It's easy to sit there and piss on the bricks and claim that only by wrapping your hands around the steering wheel can you take responsibility for what happens. We all take responsibility when we don't step up to the plate and use our talents to improve things.
HEAR, HEAR! *stands and claps*
Also, one other comment in the article that I found distasteful (however accurate) is the idea that instead of simply addressing the "quasi-moral" questions raised by crashes caused by computer error (which they do address, but not by itself), they also add the whole idea of "who to sue?" as if it was the more legitimate question. I don't fault the author of the article, because sadly, this is the true question in the litigation-happy world we live in now-a-days, but still, I just found that troubling. (So I guess I don't have THAT much more to add, just that I found that part unsettling.)
I can understand mankind's reluctance to let computers automate many things in life, however, I also agree wholeheartedly that we will need to de-luddite(?) ourselves over time, to accomplish the lofty goals that we seek as humans (less war, less death, more order, etc...) But the (unfortunately realistic) idea that the major hurdle will be companies' decisions to back (and ultimately insurance companies to insure) these vehicles due the heavy potential lawsuit repercussions of a computer-generated crash is disheartening.
Billosaur, while I definitely agree with your point, you have to admit that most people, even those who would give up a perfectly good hand for a bionic one, would have troubles and would cry foul when a computer controlled car crashed due to a glitch. While I agree with the article 100% when it speaks about the significant decrease to deaths due to driver error, and things like that, people just won't accept it right out. The key is to integrate the transition slowly.
This way, it's a "feature" and not a takeover. It's sad that it has to go that way, but being even the most enthusiastic supporter myself, I would still be leery to get into a car that just ran itself at highway speeds. Even if I fully trusted the tech, and fully trusted the coding. I'd still be wary for no good reason, just a little.
I don't think the article is stating that people will NEVER get into the idea of cars that drive and monitor themselves... just that it will take quite some time, even with the tech getting there quickly, for people to adapt.
Not to mention, can you imagine the flames around here? "WHAT?! THAT CRASH WAS AVOIDABLE IF THEY JUST WOULD HAVE USED LINUX! M$ SUXORZ!" hehe...
and with Froogle, they can tell what you're buying...
with Google News, they can track what you're interested in...
with Google Mind Control, they can control your body- oh wait... that's still in pre-beta. Forget I said that. *turns on the device*
I am involved with a group of people who play games called "Alternate Reality Games" that take place primarily online. (One such project was for M$ and Bungie promoting Halo 2, called "I Love Bees".)Since a big feature in "getting into the game" involves some secrecy of "who's behind the curtain" making the games, often false information, or fake information related to the "in-game corporation" is listed so that even the WHOIS info points to the game world.
(If you're interested, check out www.argn.com or www.unfiction.com for more info on the growing genre.)
I personally have no opinion on Creative's product line, as I typically have no brand loyalty whatsoever... but, I don't understand how you can think they suck, yet you've bought all these things from them?
That's like me saying "Well, after buying everything Sears sells, I won't buy anything else from them." I mean, I'm really honestly not trying to be flamebait here, but it does kind of seem kind of an odd statement to make, without qualification. Was Creative originally a good company, and now turned crappy, or have they always been crappy, and you've just kept on buying?;)
I can definitely see his point with DRM -- it's instinctively a repulsive thing, but there are so far nothing but incentives for music piracy. I can imagine a great online system of music distribution, recomendation, and even profits to feed into startup artists. But I can't see an economic system working without any factors that will reduce piracy. I hear lots of people objecting to DRM, but haven't yet heard any suggestions for what else to do.
The truth is that what iTunes started to do was indeed one of the best measures against piracy. When you price songs low, make them easy to accquire, and maintain an impressive library to select from, you take value away from the black market. I used to be one of those people (surely like nearly everyone in Napster's early days) who thought "this Napster thing is the best thing ever! There is NO drawback! Who cares if it's illegal?"
