Messages

Were Mulder and Scully in your dream? Cause there was an episode of the X-Files just like that.

Our only hope now is for DG to rescue us with one of his witty replies.

You had me at, "Did you get the hint?"

Rubbish. Uwe Boll is a fabulous director.

Here's someone who agrees with me: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0093051/board/thread/7655371?d=8095318#8095318

[On another note:]

On another note:
I would like to personally apologize to DG for my degenerating this topic into my gripe about mp3!  I do apologize.

You should be sorry!! OMG YUO AERS RUIN MY DRM THRAED!11!

If we're in battle, is he going to be looking at the enemy,
or is he going to be looking at me and going, "Ooh. He
looks tasty in his uniform"?

If  they'd just release the software (free of protection) for $5 a pop from their website (instead of a rediculous $60 in a store) they'd sell 100 times as many.  They wouldn't have wasted time/money on useless copy protection and now, because the price is so low, they'd sell infinitely more of them.

The idea behind Steam works in a similar way. You can purchase the games over the web and the product and it works out to be cheaper. I think you have to go through the same key activation as buying off the shelves. Like I said, I like the idea behind Steam but not implementation.

However, this raises another question: what happens when you want to use this software on another home computer? For example, say I have two home computers and I buy Half Life 2 for a 1-on-1 Deathmatch Slugfest. Can I use the same key on both computers? According to what I've read, you can. But that's if you use a certain amount of trickery in going offline. This method, however, is supported by Steam.

Now, apply this to something else like say Windows XP. Can I use the same copy of Windows XP on both computers? No. Why? Because the pre-install license only allows for install on a single computer and thus the key-activation only works once. Tfis causes problems in other scenarios. What if you trade-in your old computer and buy a new computer. Basically you are force to include the cost of a second-hand version of XP install under your name to a buyer and then you're forced to fork-out for a new copy.

And I think in that situation it's a little ironic since in the interview I posted Gates said : "We're the guys of empowerment." I don't think being forced to sell my OS secondhand and buy a new one is a sign of empowerment.

[may be holding back culture as a whole.]

Steam is a content program from Valve. It allows you to register and play Half Life 2 and other up-coming Valve games. I think it's actually a better form of digital content protection but I don't like it mainly because I've found it to be very buggy.

I also found an interesting interview with Bill Gates on the subject of DRM:

http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/portable-media/index.php#gates-interview-part-four-communists-and-drm-029706

The bit I liked was this (the bold part I was most interested in):

Gizmodo: I think in calling that evil as opposed to whatever, I think that still basically comes down to, 'Do you feel like things should be able to have passwords on them or not?' And of course the answer is 'yes.' I do think that's reasonable. So I don't think anybody is trying to say 'DRM is evil.' I think what people are trying to say is that DRM, as sanctioned by the big players, may be holding back culture as a whole.

Gates: The DRM we put into these systems is used to protect medical records, and it's used to protect things people want to protect. And so it's hard for me to say, 'No, because it might be used for media for a way in some people don't like, I won't put it in there for medical records.' This is a platform that people can use in any way that they choose.

Gizmodo: I think that's a little close to, 'Think of the children.' I understand what you're saying, but just because, 'medical records, it's good to have a password on them' doesn't necessarily mean that when it comes to music or the things that I purchase that that's also a good thing. I think it all comes down to what it is you're actually paying for.

Gates: All we're doing is putting it in the platform. So I'm just saying, can you criticize us for having a platform that allows bitsâ€"bits, just bits; not music, not movies, not medical records, not tech thingsâ€"to have any usage restriction for bits. Are we doing a disfavor to the world at large by saying some of our users, when they choose toâ€"maybe for medical recordsâ€"they can limit the accessibility of those bits?

Gizmodo: I think setting up the platform? No, it's not inherently bad. But I think it does depend on what it is that you're protecting. But I think we just disagree.

Gates: No, I actually don't think we disagree.

The Digital Rights Management debate has flared up again after reports that hackers are exploiting Window Media Player's DRM capabilities with trojans.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/01/13/drm_trojan/
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1751248,00.asp
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/internet/security/0,39020375,39184120,00.htm

What's your view on DRM? Is it important for software authors (or any creators) to utilise digital technology to protect their work? Or is it a cumbersome way of dealing with things?

This als includes encryption on DVD discs, protected music stores like iTunes, key activation systems such as the first time you run Windows XP, and content protection software like Valve's Steam program.

