It would be nice if the anti-science stuff didn't always focus on the creationists and would occasionally also focus on the animal rights nuts who advocate killing researchers and blowing up labs. Just 'cause they don't tote Bibles (though some do), doesn't mean they're not every bit as big a problem as the creationists (besides, creationists rarely blow up biosciences labs like animal rights extremists do).
Posting on Blizzard support forums? Riiight. WoW is amazing, but Blizzard support absolutely sucks. Almost completely non-communicative, and the people they have assigned to post officially to forums appear to be volunteers as they are frequnelty even more whiney and immature than the players.
The problem is that a) if you actually followed the Blizzard rules, pretty much every conceivable name is out, and b) the policy is imposed very hapharzardly. I see names every day that are blatant violations of the policy in that they encapsulate sexually suggestive phrases which are never forced to alter their name, but then they'll make someone like cmdrtaco or the guy who used Uranus change his name.
And except on RP servers, why? I can see them wanting to get rid of blatantly sexual names...no one wants to see FuckYou running around Azeroth, but if people come up with creative names, why punish them for it? Just doesn't make any sense.
If you actually RTFA, you will see that the summary in Slashdot is incorrect (gee, there's a shock). The violations themselves have little to do with the Patriot Act,
"Most such cases involve powers granted under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which governs the use of secret warrants, wiretaps and other methods as part of investigations of agents of foreign powers or terrorist groups. The threshold for such surveillance is lower than for traditional criminal warrants. More than 1,700 new cases were opened by the court last year, according to an administration report to Congress."
The problem here is not the Patriot Act or even FISA, but rather the FBI ignoring limitations placed in both (and FISA was passed during the Carter administration).
Well, what is definitely true is you are unable to read for content. Sid never said chess was simple, he said it had a small number of movement types (6) and squares (64), so it is fairly easy to *define*. Go would be significantly harder than chess to *define*. Something like Civ IV would be even more difficult to *define* than Go.
According to the Entertainment Software Assocation, the average game is age 30, and the average purchaser of games is 37. There are, in fact, more women > 18 who play games than there are young boys 6-17 who do so according to the ESA. Some segments of the video game/computer game industry are clearly geared to teenage boys, but you seem to be relying largely on anecdotes and stereotypes.
That said, your last point is the real problem. What happens to game production costs when photorealism is the standard. Do we reach the point where a game costs as much to produce and develop as a high-end Hollywood production? If so, then we'll likely see the same stagnation and lack of creativity that we see in the film industry.
Except it will be even worse, since technology has actually brought production costs for film and video down while the production costs for video/computer games have skyrocketed. Yes there are still a lot of great independent titles for the PC, but the consoles are pretty stagnant.
They want a guardian ad litem appointed, which has nothing to do with "try[ing] to take a child away from her parents." It just means someone else other than her mother would be appointed to represents the interests of the child for the purposes of this specific lawsuit.
This made absolutely no sense. Mass. is not forcing MS out of business. It is simply saying that it won't buy a product that lacks certain features it needs.
Well sure, but you might as well just say Congress could declare that all music published automatically belongs to the RIAA. Congress could do anything, but I thought what was at issue here is what would be the best way to resolve the issue not what Congress or the courts could theoretically do.
Compulsory licensing assumes that the only interest copyright holders have is monetary. That is simply not the case.
You misunderstand the ruling -- Tasini can be compelled to allow the Times to republish the article in an online database.
Irrelevant, since that is not what is being argued in the article here.
There are times when content producers, especially musicians, object to being associated with other content producers.
Suppose the NRA wanted to make a video about guns and include a Sheryl Crow song as background music. I'm assuming Sheryl Crow, given her anti-gun views, would strongly object to that. But the second you talk about compulsory licensing of content you immediately step into these problems.
That's why the author of this article brings in the eminent domain argument. When they need to tear down houses to build a new sports complex for some NFL team, some homeowners would prefer not to do business with the team, but eminent domain allows the government to force the homeowners to do so on the grounds that they are creating a public good.
The author is arguing that if the RIAA doesn't bargain in good faith, that Napster should be given the right to exercise a compulsory license in music. But, as he notes, you wouldn't be able to do that just for Napster.
