Our system was pretty close (though not identical) to what you described.
1) "Realism" does not matter but internal consistency does (otherwise it kills your suspension of disbelief and ruins what could have been an otherwise good story).
2) The mechanics need to be simple enough not to be distracting (so we could concentrate on the story) but consistent enough to be dependable (so the players could approximate their chances of success in each action). That's why I did use some tables instead of picking up a number each time. It also helped keeping disagreements to a minimum, after all, how productive is complaining about the unfairness of F=ma in the real world?
So we kept a (modified) AD&D 2nd ed. set of rules that we were all somewhat fimilar with and got rid of everything that got in the way.
However, after a while, I realized that this was not enough so I, as the GM, added some "unwritten rules".
1) The world is a hostile and dangerous place. That gave the party a sense of unity and purpose, an "us against everybody" mentality. Also kept the party from splitting up (which was difficult to manage).
2) The punishment for stupidity is quick and harsh. Stems from #1.
3) The rewards of resourcefulness are generous but not lasting. Kept them hungry for more.
> Until we scattered around and got married and stuff, it was the most fun we ever had role playing.
You could but, IMO, that would in most cases detract from the game.
> The big flaw behind all rpg games is the idea that randomness is at the heart of reality and at the heart of good games. > Not that I dislike one game of rpg with dice, it can add spice to an action, but as a model to represent reality it is flawed.
This is a Role Playing Game, we're talking about, designing nuclear reactor! You don't need realism (how realistic is frying orcs with fireballs anyway?), you need internal consistency and some statistical predictability. Dice, when used correctly, provide a simple aid towards that goal.
> Take that football player doing the run of his life, do you think the roll of a d20 against his capacities actually render in any way what is actually happening on the field?
Why not?
Allow me to use baseball instead of football for my example. We'll consider a hypothetical player with a batting average of.300
When that player player bats, there are probably millions of factors that can influence his chances of successfully hitting the ball but at the end of the day, this player will hit 3 out of 10 on average.
So taking all this factors and distilling them into a d20 roll of 15 or better is actually a pretty good approximation for a social game.
And the GMs can fine tune the way they see fit. Playing against a lousy pitcher? Have a +1 modifier. Hurt your shoulder in a brawl the day before? Make that a -2.
Combining all the factors into a single die roll (or two rolls in case of a charcter vs. charcter situation) with situational modifiers strikes a good balance between "realism" and playability, and if the 5% resolution seems too low, you can always use a d100 or higher.
Now, back to football. Statistically, that player has a certain chance of scoring a touchdown. You can roll the dice and spin a good tale based on the outcome, or you can break the run into several events (catching the ball, dodging the defence), each requiring a separate roll. As long as the presentation is convincing, the actual mechanism can be as simple or as detailed as you like - it will not make much difference.
> Going further, my group and I even suppressed all rules:
Rules are there to help you. If you feel constrained by them it means that either you chose the wrong rules for your game or you are not using them correctly.
> We realized that the rules were basically just a way to force everybody to be coherent with the rest of the group and with the adventure.
Rules also provide a point of reference. A framework that ensures consistancy and helps you build a believable universe.
> We immediatly realized we didnt need that, because nobody in the group wanted to take advantage over the others, but rather wanted the adventure to be really good, from a story telling point of view.
In order for a story to be a good one, the suspension of disbelief should come naturally and effortlessly. Without rules of some kind, it is difficult to maintain consistensy, which is essential given the immersive nature of good RPG campaigns.
Even when nobody tries to "take advantage", you still have a situation where several people with different styles and views collaborate on the same story. "External" rules help keep everybody on the same page without risking feelings of unfairness that can arise by GM decisions that are perceived as arbitrary.
We, as people are used to live in a world where the rigid laws of physics apply. We feel comfortable being able to calculate, or at least approximate, the results of given actions most of the time. An immersive game (or story, book, movie, play - they are all similar in that respect) should provide a similar feeling.
> We then realised we that we were actually creating a story
> How serious does one need to take a patent like that? Just because some company shells out money to 'patent' something, doesn't mean it would hold up in court.