However, after iTunes, I haven't downloaded even one illegal track. Why? Because the benefits aren't there anymore. The risk used to be minor. No one was taken to court, and even if they did, it was the distribution channels that got targeted, not users. But now, that's not necessarily the case (although it's also a fair comment to say that really, your chances of being targeted specifically for D/L illegal tunes are minimal at best). So, that's one thing. The other thing that was the draw of say, early Napster, was the volume of songs available. This is also addressed by iTunes' pretty impressive library of songs. The point is that while there is the FairPlay thing in place, it doesn't really restrict you in any normal user way. You can still burn songs. You can transfer them to another computer (given that you burn them first.) You can transfer formats (if burned first), you can use them on your MP3 player (really, any kind, as long as you burn them first). The point is sure, it's harder to work around, but that's really kind of necessary to keep those at bay who would just take the songs and put them up on their website for distribution otherwise, without the hassle.
Point is, that heavy and restrictive DRM is NOT necessary, nor does it have to be the future. I understand that basic DRM is needed. That's fine. As long as I can use my music the way I want, after I've paid for it, even if I have to jump through the CD Burner hoop first, that's ok. But restrictive DRM, like only being able to use (regardless of process) the song on a handful of players, or not being able to burn to play in my car on the way to work, or whatever... that's not necessary. iTunes, despite its flaws, is a pretty serviceable system, that has proven that people (1) will pay for music online, (2) that people will indeed turn less and less to the more spotty P2P services, if given enough incentive, and (3) that it can be profitable to the labels (despite whatever whiny crap they spin).
I would submit that while "work-around-able", the main reason that they don't block all bots, is because they themselves use bots to "enhance" their IM client. They have bots that tell you hot deals and other awesome (read: god-awful and annoying) things. Therefore, they can't just filter out their own stuff too! How horrible of a world would THAT be?
It's a matter of balancing safety with profits. And by balancing I mean obliterating.
Personally, I'd be much more concerned if someone was addicted to say, a console game, or a one-person PC game. At least, in an MMOG, you're getting social interaction. Mind you, it's not touching, and seeing, and smelling and whatever, like you would in the real world, but at least it's interacting with others in a meaningful way.
If someone's going to tell me that I'm antisocial, but yet I blog, I post in forums, participate in commentary, and play MMOGs, then I think that person is wrong. But when it's introverted stuff, like pornography, or gambling (although that's social to an extent as well), then it's something more damaging to relationships, and self-view.
But I see no problem with MMOGs being someone's social outlet. It's no different than the "theatre people" (I was one) who would play characters in plays to make friends. It's just a different stage.
Re:Is there a doctor in the house?
on
First Face Transplant
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Wow, what an excellent question...
I would imagine that you would be correct. I mean, it's living tissue, but one would think that the majority of the skin on the rest of the head and the body would have DNA that would eventually, over time, trump the DNA that would be in the face itself.
I second the request for a doctor or scientist to speak up and give their professional opinion!
Mod this as flame if you must, but ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
Just because it's funded by the government, then you must be right.
NO one must need a new hand. Ever. Damn those Government bastards for using money on medical research and new technology. Seriously, why couldn't they take that money and just put it into something useful, like figuring out how to eradicate my lack of money. Or investigate why politics suck so much.
That would be more worthwhile than medical/technological research. How dare the government use money for a responsible endeavor. Really...
While I do think this was the intention, I specifically remember Napster (the original, not the G-rated version out now) placing verbage (mind you, later in heated stages of the copyright debate going on at the time) on it's load-up screen to all members saying things like "We do not condone the distribution of copyrighted works"(or something like that). They got hella sued anyway and had their tool taken down, despite it being the infringer's crime.
Again, I don't think that BitTorrent will be a target of the War on Piracy(C), but I don't think that removing a few links in good faith necessarily removes Cohen and the BitTorrent app from the possibility of litigation in the future. The truth is that it is still an app that allows users to easily share copyrighted materials online quickly. I think it's an awesome tool with myriad purposes, as most PtP apps tend to be. Truth is, it's still a possible target if the MPAA needs headlines and a scapegoat for lackluster revenues.
No honestly, though. The power in these pop-ups were the sheer volume. If you got 1% of all viewers to click on your ad, then you did well. And by having your pop-up jump out of every page, and what have you, you tended to get at least that amount (even from simple user-error clicks). The good thing about AdSense, is that it's targeted. You don't have to wade through 50 annoying pop-ups that have NOTHING to do with where you were surfing (or in some cases...) but instead, you have your desired audience looking at your advertisement instantly.
