool +soundtrack action you see in the movies doesn't mean it's not having real effects on peoples lives and the economy. Get your head out of Hollywood's ass and read a newspaper. If hacking is such a joke, how would all of the billions of dollars each year going to computer security be justified?
Just because something isn't larger-than-life and doesn't come with a soundtrack in the background doesn't mean it's not real. In fact, it probably means it is, and that you should pay attention and see how it might be effecting the world around you.
Jesus, the more I think about your post, the more I can't understand how you could even think such simplistic utopian ideas about today's society... Like everything is mystically okay because you can still get a Big Mac and a peek at the brat-packs snatches.
Oh, and the fact that script-kiddies exist doesn't disprove the whole class of actual "hackers" (I hate that word too, but it IS the colloquialism) it actually kinda proves it's existance... Who wrote the scripts that all the 'totally elite technowizards' use? Foolishness. Or do you just think it can't be done because YOU can't do it, that is, you wanted to be 'l33t' but all the scripts you downloaded were out of date and didn't work so you gave up, thinking 'it's ghey'?
Really, I'm not trying to be a (complete) troll, but where do you justify this attitude with the full-on knowledge of system-compromising exploits being brought up every day, by people who ABSOLUTELY have the kind of skills that I refered to as 'magic' earlier. (oh, and by the way, I made it clear that I meant 'magic' as a skill level above what laypersons can comprehend) I think the problem here is that 'magic' is so appropriate a word that you, a layperson, are having a hard time even comprehending the possible applications of this skill set, makign it almost mystical. Certainly the word 'occult' (at least when thought of in context of it's lingual root) applies, as the secrets of this world apparently remain hidden from the masses.
Really though, as a slashdot reader you SHOULD already know that there are new ways to bypass security and run code on someone elses box all the time. All the fake movies like 'Hackers' in the world can't:
A) Make that kind of bullshit applicable to real life computer security OR
B) Do anything about the reality of the methods that work IRL
What I mean is, because lame ass false-info movies are made that doesn't magically make all the real-life people who actually DO things like read hidden corporate documents they've found whilst out 'exploring'. How many stories are there about databases FULL of credit card numbers disappearing?
You'll be what's colloquially known as '0wn3d' if you attempt such foolishness.
;-)
This is in no way a threat, I'm not one of the people you'd be doing your little expose on or have their abilities, it's just common sense. Really now, think about it for a second, you're targeting people who have (for all intents and purposes to the layman) magical powers that are so grand they can effect corporations, something most armies would be hard pressed to do. It would be insanity for an individual to deliberately provoke that whole community.
It would be like a one man U.S. Revolution, you and your Glock vs. the U.S. Army. It would not be pretty.
I bet many slashdotters would find both the analogy and the expose bit amusing to watch, sadistic bastards.
Jeff Gannon of Talon News?
Shit, and I thought he was at the White House.
Sometimes I wish there was a +1 Troll mod...
I think my favorite part is (I know it's called a levy, eat shit) that makes me glad.
Sometimes a good trolling is called for, and this was one of those times.
Who picks those ratings? Why are so many shows with a more historical angle rate TVPG and shows that are full of nothing but snide sarcastic abuse rated TVY or TVY7? There is why this is a bad idea, molding together a moral system that seems to me to be lacking of any morals whatsoever.
You can turn it off, and get none of the benefits, or you can turn it on and get access to an exclusive whitelist that is assembled by people who definitely do not have MY morals in mind whilst making these decisions. A series of tags that describe show content would be a far more useful system, but again, what tags would be left out? I doubt sarcasm would make the cut, but many child psychologists will tell you that sarcasm is absolutely harmful to young minds (under 7 especially). But it's there (in fact, it's the Hot New Thing, and has been for years now, you know, Edgy) and so are other activities that I don't approve of.