You forget that said company can also shell out enough money to bankrupt you and keep the case from reaching an unfavourable conclusion.
>> "3. Didn't anyone every teach him "you don't spit into the wind, you don't tug on Superman's cape, and you don't anger the local Sheriff!"?" > > bullshit. piss him off all you like, just don't break the law. i'm not having any of this walking on eggshells around police bullshit.
You've been leading a charmed life, haven't you?
> quite a few of my friends are police officers and some of my family members are officers.
Ah, that explains it.
Unfortunately, regular Joes like me, who do not have friends and family members in the police force (that can bail them out if need arises), cannot afford to hold this viewpoint.
> police are 1) servants of the people and 2) bound to uphold the law.
In a perfect world, maybe.
In the one I live in, police have 1) lots of power and 2) very little accountability.
> if they fuck with you because they don't like you or you have made them angry without breaking the law, then THEY have broken the law and THEY get to go sit in a cell for a while and think things over.
Nope. When police officers do something that should have put them in a cell, they usually get sent to "sensitivity training".
> that's the whole godsdamn point of the legal system in our country. NOBODY is above the law...we ALL watch the watchers.
Except that the deck is stacked in their favour.
Who can better afford a prolonged legal battle, some poor schmuck saddled with a mortgage and trying to put a kid through university or an organization that is funded by said schmuck's taxes?
When it comes to the poor schmuck's word vs. a police officer's word, who is the judge more likely to believe?
The police can legally "detain" you (read: throw you in a cell for a couple of days) for any reson they can pull out of their anus. If you try to stand for your rights, they can slap you with several frivolous charges (e.g., insulting a police officer, resisting arrest).
And when police officers do get convicted of crimes that they commited by abusing the privileges of their status, that same status gets them reduced sentences ("your honour, you cannot send my client to prison because the other inmates will try to hurt him for being a police officer").
All in all, a sweet deal for bullies and crooks.
So until there is a law requiring the application of the maximum sentence for any crime that was performed by abusing a position of authority, I will treat the police as the most dangerous organized crime gang and every police officer as corrupt until proven otherwise.
> to do it any other way would undermine what this country is about.
A wake up call: What your country "is about" has been undermined so thouroughly for so long, it does not really stand for anything anymore.
> Of course, this is exactly the kind of trivial difference that disqualifies it from being 'new and non-obvious', so it still deserves to get laughed out of the Patent Office...
And, as we all know, obvious and stupid patents always get laughed out of the Patent Office.
1) MS sends a letter to the ISP notifying them of alleged infringement.
2) The ISP notifies you.
3) You should inform the ISP that you were not infringing. If you do so within a certain time frame, your ISP is off the hook and they can reinstate your account (if it got suspended). Otherwise, they are legally obligated to cut you off.
I am sure that others, more knowledgeable in this field, will be able to point you to the exact wording that you should be using in your reply.
Personally, I would add a blurb that MS is abusing the DMCA provisions by not checking the "allegedly infringing" material so the ISP should not take any action against its customers without giving them a chance to deny these allegations first.
I would also phone the ISP and ask them whether it is their policy to suspend accounts without any proof of wrongdoing and, if so, you have a list of IP addresses that "allegedly" infringe on your intellectual property rights and you demand that they are suspended at once according to said policy. Otherwise, inquire why do they help convicted monopoly abusers continue their practices by bullying the ISP's customers.
J.K. Weston
Microsoft Corporation One Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 98052 jkweston@microsoft.com Tel: (425) 703-5529
A barrage of phone calls to the above number mentioning anticompetitive practices may also be in order.
>> Imagine the following scenario: a bomb goes off in the US. By tracing >> searches for "anarchist cookbook" to zipcodes within the area of the bomb >> blast, the FBI could have access to information that makes TIA look like a >> better alternative. Maybe this isn't such a good feature after all... > > So you are against the FBI finding terrorists?
Although it smells like a troll, I'll take that question at face value.
Let's imagine the you live within walking distance of the bomb blast...
Let's imagine that you saw a reference to "anarchist cookbook" on/. and decided to google it out of curiousity...
Let's imagine you bought some fertilizer for your flower patch (or veggie garden) two weeks earlier and used google to find a cheap outlet...