Aye, I think the debate has gone rather well so far. But if this debate is ever going to reach TV we need some more headkickings and name-calling ala The O'Reilly Factor. 

Newspapers & Nonfiction Books are, actually, also considered parts of media

They are, but you missed my point. I'm saying that newspapers and nonfictions books provide more background and analysis as opposed to hardly any on television news. The problem isn't so much media bias because the media isn't just one big entity. There are several media organisations each with their own policies and gatekeeping ideology. For example, the news values at FOX for example are different to that at CNN. The problem is more the focus on the superficial yet entertaining aspects on news, which television has come to represent. Like I said, it's easier to watch TV news than read a paper or a book. With TV news you can just sit there, zone out, and watch the pictures.

True enough, and people in coastals cities have more money.  They're also much more liberal.  Not like "Damn Liberal".  People in coastal towns tend towards "less strenuous" jobs.  They can spend more time focusing on actualization.  Nothing makes you feel like you've made a difference like preventing an injustice.  The media feeds off this, (to make money), and presents news in a way that suits this "higher-consciousness" at it's most carnel.  The media must have SOME responsibility.  It's their job to tell what's happening.  The press isn't supposed to be a business; it's supposed to be an institution.  If it's okay for the press to be after ad revenue, then it's okay for a country to go to war over oil.

Morality is morality - it either exists or it doesn't.  We can't let one side go & hold another side to it.  Sure, the government has bombs, but knowledge really IS power.  People have gone to war over knowlege, and today, the press are the keepers of it.

But you forget, I'm not defending the press here. I feel they have a great deal of responsibility... not just some. And even though liberal audiences have different tastes to conservatives, they still enjoy sitting in front of the boobtube and zoning-out to the TV News. The same applies to conservatives -- they like to watch TV. Most human beings do. In fact, I've read studies that show the TV media really just hovers between liberal and conservative -- basically, it doesn't care who it attracts, just as long as it attract. And to do so, it will show the most bland, mediocre programming. No insight or anything.

As for the media as a business, I agree. It shouldn't be a business, but it is. That's how a "free" press survives. I don't like it anymore you don't like imperialism, but there are not very many other options. And  remember I'm not validating what the media does. I'm not saying "oh relax it's cause it's a business". Like I've said, they're as much a part of the problem (more like a big part) as Bush, Saddam, whoever else.

In the end, it's people like the soldiers and the civilians on both sides who get screwed. And like you say, a majority voted for Bush so a majority of US residents must be happy getting screwed.

Actually, I think the problem with the media isn't so much that's it's criticising Bush too much. I think the problem is that it wasn't asking the right critical questions about the war while it was happening. The big problem with the media is that it's become a very visual medium. You see, television news is the most popular news source in the US. However, to gain attention, you need visuals and conflict. The war provides the conflict, and the cameramen filming the bombings or gun battles provide the visuals. The problem with this is that it only presents a superficial picture of the war without any background, or even analysis. And when they do provide analysis, it's usually the typical binary opposition (liberal versus conservative; left verus right; democrat verus republican). There's no substance to it and it becomes theatre. Much like pro-wrestling, only pro-wrestling is more educational.

Keep in mind this isn't necessarily the media's fault. It's just as easy to blame the audience for not picking up a couple of newspapers or borrowing a few books from the library and reading about current events. Watching the tube is durn easy cuz yer don't have ter think about it plus it's gosh-durn-golly entertainin' hyuck hyuck hyuck!

Only after the war are critical reports coming out. But the damage has already been done. It's too late. And it makes me queasy when I think about the fact I've gone to university for this sort of thing.

By the way, just thought I'd mention I don't believe in the whole "left-wing liberal conspiracy" or "right-wing conspiracy" of the media. There's no conspiracy. Media owners are after one thing: viewers. More viewers means more ad revenue means more money *$$$KA-CHING$$$*. The media works like most business work -- they're after profits. And the media will pretty much cling on to whatever will attract more viewers, especially war. And how can you call it a conspiracy when it's so plainly obvious?

Excuse the double post, but I think this related item deserves a post of it's own:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=638&ncid=638&e=1&u=/nm/20050113/en_nm/people_cohen_dc

Except for Stepford Wives. Don't see it. It was shit. And it'll give you testicular cancer. Even if you're a woman.