So what happens when the NAMBLA decides it wants to start selling MP3 downloads from its site to raise money? Or [fill in the group here]
And what happens when such a solution is inevitably applied to other forms covered under copyright laws?
But this violates my right to choose who I associate with.
For example, a few years ago an essay I wrote about rape was stolen and put on a porn site, because it did well in search engine searches on "rape."
Now even if the porn site were willing to pay me $1,000 for that short article, I would not be interested in granting them a license to publish.
But once you get into compulsory licensing, this sort of discretion goes completely out the Window, and creative types can no longer choose for themselves who they will associate with.
Various people sent in complaints, and good old Anonymous Coward sent a link to the Diablo II Forums, where all and sundry are complaining that sunspots, or h4xx0rs, or Blizzard's incompetence have made all their hard-earned Diablo II items disappear into the aether from whence they came. Is it just me, or is it a bit odd to be reporting on the disappearance of items that never existed in the first place?
So the next time Hotmail crashes and a bunch of people lose all their e-mail, are you going to post "is it a bit odd to be reporting on the disappearance of items that never existed in the first place"?
Isn't it a bit odd that somebody at Slashdot is posting that information isn't "real".
Last month's U.S. government report on Global warming did show that there is definite warming going on. I'll keep my laughter about G.W. ordering the report to myself.
Except that report confirmed exactly what Bush has been saying: there is a consensus on the warming, but there is no consensus at all on what role, if any, human beings are playing in it.
Actually, if you read this carefully it seems clear that this applies only if you are going to link using their logo.
This paragraph is the confusing part,
You are granted permission to link up CyberCheeze from your Web site, as long as you use only the Logos provided. All use of other graphical elements for linking to the CyberCheeze Web site without explicit prior permissions is illegal. By downloading the Logo, you fully agree to the Policies set herein.
The first sentence is very poorly written, but I interpret this to mean that if you want to link to this site using a graphic logo, you have to user their logo and you have to abide by the policies set down here. This says nothing about text links.
This made no sense at all. Content creators lose in the long run because of this lawsuit. Now newspapers just make freelancers sign work-for-hire contracts. I went from retaining a significant level of rights to zilch if I want to write for these folks.
Has Katz really never been to a major chain store. You don't think the products get on shelves for free do you? Manufacturers pay for prime retail positioning. Why does Katz always take standard business practices and make them sound like their some new arcane invention of the Internet era?
First Michael screws over the CensorWare project and now he's extolling the wonders of having the government deliver broadband where users will inevitably get to play by government rules. Not surprising.
The problem with Katz analysis here is that it rests on the same faulty premise that Salon.Com, Feed, etc. were built -- that the only way the web will be a serious media contender is if you have these mega-magazines sites like Salon that significant percentages of people read.
To put it bluntly, that's just plain stupid, especially with the way many of these sites spend money (i.e. faster than should be humanly possible).
For somebody whose regularly complaining about how adults and legislators stereotype kids, Katz certainly has a rather black-and-white view of the world.
Microsoft is neither an unstoppable Frankenstein (in fact I think it is in far worse shape than Katz lets on), and neither is it the wholly benevolent innovator that its worst apologists claim.
This article by Katz is just as distorted and one sided about Microsoft as Craig Mundie's FUD-filled speech about Linux and open source was.
Just the other day Katz was lamenting that there wasn't enough democratic control over technology. But whenever anyone actually uses the democratic process to control technology, off he goes screaming censorship.
This doesn't demonstrate *my* democratic views, and I'm sure if you held it up to a national vote where both sides clearly educated the populace, these measures would go down. "Democratic" means the people speak.
We don't have national referendums in the United States, so this is a pointless aside. And what is "clearly educated"? I assume you mean little more than "until they agreed with me."
Actually, large majorities of Americans favor any number of restrictions on speech. Just look at the huge support for an amendment banning flag burning. I suspect a law mandating filters would easily survive a national referendum if one were held.
Slashdot Mirror
It would be nice if the anti-science stuff didn't always focus on the creationists and would occasionally also focus on the animal rights nuts who advocate killing researchers and blowing up labs. Just 'cause they don't tote Bibles (though some do), doesn't mean they're not every bit as big a problem as the creationists (besides, creationists rarely blow up biosciences labs like animal rights extremists do).