Let's imagine that your neighbour is an immigrant from a Muslim country...
Let's imagine that the FBI gets hold of these facts and decides that you are a likely suspect...
Even outside the analgesic dream of democracy, tyrants derive their power from cowardice.
Not if they're smart. Complacency and ignorance are safer alternatives.
I wonder what you would have predicted as the future of our nation 150 or 100 or 50 years ago,
I am sorry to say that I am not sufficiently familiar with the history of your nation. I am also not very good at predictions (especially pertaining to stock markets, but I digress).
However, I think that the modus operandi of your current regime is somewhat different in this era.
as blights many times more menacing must have seemed far more impenetrable to the generations that eventually overcame them...
And here lies the key difference. Your population does not feel threatened, in fact they are either content of have other things to worry about.
Now, let's get philosophical for a moment and consider a hypothetical regime that wants to keep maximum control and stability. Here is a possible scenario:
Make sure the citizenry is docile. Encourage obedience, discourage critical thinking ("zero tolerance" policies at school). Capitalize on patriotic and nationalistic feelings. Provide enough distractions (entertainment) and spin ("infotainment"). Create a "consumer" culture where instant gratification is much more important than long term issues. Play on fears (terrorism) and encourage an "us vs. them" mentality. Find or create an outside threat (WMD)and declare a war on it. Also declare a war on several internal "threats" (drugs). Make the people feel that they are in control and can change things (democracy) but ensure that all of their choices are false ones (two party system with no meaningful differences between them).
Now, start limiting those freedoms that most of the sheeple have been conditioned not to miss. Do so in the name of security, comfort and convenience. Deal with the malcontents in ways that won't make them into symbols for the bulk of the population.
Nah... Won't ever happen.
I say this not out of complacency, but to point out that resignation seems silly.
So is inaction. It is still theoretically possible to beat the system.
Same effect as I suffered when first seeing Hugo Weaving cast as Elrond in "Lord of the rings". Kept expecting him to address Frodo as "Mr. Anderson"...
"And it's a nasty one. You'll have made the 'disease' so resistant that the FBI won't be able to track child pornographers who use it, and the CIA won't be able to track terrorists who use it. And you guys, the RIAA, forget it. You'll be history. You'll go down in the history books for finally achieving copyright anarchy. Or rather, copyright voluntarism, which is what will really happen.
And will the RIAA, Disney, FBI, CIA, NSA, Democrats and Republicans let this happen?
"Ian Clarke has pointed out that the choice between communication safe from anyone's observation and control is more important than the RIAA, the MPAA, and even the theoretical benefit of law enforcement's dream of eavesdropping on everything, everywhere.
Important to who? Not to those who make the rules or pay for them.
"He is right. For saying this, many will damn me. But why is that a controvertial statement: that I should be allowed to talk with my neighbor, and with his neighbor, without the government and its many clients judging every word?
Because it lessens the goverment's power and control.
"Yes, communication is powerful. Yes it is dangerous. That's exactly why we wrote our Bill of Rights the way we did - to protect our expressions and our privacy from cowards, who don't understand how important these basic human rights are.
1. The bill of rights did not save you from the DMCA and PATRIOT acts. I believe it will prove to be equaly ineffective when the rest of your rights will be found to infringe on corporate and political interests.
2. The issue is not "cowards who don't understand" but rather "tyrants who don't agree".
"There are two worlds we can live in. One where, in the end, we have no privacy, and one where, in the end, we do.
"I know which world is better, and so do you."
"Better" is such a subjective word. A better world for you is not neccessary a better world for GWB, Ashcroft, Valenti or, possibly, your lady friend. In fact, she will probably be better off financially in the kind of world that you would not like. Please forgive me for being a cynical old fart, but isn't that the main reason for people who work as IP lawyers for major music corporations?
I save her my story about the evolution of wireless technology.
That technology can be "regulated" too, you know.
They run their business like the mafia.
and they will continue doing so.
As far as I'm concerned, they dug their own grave.
> With the proliferation of region-free and region-changable players, I think we're going to see the end of region encoding. Which is a good thing, for so many other reasons.