So what do I do? I'm a Nazi when it comes to my kids' TV access. I mean straight-up jackboot. They pretty much are free to watch PBSKids, and most of Noggin before 6PM, no cartoon network, no nick, no disney. Even some PBS shows don't make the cut, but that's the effort I had to make to do what I needed. Reliance on this simplistic 'let them tell me what's okay' system would have me frustrated at my kids' cruelty wondering who in school they learned it from, because it couldn't be the TV, I use the V-chip!
Sorry if my post is a ramble, I'm ill and on meds, but I think I got the point across.
Oooo, what a nice fairy tale... can you do Cinderella next?
That whole train of thought should be dismissed by anyone with a 9th grade education. How much democracy building has the U.S. EVER accomplished in all its attempts? Not counting, of course, the South American countries that began building democracies after throwing off U.S. backed political groups...
And by the way, how is all that 'creeping democracy' working in the FAR East? China? Ooo, touchy subject. Korea? Sorry, didn't mean to bring THAT up...
Any time the U.S. resorts to strong arm tactics in order to 'free' some people, those same people end up either revolting against our help, being subjected to atrocities masking as help, or both.
Wow.
Though I don't support Mr. Paul, it is because of his fiscal policies. See, I don't personally agree with the level of regulation (specifically the lack thereof) Mr. Paul would apply to businesses.
Having said that, you are 100% correct in your rant about why MANY of the people who are against Ron Paul are so. He's a thoughtful man who wants to pull the U.S. out of the foreign and fiscal policy mudpit it's been pulled into for the past 25 years (60 years if you want to go back to the roots, but the past 25 have seen a strong ramp-up period of stupidity). His foreign policy is a little isolationist to me, but a refreshing breath of air compared to what's going on now. The lame ass "lunatic fringe" argument bursts immediately upon the realization that the CURRENT administration is filled with the REAL lunatic fringe, as you so aptly demonstrated in your post.
If you don't like Ron Paul it should be because of your LIBERAL tendencies, as the man is obviously an original old-school conservative. If you don't like Ron Paul because he's not Republican enough for you, well, then you've been tricked by some rather simple distractions.
I will say this though, he seems to be honest and if the choice next November came down to Ron Paul or Hillary Clinton, my registered (D) ass would pull the (R) lever next to president without hesitation. I dislike compulsive lying even more than (what I consider to be) extremely conservative fiscal policies. I know all politicians lie, but that lady could school ole' Cheyney himself in the art of question dodging. Must've been paying attention to her husband, the best liar ever to grace the Oval Office whilst on TV. Not to say he wasn't a decent president, I personally think he was the best of my lifetime, which is to say a mediocre performance.
And before the deluge of comments telling me I'm wrong about Bill C. :
I know, I know, Reagan is some sort of God or something, come back and talk to me about that AFTER we've paid off the debts we still have lying around from his 'greatness'.
Anyways, in summary, you're absolutely right about Ron Paul's detractor's foolishness, and any REAL conservative would be screaming this guy's name from the rooftops. Kinda like the 'liberals' who favor Hillary when Dennis Kucinich is the only ACTUAL liberal up there. Maybe Mike Gavel too, but he has some different ideas that put him in another category alltogether as far as I'm concerned.
Now lookie there, you've gone and ruined a perfectly good troll response to a troll post with all your 'logic' and 'rightness'. :-)
Yes, I've noticed that idiots really DO feel quite uncomfortable around smarter people. It's the realization of inferiority that makes being here sting. Try MySpace, that'll probably be more familiar to you.
I hear that Saudi Arabia is really tough on crime. You should probably go check them out, sounds like your kind of government. In the mean time, keep the fuck away from my freedom. My original U.S. citizen ancestor came here a year before the country was founded to escape from goofy shits that wanted to clamp down on everything not deemed 'proper' by some asshole sitting in luxury somewhere. He fought a war and everything for that. I will too. Oh, and by the way, I'm one of those liberals who cherish (and practice!) the 2nd amendment just as much as the rest of the Bill of Rights.