So while many people wouldn't click through on purpose with the pops, the sheer volume of the ad's presence was the reason it was profitable for these companies. And why companies are willing to have less exposure, but with a more focused demographic now, with Google's AdSense stuff.
Now, in the meantime, I've gotten an urgent message that my machine may be infected with spyware and viruses, and that I've gotta download this app that will allow my machine to dramatically increase speed! I don't know how I've gotten by crawling along so slowly all this time...;)
You're totally right. I realized this as soon as I posted, and also realized that it was better to not double-post instead. So thank you for the correction, but I did know. I'm just an idiot who rushed to post instead of proofing my statement first:)
It could of course just be me but doesn't it make perfect sense that with an upcoming console war coming up, that Microsoft would be in its best interests to make Sony look like the bad guy (more so than previously, of course)?
I mean, let's be realistic... Microsoft is only concerned about the "safety" of this DRM thing because it gives them a public forum to diss on Sony, and make MS look good in the public eye for their "heroic and quick" answer to the Evil Sony Empire. While I'm not necessarily for one or the other, I do think it's an AMAZINGLY good PR move.
The truth is that there are always a majority of crappy games at launch for EVERY system, as no one really knows how to truly use the entirety of the new hardware (especially in this day and age, when every new system is radically increasing processing power and graphics capabilities).
The truth however, is that this system does indeed have some games that (whether your style or not) do look pretty good, and are getting good reviews and previews. Not to mention, just the number of games being presented at launch is pretty encouraging. There's a lot of developer support for the 360, and I do expect it to have some quality games out within the first six months of launch. You can't always say that about many systems, regardless of where they end up, or how quality the hardware is... *cough*Dreamcast*cough*GameCube*cough*NintendoDS*c ough*
Actually, there are two massive titles that I am anticipating to match the FPS and RPG categories.
For FPS, there will be Perfect Dark Zero, but also another game, (launching Multiplatform, and looking quite good on the 360) is GUN by Activision. (check out http://www.lastcallpoker.com/ for some cool alt-advertising for that one too.)
In the RPG realm, the two already mentioned are Kameo (which is indeed more "kiddish") and the heavily anticipated Elder Scrolls III. IMHO, these titles, while likely to be delayed until a little after launch, should more than make up for any deficiency in launch, as they're all expected to be great games, (more than hype, that is) and are also expected to have long gameplay.
As much as I hate to justify the price tag, the 360 should really be a great system.
Slashdot Mirror
It's easy to sit there and piss on the bricks and claim that only by wrapping your hands around the steering wheel can you take responsibility for what happens. We all take responsibility when we don't step up to the plate and use our talents to improve things.
HEAR, HEAR! *stands and claps*
Also, one other comment in the article that I found distasteful (however accurate) is the idea that instead of simply addressing the "quasi-moral" questions raised by crashes caused by computer error (which they do address, but not by itself), they also add the whole idea of "who to sue?" as if it was the more legitimate question. I don't fault the author of the article, because sadly, this is the true question in the litigation-happy world we live in now-a-days, but still, I just found that troubling. (So I guess I don't have THAT much more to add, just that I found that part unsettling.)
I can understand mankind's reluctance to let computers automate many things in life, however, I also agree wholeheartedly that we will need to de-luddite(?) ourselves over time, to accomplish the lofty goals that we seek as humans (less war, less death, more order, etc...) But the (unfortunately realistic) idea that the major hurdle will be companies' decisions to back (and ultimately insurance companies to insure) these vehicles due the heavy potential lawsuit repercussions of a computer-generated crash is disheartening.
Billosaur, while I definitely agree with your point, you have to admit that most people, even those who would give up a perfectly good hand for a bionic one, would have troubles and would cry foul when a computer controlled car crashed due to a glitch. While I agree with the article 100% when it speaks about the significant decrease to deaths due to driver error, and things like that, people just won't accept it right out. The key is to integrate the transition slowly.
This way, it's a "feature" and not a takeover. It's sad that it has to go that way, but being even the most enthusiastic supporter myself, I would still be leery to get into a car that just ran itself at highway speeds. Even if I fully trusted the tech, and fully trusted the coding. I'd still be wary for no good reason, just a little.