Incidently, are there any "global" players that Do Not Suck (TM) and can be purchased in North America?
> They don't have to prove anything. You get sued, then they ask if you want > to settle out of court or go through a lengthy trial process. > Its a lose-lose situation for the parties involved except for the lawyers and > Celine Dion.
Here are my thoughts on the subject:
I believe that somebody can only sue you if you infringe on their copyrights. So, what happens if the Canadians host music copyrighted by the RIAA and the USAmericans host music copyrighted by the CRIA (and both disable sharing partial files, just to be safe)?
As an aside, just how much CRIA-owned music is worth downloading anyway?
I am not that familiar with the Canadian legal system. Do the Canadian courts award "expenses" to be paid by the losing party to the winner? If so, the possibility of intimidation through litigation is greatly reduced.
> I looked at namecheap.com and it looked pretty interesting. However, I had > two bad first impressions about them. > > First, they are running their site on Microsoft Windows. That gives me > questions about the intelligence of the company and security of your domain > registrations. It is likely to have about as much security that Hotbot, > running on MS Windows, did when they had thousands (or was it millions) of > their email accounts compromised. We don't really want every virus that comes > along to wipe out our domain resolution service.
Blanket statements about the inherent insecurity of Windows hosted sites only serve to show the bias of the speaker. The biggest security problem with Windows is the low barrier for entry. There are a lot of Windows "admins" who will work for less but cannot tell security from a guava. Of course, there are good ones but you have to pay them as much as you'd pay a good unix admin (sometimes more, because they have also unix administration experience) and most companies prefer to cut corners.
That said, most eNom resellers just act as a front end to eNom. The actual registration (and domain name services) are done on eNom's site.
> Second, I click on their contact link and see no phone number. Just email. > I found this to be common with the really low priced registrars. The ones we > have tried have always costed us a lot more in lost time and headache in the > long run. As I mentioned on my other reply, I have found most registrars do > not stand up to the service they promise. If you do not get adequate > resolution to a problem via email (which has been the case about 70-80% of > the time with us), having no phone number to call just leaves you out in the > cold.
You don't need to call them. Once they set up your account, you deal directly with eNom. For example, I bought my domain name from polardomains.com a couple of years ago and never had to deal with them again.
Anyway, if you don't like them, shop around. How does $5/year sound?
> I also checked eNom.com. They are also running on Microsoft Windows.
Bias again, eh?
They are the fifth largest registrar and are usually in 1st-3rd place (with Tucows and GoDaddy) among the fastest growing (it fluctuates, currently GoDaddy is 1st). Check Registrar Stats for details.
> They, at least, have contact phone numbers but they are not toll free. From > my experiences with other registrars, especially Network Solutions, leaving > us on hold for 45 minutes to reach a human, that is also a deterrent. Notice > that InetAddresses.net has a link to a toll free phone number for 24 hour > technical support right on the front page.
I have never had a problem with eNom, whether I was calling them from across the border or from across the Atlantic. I am happy with them and I intend to stay. Can't say they're perfect but then, nobody is.
Bottom line, you have my recommendation but the final choice is yours. Good luck.
Slashdot Mirror
I would mod you up if I had points.
Our system was pretty close (though not identical) to what you described.
1) "Realism" does not matter but internal consistency does (otherwise it kills your suspension of disbelief and ruins what could have been an otherwise good story).
2) The mechanics need to be simple enough not to be distracting (so we could concentrate on the story) but consistent enough to be dependable (so the players could approximate their chances of success in each action). That's why I did use some tables instead of picking up a number each time. It also helped keeping disagreements to a minimum, after all, how productive is complaining about the unfairness of F=ma in the real world?
So we kept a (modified) AD&D 2nd ed. set of rules that we were all somewhat fimilar with and got rid of everything that got in the way.
However, after a while, I realized that this was not enough so I, as the GM, added some "unwritten rules".
1) The world is a hostile and dangerous place.
That gave the party a sense of unity and purpose, an "us against everybody" mentality. Also kept the party from splitting up (which was difficult to manage).
2) The punishment for stupidity is quick and harsh.
Stems from #1.
3) The rewards of resourcefulness are generous but not lasting.