Posting on Blizzard support forums? Riiight. WoW is amazing, but Blizzard support absolutely sucks. Almost completely non-communicative, and the people they have assigned to post officially to forums appear to be volunteers as they are frequnelty even more whiney and immature than the players.
If he's on an RP server, that's one thing. But if he's not, the change is stupid.
The problem is that a) if you actually followed the Blizzard rules, pretty much every conceivable name is out, and b) the policy is imposed very hapharzardly. I see names every day that are blatant violations of the policy in that they encapsulate sexually suggestive phrases which are never forced to alter their name, but then they'll make someone like cmdrtaco or the guy who used Uranus change his name.
And except on RP servers, why? I can see them wanting to get rid of blatantly sexual names...no one wants to see FuckYou running around Azeroth, but if people come up with creative names, why punish them for it? Just doesn't make any sense.
If you actually RTFA, you will see that the summary in Slashdot is incorrect (gee, there's a shock). The violations themselves have little to do with the Patriot Act,
"Most such cases involve powers granted under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which governs the use of secret warrants, wiretaps and other methods as part of investigations of agents of foreign powers or terrorist groups. The threshold for such surveillance is lower than for traditional criminal warrants. More than 1,700 new cases were opened by the court last year, according to an administration report to Congress."
The problem here is not the Patriot Act or even FISA, but rather the FBI ignoring limitations placed in both (and FISA was passed during the Carter administration).
Well, what is definitely true is you are unable to read for content. Sid never said chess was simple, he said it had a small number of movement types (6) and squares (64), so it is fairly easy to *define*. Go would be significantly harder than chess to *define*. Something like Civ IV would be even more difficult to *define* than Go.
Definately!!
According to the Entertainment Software Assocation, the average game is age 30, and the average purchaser of games is 37. There are, in fact, more women > 18 who play games than there are young boys 6-17 who do so according to the ESA. Some segments of the video game/computer game industry are clearly geared to teenage boys, but you seem to be relying largely on anecdotes and stereotypes.
That said, your last point is the real problem. What happens to game production costs when photorealism is the standard. Do we reach the point where a game costs as much to produce and develop as a high-end Hollywood production? If so, then we'll likely see the same stagnation and lack of creativity that we see in the film industry.
Except it will be even worse, since technology has actually brought production costs for film and video down while the production costs for video/computer games have skyrocketed. Yes there are still a lot of great independent titles for the PC, but the consoles are pretty stagnant.
Please tell me you're really not this stupid.
Oh, wait, this is Slashdot, you probably are.
They want a guardian ad litem appointed, which has nothing to do with "try[ing] to take a child away from her parents." It just means someone else other than her mother would be appointed to represents the interests of the child for the purposes of this specific lawsuit.
This made absolutely no sense. Mass. is not forcing MS out of business. It is simply saying that it won't buy a product that lacks certain features it needs.
If they don't want people copying CDs, why do they sell this CD recorder?
Well sure, but you might as well just say Congress could declare that all music published automatically belongs to the RIAA. Congress could do anything, but I thought what was at issue here is what would be the best way to resolve the issue not what Congress or the courts could theoretically do.
Compulsory licensing assumes that the only interest copyright holders have is monetary. That is simply not the case.
You misunderstand the ruling -- Tasini can be compelled to allow the Times to republish the article in an online database.
Irrelevant, since that is not what is being argued in the article here.
There are times when content producers, especially musicians, object to being associated with other content producers.
Suppose the NRA wanted to make a video about guns and include a Sheryl Crow song as background music. I'm assuming Sheryl Crow, given her anti-gun views, would strongly object to that. But the second you talk about compulsory licensing of content you immediately step into these problems.
That's why the author of this article brings in the eminent domain argument. When they need to tear down houses to build a new sports complex for some NFL team, some homeowners would prefer not to do business with the team, but eminent domain allows the government to force the homeowners to do so on the grounds that they are creating a public good.