I've found those that truly hate me for my freedom, and they live right in my own country. Flag-waving Freedom-hating To-Scared-to-Live simpletons who want daddy government to protect them from their own shadows.
What you're not understanding is that these ignorant apes believe that thinking the government should be limited to the powers granted it by the constitution equals being a 'liberal shill'.
h -bother. Oh, and with the added psychological twist of authority + physical-force-capable (especially the magical ability to call for backup, that's nearly impossible to beat). Blindly trusting that someone has your best interests in mind because of a piece of tin pinned to their shirt is ludicrous and asking me to do the same will be disappointing.
After all, how is the president supposed to protect us from terrists if he's being held back by that "goddam piece of paper"?
That's right, you give up a little liberty for a little security, but don't come crying when you lose both, after all you've had the warning for over 200 years.
One final note, this whole plate scanning system will see many fascist government officials trying to pass laws allowing access to more and more databases and associated cross-references. For example, how long will it be before they start using it to decide who to pull over as being a 'high-potential criminal' or some such obnoxiousness because they are on probation/parole, or were once convicted of a felony. How about when they start linking in the crime-rates statistics from the census office and check your address? When they add in economic factors? (what the hell you doin in the well-to-do neighborhood boy, get your poor ass outta here)
I'm a tinfoil hat wearing loony, right? Okay then, what criteria do they use to put someone on a terrorist watchlist, or a no-fly list? Oh, you don't know do you. No, you don't, because they won't tell you. Won't even tell you what can get you on a blacklist. Brought to you by the same people that scan the plates.
I just don't understand why people have so much blind trust for other people with shiny badges on their shirts. Really now, I've had good encounters with police, I've had bad encounters with police. Some police were intelligent thoughtful people, some were drooling fucktards with guns. They are just people like you and me, some good, some bad, mostly just self-centered-kind-vaguely-good-if-its-not-to-muc
What did you need to do in those classes that Calc couldn't handle?
How do you interact emotionally with a painting or a film? The complete and utter LACK of ANY AI makes any connection (as you seem to be defining such a connection) impossible. The art EVOKES the emotional response through some sensory input (indeed each piece of art evokes mood differently, even if the difference is subtle) and there is nothing about a video game that cannot give you the same effect.
I disagree. You seem to be implying that art must be a static form, unchanged by the observer, and I cannot agree with such a stipulation.
In fact, I think that several thousand years from now (assuming a social trajectory without massive direction shifts) people may be arguing that a simple flat static painting cannot possibly be considered 'art' because of the lack of full sensory immersion.
Even IF art NEED be a static form, many games are static forms. Play Doom again, the monsters will still be where they were 15 years ago. Many games get around this (to allow for dynamic experience) with pseudo-random number generators, yet still it's a static form within the boundaries of the generator.
Maybe you're saying that art is some singular experience that the artist is trying to convey. Again, I disagree. Humans, being (seemingly at least) analog machines, no two having the same state ever (an assumption, but accurate enough for this discussion) cannot possibly be brought to the same exact singular state by ANY sensory input. The closest you can really come is strongly evoking a mood or environment which suggests and makes obvious the state of mind the artist wishes to convey. I see no reason why that cannot be accomplished with an interactive (uni- or multi-)sensory experience.
I'll take this a step farther. What exactly about running through one of Escher's stairways would reduce a person's ability to understand it's point? In fact I truly believe that with the proper camera angles you could suggest the dimension spanning cubism even more strongly than could be possible with a static 2D print. Imagine running into Dali's "Corpus Hypercubus" in a game, but watching the tesseract unfold before your very eyes then refold with the man's spirit taken along, that would be art if done right.
I appreciate the wiki link, lots of information if you follow the white rabbit into the link hole. After my first couple articles it's not looking great for the not-HIV side, IMHO. (not that my opinion means anything, it doesn't) :-)
Thirteen year old delinquent's daydream?
I have not heard such a thing, could you post some sources please?