Kept them hungry for more.
> Until we scattered around and got married and stuff, it was the most fun we ever had role playing.
I'll drink to that!
> You can also get rid of the dice alltogether.
.300
You could but, IMO, that would in most cases detract from the game.
> The big flaw behind all rpg games is the idea that randomness is at the heart of reality and at the heart of good games.
> Not that I dislike one game of rpg with dice, it can add spice to an action, but as a model to represent reality it is flawed.
This is a Role Playing Game, we're talking about, designing nuclear reactor!
You don't need realism (how realistic is frying orcs with fireballs anyway?), you need internal consistency and some statistical predictability. Dice, when used correctly, provide a simple aid towards that goal.
> Take that football player doing the run of his life, do you think the roll of a d20 against his capacities actually render in any way what is actually happening on the field?
Why not?
Allow me to use baseball instead of football for my example. We'll consider a hypothetical player with a batting average of
When that player player bats, there are probably millions of factors that can influence his chances of successfully hitting the ball but at the end of the day, this player will hit 3 out of 10 on average.
So taking all this factors and distilling them into a d20 roll of 15 or better is actually a pretty good approximation for a social game.
And the GMs can fine tune the way they see fit. Playing against a lousy pitcher? Have a +1 modifier. Hurt your shoulder in a brawl the day before? Make that a -2.
Combining all the factors into a single die roll (or two rolls in case of a charcter vs. charcter situation) with situational modifiers strikes a good balance between "realism" and playability, and if the 5% resolution seems too low, you can always use a d100 or higher.
Now, back to football. Statistically, that player has a certain chance of scoring a touchdown. You can roll the dice and spin a good tale based on the outcome, or you can break the run into several events (catching the ball, dodging the defence), each requiring a separate roll. As long as the presentation is convincing, the actual mechanism can be as simple or as detailed as you like - it will not make much difference.
> Going further, my group and I even suppressed all rules:
Rules are there to help you. If you feel constrained by them it means that either you chose the wrong rules for your game or you are not using them correctly.
> We realized that the rules were basically just a way to force everybody to be coherent with the rest of the group and with the adventure.
Rules also provide a point of reference. A framework that ensures consistancy and helps you build a believable universe.
> We immediatly realized we didnt need that, because nobody in the group wanted to take advantage over the others, but rather wanted the adventure to be really good, from a story telling point of view.
In order for a story to be a good one, the suspension of disbelief should come naturally and effortlessly. Without rules of some kind, it is difficult to maintain consistensy, which is essential given the immersive nature of good RPG campaigns.
Even when nobody tries to "take advantage", you still have a situation where several people with different styles and views collaborate on the same story. "External" rules help keep everybody on the same page without risking feelings of unfairness that can arise by GM decisions that are perceived as arbitrary.
We, as people are used to live in a world where the rigid laws of physics apply. We feel comfortable being able to calculate, or at least approximate, the results of given actions most of the time. An immersive game (or story, book, movie, play - they are all similar in that respect) should provide a similar feeling.
> We then realised we that we were actually creating a story
> > What platforms is Java NOT ported to?
>
> Atari 800. It's very frustrating.
Next thing you're going to mention the TI-55?
>> I think that was choline. Don't feed anyone chlorine, even if it's just a little bit.
>
> What I get for typing faster than I'm thinking.
Your mom should have taken Cholin supplements...
> DARPA is also the birthplace of the current internet...do you trust the internet?
Of course not!
Do you?
> How serious does one need to take a patent like that? Just because some company shells out money to 'patent' something, doesn't mean it would hold up in court.
You forget that said company can also shell out enough money to bankrupt you and keep the case from reaching an unfavourable conclusion.
> IRV gives 90% of the advantages of Condorcet
Does it?
>> "3. Didn't anyone every teach him "you don't spit into the wind, you don't tug on Superman's cape, and you don't anger the local Sheriff!"?"
>
> bullshit. piss him off all you like, just don't break the law. i'm not having any of this walking on eggshells around police bullshit.
You've been leading a charmed life, haven't you?
> quite a few of my friends are police officers and some of my family members are officers.