The author is arguing that if the RIAA doesn't bargain in good faith, that Napster should be given the right to exercise a compulsory license in music. But, as he notes, you wouldn't be able to do that just for Napster.
So what happens when the NAMBLA decides it wants to start selling MP3 downloads from its site to raise money? Or [fill in the group here]
And what happens when such a solution is inevitably applied to other forms covered under copyright laws?
But this violates my right to choose who I associate with.
For example, a few years ago an essay I wrote about rape was stolen and put on a porn site, because it did well in search engine searches on "rape."
Now even if the porn site were willing to pay me $1,000 for that short article, I would not be interested in granting them a license to publish.
But once you get into compulsory licensing, this sort of discretion goes completely out the Window, and creative types can no longer choose for themselves who they will associate with.
Various people sent in complaints, and good old Anonymous Coward sent a link to the Diablo II Forums, where all and sundry are complaining that sunspots, or h4xx0rs, or Blizzard's incompetence have made all their hard-earned Diablo II items disappear into the aether from whence they came. Is it just me, or is it a bit odd to be reporting on the disappearance of items that never existed in the first place?
So the next time Hotmail crashes and a bunch of people lose all their e-mail, are you going to post "is it a bit odd to be reporting on the disappearance of items that never existed in the first place"?
Isn't it a bit odd that somebody at Slashdot is posting that information isn't "real".
Last month's U.S. government report on Global warming did show that there is definite warming going on. I'll keep my laughter about G.W. ordering the report to myself.
Except that report confirmed exactly what Bush has been saying: there is a consensus on the warming, but there is no consensus at all on what role, if any, human beings are playing in it.
Actually, if you read this carefully it seems clear that this applies only if you are going to link using their logo.
This paragraph is the confusing part,
You are granted permission to link up CyberCheeze from your Web site, as long as you use only the Logos provided. All use of other graphical elements for linking to the CyberCheeze Web site without explicit prior permissions is illegal. By downloading the Logo, you fully agree to the Policies set herein.
The first sentence is very poorly written, but I interpret this to mean that if you want to link to this site using a graphic logo, you have to user their logo and you have to abide by the policies set down here. This says nothing about text links.
The solution is obvious Jon...stop contributing to my ADD by stop writing this senseless drivel.
This made no sense at all. Content creators lose in the long run because of this lawsuit. Now newspapers just make freelancers sign work-for-hire contracts. I went from retaining a significant level of rights to zilch if I want to write for these folks.
Has Katz really never been to a major chain store. You don't think the products get on shelves for free do you? Manufacturers pay for prime retail positioning. Why does Katz always take standard business practices and make them sound like their some new arcane invention of the Internet era?
First Michael screws over the CensorWare project and now he's extolling the wonders of having the government deliver broadband where users will inevitably get to play by government rules. Not surprising.
The problem with Katz analysis here is that it rests on the same faulty premise that Salon.Com, Feed, etc. were built -- that the only way the web will be a serious media contender is if you have these mega-magazines sites like Salon that significant percentages of people read.
To put it bluntly, that's just plain stupid, especially with the way many of these sites spend money (i.e. faster than should be humanly possible).
For somebody whose regularly complaining about how adults and legislators stereotype kids, Katz certainly has a rather black-and-white view of the world.
Microsoft is neither an unstoppable Frankenstein (in fact I think it is in far worse shape than Katz lets on), and neither is it the wholly benevolent innovator that its worst apologists claim.
This article by Katz is just as distorted and one sided about Microsoft as Craig Mundie's FUD-filled speech about Linux and open source was.
Just the other day Katz was lamenting that there wasn't enough democratic control over technology. But whenever anyone actually uses the democratic process to control technology, off he goes screaming censorship.
Why can't Katz make up his mind?
This doesn't demonstrate *my* democratic views, and I'm sure if you held it up to a national vote where both sides clearly educated the populace, these measures would go down. "Democratic" means the people speak.
We don't have national referendums in the United States, so this is a pointless aside. And what is "clearly educated"? I assume you mean little more than "until they agreed with me."
Actually, large majorities of Americans favor any number of restrictions on speech. Just look at the huge support for an amendment banning flag burning. I suspect a law mandating filters would easily survive a national referendum if one were held.