I don't think the article is stating that people will NEVER get into the idea of cars that drive and monitor themselves... just that it will take quite some time, even with the tech getting there quickly, for people to adapt.
Not to mention, can you imagine the flames around here? "WHAT?! THAT CRASH WAS AVOIDABLE IF THEY JUST WOULD HAVE USED LINUX! M$ SUXORZ!" hehe...
Yeah, it's the same as rugby, but without the group hug you guys have from time to time in your game. ;)
In Soviet Russia, text message deletes YOU! I, for one, welcome our text deleting overlords! M$ is crap! Sony is crap! Linux Roolz!
and with Froogle, they can tell what you're buying...
with Google News, they can track what you're interested in...
with Google Mind Control, they can control your body- oh wait... that's still in pre-beta. Forget I said that. *turns on the device*
I am involved with a group of people who play games called "Alternate Reality Games" that take place primarily online. (One such project was for M$ and Bungie promoting Halo 2, called "I Love Bees".)Since a big feature in "getting into the game" involves some secrecy of "who's behind the curtain" making the games, often false information, or fake information related to the "in-game corporation" is listed so that even the WHOIS info points to the game world.
(If you're interested, check out www.argn.com or www.unfiction.com for more info on the growing genre.)
I personally have no opinion on Creative's product line, as I typically have no brand loyalty whatsoever... but, I don't understand how you can think they suck, yet you've bought all these things from them? That's like me saying "Well, after buying everything Sears sells, I won't buy anything else from them." I mean, I'm really honestly not trying to be flamebait here, but it does kind of seem kind of an odd statement to make, without qualification. Was Creative originally a good company, and now turned crappy, or have they always been crappy, and you've just kept on buying? ;)
The truth is that what iTunes started to do was indeed one of the best measures against piracy. When you price songs low, make them easy to accquire, and maintain an impressive library to select from, you take value away from the black market. I used to be one of those people (surely like nearly everyone in Napster's early days) who thought "this Napster thing is the best thing ever! There is NO drawback! Who cares if it's illegal?"
However, after iTunes, I haven't downloaded even one illegal track. Why? Because the benefits aren't there anymore. The risk used to be minor. No one was taken to court, and even if they did, it was the distribution channels that got targeted, not users. But now, that's not necessarily the case (although it's also a fair comment to say that really, your chances of being targeted specifically for D/L illegal tunes are minimal at best). So, that's one thing. The other thing that was the draw of say, early Napster, was the volume of songs available. This is also addressed by iTunes' pretty impressive library of songs. The point is that while there is the FairPlay thing in place, it doesn't really restrict you in any normal user way. You can still burn songs. You can transfer them to another computer (given that you burn them first.) You can transfer formats (if burned first), you can use them on your MP3 player (really, any kind, as long as you burn them first). The point is sure, it's harder to work around, but that's really kind of necessary to keep those at bay who would just take the songs and put them up on their website for distribution otherwise, without the hassle.
Point is, that heavy and restrictive DRM is NOT necessary, nor does it have to be the future. I understand that basic DRM is needed. That's fine. As long as I can use my music the way I want, after I've paid for it, even if I have to jump through the CD Burner hoop first, that's ok. But restrictive DRM, like only being able to use (regardless of process) the song on a handful of players, or not being able to burn to play in my car on the way to work, or whatever... that's not necessary. iTunes, despite its flaws, is a pretty serviceable system, that has proven that people (1) will pay for music online, (2) that people will indeed turn less and less to the more spotty P2P services, if given enough incentive, and (3) that it can be profitable to the labels (despite whatever whiny crap they spin).
I would submit that while "work-around-able", the main reason that they don't block all bots, is because they themselves use bots to "enhance" their IM client. They have bots that tell you hot deals and other awesome (read: god-awful and annoying) things. Therefore, they can't just filter out their own stuff too! How horrible of a world would THAT be?
It's a matter of balancing safety with profits. And by balancing I mean obliterating.
Personally, I'd be much more concerned if someone was addicted to say, a console game, or a one-person PC game. At least, in an MMOG, you're getting social interaction. Mind you, it's not touching, and seeing, and smelling and whatever, like you would in the real world, but at least it's interacting with others in a meaningful way. If someone's going to tell me that I'm antisocial, but yet I blog, I post in forums, participate in commentary, and play MMOGs, then I think that person is wrong. But when it's introverted stuff, like pornography, or gambling (although that's social to an extent as well), then it's something more damaging to relationships, and self-view. But I see no problem with MMOGs being someone's social outlet. It's no different than the "theatre people" (I was one) who would play characters in plays to make friends. It's just a different stage.