Ah, that explains it.
Unfortunately, regular Joes like me, who do not have friends and family members in the police force (that can bail them out if need arises), cannot afford to hold this viewpoint.
> police are 1) servants of the people and 2) bound to uphold the law.
In a perfect world, maybe.
In the one I live in, police have 1) lots of power and 2) very little accountability.
> if they fuck with you because they don't like you or you have made them angry without breaking the law, then THEY have broken the law and THEY get to go sit in a cell for a while and think things over.
Nope. When police officers do something that should have put them in a cell, they usually get sent to "sensitivity training".
> that's the whole godsdamn point of the legal system in our country. NOBODY is above the law...we ALL watch the watchers.
Except that the deck is stacked in their favour.
Who can better afford a prolonged legal battle, some poor schmuck saddled with a mortgage and trying to put a kid through university or an organization that is funded by said schmuck's taxes?
When it comes to the poor schmuck's word vs. a police officer's word, who is the judge more likely to believe?
The police can legally "detain" you (read: throw you in a cell for a couple of days) for any reson they can pull out of their anus. If you try to stand for your rights, they can slap you with several frivolous charges (e.g., insulting a police officer, resisting arrest).
And when police officers do get convicted of crimes that they commited by abusing the privileges of their status, that same status gets them reduced sentences ("your honour, you cannot send my client to prison because the other inmates will try to hurt him for being a police officer").
All in all, a sweet deal for bullies and crooks.
So until there is a law requiring the application of the maximum sentence for any crime that was performed by abusing a position of authority, I will treat the police as the most dangerous organized crime gang and every police officer as corrupt until proven otherwise.
> to do it any other way would undermine what this country is about.
A wake up call: What your country "is about" has been undermined so thouroughly for so long, it does not really stand for anything anymore.
> Of course, this is exactly the kind of trivial difference that disqualifies it from being 'new and non-obvious', so it still deserves to get laughed out of the Patent Office...
And, as we all know, obvious and stupid patents always get laughed out of the Patent Office.
> Me having sex with my SO is legal. That doesn't mean I want information about it out in the open.
As far as I know, having sex with your Superior Officer is universally illegal.
1) MS sends a letter to the ISP notifying them of alleged infringement.
2) The ISP notifies you.
3) You should inform the ISP that you were not infringing.
If you do so within a certain time frame, your ISP is off the hook and they can reinstate your account (if it got suspended).
Otherwise, they are legally obligated to cut you off.
I am sure that others, more knowledgeable in this field, will be able to point you to the exact wording that you should be using in your reply.
Personally, I would add a blurb that MS is abusing the DMCA provisions by not checking the "allegedly infringing" material so the ISP should not take any action against its customers without giving them a chance to deny these allegations first.
I would also phone the ISP and ask them whether it is their policy to suspend accounts without any proof of wrongdoing and, if so, you have a list of IP addresses that "allegedly" infringe on your intellectual property rights and you demand that they are suspended at once according to said policy.
Otherwise, inquire why do they help convicted monopoly abusers continue their practices by bullying the ISP's customers.
A barrage of phone calls to the above number mentioning anticompetitive practices may also be in order.
>> Imagine the following scenario: a bomb goes off in the US. By tracing
/. and decided to google it out of curiousity...
>> searches for "anarchist cookbook" to zipcodes within the area of the bomb
>> blast, the FBI could have access to information that makes TIA look like a
>> better alternative. Maybe this isn't such a good feature after all...
>
> So you are against the FBI finding terrorists?
Although it smells like a troll, I'll take that question at face value.
Let's imagine the you live within walking distance of the bomb blast...
Let's imagine that you saw a reference to "anarchist cookbook" on
Let's imagine you bought some fertilizer for your flower patch (or veggie garden) two weeks earlier and used google to find a cheap outlet...
Let's imagine that your neighbour is an immigrant from a Muslim country...
Let's imagine that the FBI gets hold of these facts and decides that you are a likely suspect...
> The article says FBI spokesperson said 'It's illegal to download it.'.
Explicitly legal in Canada (for personal use).
Uploading, on the other hand, can get you in trouble.
> I don't know the specifics of this case but there are some key points that we, as consumers, should consider.
.
Termites are consumers, we are customers
Unless you start making this distinctions, there is no reason for the companies to treat you this way.
Even outside the analgesic dream of democracy, tyrants derive their power from cowardice.
Not if they're smart. Complacency and ignorance are safer alternatives.
I wonder what you would have predicted as the future of our nation 150 or 100 or 50 years ago,
I am sorry to say that I am not sufficiently familiar with the history of your nation. I am also not very good at predictions (especially pertaining to stock markets, but I digress).
However, I think that the modus operandi of your current regime is somewhat different in this era.
as blights many times more menacing must have seemed far more impenetrable to the generations that eventually overcame them...
And here lies the key difference. Your population does not feel threatened, in fact they are either content of have other things to worry about.
Now, let's get philosophical for a moment and consider a hypothetical regime that wants to keep maximum control and stability. Here is a possible scenario:
Make sure the citizenry is docile. Encourage obedience, discourage critical thinking ("zero tolerance" policies at school). Capitalize on patriotic and nationalistic feelings. Provide enough distractions (entertainment) and spin ("infotainment"). Create a "consumer" culture where instant gratification is much more important than long term issues. Play on fears (terrorism) and encourage an "us vs. them" mentality. Find or create an outside threat (WMD)and declare a war on it. Also declare a war on several internal "threats" (drugs). Make the people feel that they are in control and can change things (democracy) but ensure that all of their choices are false ones (two party system with no meaningful differences between them).
Now, start limiting those freedoms that most of the sheeple have been conditioned not to miss. Do so in the name of security, comfort and convenience. Deal with the malcontents in ways that won't make them into symbols for the bulk of the population.
Nah... Won't ever happen.
I say this not out of complacency, but to point out that resignation seems silly.
So is inaction.
It is still theoretically possible to beat the system.
I vote for "known comedian".
Same effect as I suffered when first seeing Hugo Weaving cast as Elrond in "Lord of the rings".
Kept expecting him to address Frodo as "Mr. Anderson"...
I'd say that Will Smith is a pretty good actor: He's got two things going against him:
1) he's known as a comedian, and
2) he's black
#1 can be a real career limiter provided that it is indeed pigeonholing and not the fault of the actor, who may not be convincing in serious roles.
#2 is probably a non issue as several successful black actors can demonstrate.
"And it's a nasty one. You'll have made the 'disease' so resistant that the FBI won't be able to track child pornographers who use it, and the CIA won't be able to track terrorists who use it. And you guys, the RIAA, forget it. You'll be history. You'll go down in the history books for finally achieving copyright anarchy. Or rather, copyright voluntarism, which is what will really happen.
And will the RIAA, Disney, FBI, CIA, NSA, Democrats and Republicans let this happen?
"Ian Clarke has pointed out that the choice between communication safe from anyone's observation and control is more important than the RIAA, the MPAA, and even the theoretical benefit of law enforcement's dream of eavesdropping on everything, everywhere.
Important to who? Not to those who make the rules or pay for them.
"He is right. For saying this, many will damn me. But why is that a controvertial statement: that I should be allowed to talk with my neighbor, and with his neighbor, without the government and its many clients judging every word?
Because it lessens the goverment's power and control.
"Yes, communication is powerful. Yes it is dangerous. That's exactly why we wrote our Bill of Rights the way we did - to protect our expressions and our privacy from cowards, who don't understand how important these basic human rights are.
1. The bill of rights did not save you from the DMCA and PATRIOT acts. I believe it will prove to be equaly ineffective when the rest of your rights will be found to infringe on corporate and political interests.
2. The issue is not "cowards who don't understand" but rather "tyrants who don't agree".
"There are two worlds we can live in. One where, in the end, we have no privacy, and one where, in the end, we do.
"I know which world is better, and so do you."
"Better" is such a subjective word. A better world for you is not neccessary a better world for GWB, Ashcroft, Valenti or, possibly, your lady friend. In fact, she will probably be better off financially in the kind of world that you would not like. Please forgive me for being a cynical old fart, but isn't that the main reason for people who work as IP lawyers for major music corporations?