Wow, what an excellent question... I would imagine that you would be correct. I mean, it's living tissue, but one would think that the majority of the skin on the rest of the head and the body would have DNA that would eventually, over time, trump the DNA that would be in the face itself. I second the request for a doctor or scientist to speak up and give their professional opinion!
There goes my Adkins diet!
Mod this as flame if you must, but ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
Just because it's funded by the government, then you must be right.
NO one must need a new hand. Ever. Damn those Government bastards for using money on medical research and new technology. Seriously, why couldn't they take that money and just put it into something useful, like figuring out how to eradicate my lack of money. Or investigate why politics suck so much.
That would be more worthwhile than medical/technological research. How dare the government use money for a responsible endeavor. Really...
Leggos? Stacking Pantyhos Eggs? I just don't think that will sell.
Again, I don't think that BitTorrent will be a target of the War on Piracy(C), but I don't think that removing a few links in good faith necessarily removes Cohen and the BitTorrent app from the possibility of litigation in the future. The truth is that it is still an app that allows users to easily share copyrighted materials online quickly. I think it's an awesome tool with myriad purposes, as most PtP apps tend to be. Truth is, it's still a possible target if the MPAA needs headlines and a scapegoat for lackluster revenues.
No honestly, though. The power in these pop-ups were the sheer volume. If you got 1% of all viewers to click on your ad, then you did well. And by having your pop-up jump out of every page, and what have you, you tended to get at least that amount (even from simple user-error clicks). The good thing about AdSense, is that it's targeted. You don't have to wade through 50 annoying pop-ups that have NOTHING to do with where you were surfing (or in some cases...) but instead, you have your desired audience looking at your advertisement instantly.
So while many people wouldn't click through on purpose with the pops, the sheer volume of the ad's presence was the reason it was profitable for these companies. And why companies are willing to have less exposure, but with a more focused demographic now, with Google's AdSense stuff.
Now, in the meantime, I've gotten an urgent message that my machine may be infected with spyware and viruses, and that I've gotta download this app that will allow my machine to dramatically increase speed! I don't know how I've gotten by crawling along so slowly all this time... ;)
You're totally right. I realized this as soon as I posted, and also realized that it was better to not double-post instead. So thank you for the correction, but I did know. I'm just an idiot who rushed to post instead of proofing my statement first :)
I mean, let's be realistic... Microsoft is only concerned about the "safety" of this DRM thing because it gives them a public forum to diss on Sony, and make MS look good in the public eye for their "heroic and quick" answer to the Evil Sony Empire. While I'm not necessarily for one or the other, I do think it's an AMAZINGLY good PR move.
The truth is that there are always a majority of crappy games at launch for EVERY system, as no one really knows how to truly use the entirety of the new hardware (especially in this day and age, when every new system is radically increasing processing power and graphics capabilities). The truth however, is that this system does indeed have some games that (whether your style or not) do look pretty good, and are getting good reviews and previews. Not to mention, just the number of games being presented at launch is pretty encouraging. There's a lot of developer support for the 360, and I do expect it to have some quality games out within the first six months of launch. You can't always say that about many systems, regardless of where they end up, or how quality the hardware is... *cough*Dreamcast*cough*GameCube*cough*NintendoDS*c ough*
Actually, there are two massive titles that I am anticipating to match the FPS and RPG categories. For FPS, there will be Perfect Dark Zero, but also another game, (launching Multiplatform, and looking quite good on the 360) is GUN by Activision. (check out http://www.lastcallpoker.com/ for some cool alt-advertising for that one too.) In the RPG realm, the two already mentioned are Kameo (which is indeed more "kiddish") and the heavily anticipated Elder Scrolls III. IMHO, these titles, while likely to be delayed until a little after launch, should more than make up for any deficiency in launch, as they're all expected to be great games, (more than hype, that is) and are also expected to have long gameplay. As much as I hate to justify the price tag, the 360 should really be a great system.