I save her my story about the evolution of wireless technology.
That technology can be "regulated" too, you know.
They run their business like the mafia.
and they will continue doing so.
As far as I'm concerned, they dug their own grave.
or yours.
> With the proliferation of region-free and region-changable players, I think we're going to see the end of region encoding. Which is a good thing, for so many other reasons.
Incidently, are there any "global" players that Do Not Suck (TM) and can be purchased in North America?
>> Between the MPAA, RIAA, and Ashcroft and the republican regime
It's the two-party regime you have to do something about.
> Yes... there are NO democrats in support of the DMCA...
"I voted for Kodos" is no longer an acceptable excuse.
Install VMware workstation 4. The only disadvantage is the $299 price tag.
> They don't have to prove anything. You get sued, then they ask if you want
> to settle out of court or go through a lengthy trial process.
> Its a lose-lose situation for the parties involved except for the lawyers and
> Celine Dion.
Here are my thoughts on the subject:
I believe that somebody can only sue you if you infringe on their copyrights.
So, what happens if the Canadians host music copyrighted by the RIAA and the USAmericans host music copyrighted by the CRIA (and both disable sharing partial files, just to be safe)?
As an aside, just how much CRIA-owned music is worth downloading anyway?
I am not that familiar with the Canadian legal system. Do the Canadian courts award "expenses" to be paid by the losing party to the winner? If so, the possibility of intimidation through litigation is greatly reduced.
> And moreover, the questions begs to be asked: where the hell is Osama?
I'm more interested to know where in the world is Carmen Sandiego?
> I looked at namecheap.com and it looked pretty interesting. However, I had
> two bad first impressions about them.
>
> First, they are running their site on Microsoft Windows. That gives me
> questions about the intelligence of the company and security of your domain
> registrations. It is likely to have about as much security that Hotbot,
> running on MS Windows, did when they had thousands (or was it millions) of
> their email accounts compromised. We don't really want every virus that comes
> along to wipe out our domain resolution service.
Blanket statements about the inherent insecurity of Windows hosted sites only serve to show the bias of the speaker.
The biggest security problem with Windows is the low barrier for entry. There are a lot of Windows "admins" who will work for less but cannot tell security from a guava. Of course, there are good ones but you have to pay them as much as you'd pay a good unix admin (sometimes more, because they have also unix administration experience) and most companies prefer to cut corners.
That said, most eNom resellers just act as a front end to eNom. The actual registration (and domain name services) are done on eNom's site.
> Second, I click on their contact link and see no phone number. Just email.
> I found this to be common with the really low priced registrars. The ones we
> have tried have always costed us a lot more in lost time and headache in the
> long run. As I mentioned on my other reply, I have found most registrars do
> not stand up to the service they promise. If you do not get adequate
> resolution to a problem via email (which has been the case about 70-80% of
> the time with us), having no phone number to call just leaves you out in the
> cold.
You don't need to call them. Once they set up your account, you deal directly with eNom.
For example, I bought my domain name from polardomains.com a couple of years ago and never had to deal with them again.
Anyway, if you don't like them, shop around. How does $5/year sound?
> I also checked eNom.com. They are also running on Microsoft Windows.
Bias again, eh?
They are the fifth largest registrar and are usually in 1st-3rd place (with Tucows and GoDaddy) among the fastest growing (it fluctuates, currently GoDaddy is 1st). Check Registrar Stats for details.
> They, at least, have contact phone numbers but they are not toll free. From
> my experiences with other registrars, especially Network Solutions, leaving
> us on hold for 45 minutes to reach a human, that is also a deterrent. Notice
> that InetAddresses.net has a link to a toll free phone number for 24 hour
> technical support right on the front page.
I have never had a problem with eNom, whether I was calling them from across the border or from across the Atlantic. I am happy with them and I intend to stay. Can't say they're perfect but then, nobody is.
Bottom line, you have my recommendation but the final choice is yours. Good luck.
> Hey, what'd you do to my formatting, Slashcode?
Reformatted it. You have a problem with that?
> I said plain text. Plain text dammit!
And I said "Use the Preview Button!". So?
Sincerely,
Slashcode.