Sorry, I misread your original statment, DC. I thought you were focusing that question more so on Iraq.

However, I still don't think I understand your rationale: Are you trying to say that the people who've died in the Iraq war died so the standard of life can improve in the grand scheme of things? I'm sure that sounds very noble, but I think you'd have a hard time describing that notion to someone (Iraqi or US) who has lost family members in Iraq. I don't think I could, say, let the US bomb my family members just so I could get a BMW.

Maybe a Lamborghini though.

In any case, Imperialism is a flawed argument for justification. Many cultures have a ideal of what a "good end" is, and I don't think there's a way to determine which one is universally better, and that goes for hegemonic cultures too. I don't think by saying "We're imperialists, this is how we handle foreign problems" is a good way to justify invading Iraq in the name of freedom and liberty. It's like Hitler saying "I'm a Nazi and I handle cultural and genetic issues this way" to justify creating the master race.

It's tough to say look at Bush or Kerry states - Kerry only had about 8, (out of 50), so I don't know if that's a good argument.

Kerry won more than 8 states and most of them were costal states, which is what my point was since Costal states provide a better line of defense than states in the heartland of America. So it is a good argument.

Also, can any American that has roots in imigration NOT believe that horrible actions are justified if they lead to a good end.  I mean.....it's pretty much the reason it's a country at all.  It seems that we are simply following suit to what we ALWAYS do.  What makes this time special or different?

I don't think the deaths of civillians (US or Iraqi) constitutes a good end. Nor do I consider a country that's practically in rumbles a good end. There was no oppression against any Americans by Iraq before the war, so American citizens gained no extra benefits in regards to the right to freedom. How can the ends justify the means when the ends are negative for Iraqis and US soldiers and pretty much non-beneficiary for individual US citizens?

The are different groups of Muslims in Iraq.  Sadam was, systematically, killing one group, and doing nothing to his group.  During WWII, allied forces liberated Jews in Germany, but killed a lot of Germans.  Almost ALL Germans during that time were a peaceable people with awfull leaders.  Most had no idea what was going on, and killing them was tragic.  Nobody talks about that EVER.  When the Germans were taken to the camps they were appalled by what they saw.  The, unfortunate, difference in the Iraq setting, is the Muslims that Sadam belonged to; don't really care to know what is, or what was, happening to their countrymen during the regime.  Many thought everything was fine, and wonder why anyone showed up in the first place.

But that wasn't the reason for the US government's invasion, which is also my original point from my very first post. Also, are you're justifying the war by saying that US rights are more important than the rights of Iraqis? And are you also justifying the deaths by saying that some Iraqis deserved to die because they didn't know or care about what was happening to another group of Iraqis? If so, that doesn't make sense to me.

I've been hearing a lot of people say things like "as an American consumer of oil-based products, I think the war was justified" or "At least he isn't killing people in his own country" or "He's just following what the American public wants". I wonder when did the life of an American civillian (and the ability to purchase cheaper oil-based products) outweigh the life of an Iraqi civillian? And why all of this demonising of Iraqis, many of whom had nothing to do with Sept 11, in the first place? I've seen footage of Iraqis mourning the loss of their families, killed during the war. And yet it seems the best people can come up with it that it was what most of the American public wants.

But I disagree with this line of "it's what the American public wants" thinking being based on Bush's re-election. I've read polls that show most Americans thought the war has done more damage than good. I've also read that the most common reason for Bush's re-election was more his stance on moral issues (such as abortion and gay marriage) than national security. Also, take a look at the electoral map. Notice than most of the pro-Bush states are in the middle (such as the bible belt) while most of the costal states were pro-Kerry. I thought if national security was a big concern then the costal states would prefer to vote for Bush. That's why I don't think Bush's reelection validates the war to the extent of public desire for more national security.

And I don't understand how so many Iraqi civillians were killed because of a false reason. Sure, there are legitimate reasons that have been stated in this very thread: oil, US pride, freeing them, etc. And yet, the main reason the US government gave (national security) is turning out to be more and more false as each year goes by. It's now come to the point where it's completely false. And even the US Government has admitted that.

I've heard people mention the term "casualties of war" before, but try explaining to an Iraqi widow that her husband was a "casualty of war". Likewise, explaining to the family of a US soldier killed in the line of combat that he's a "casualty of war". Sure, I can understand a soldier dying for freedom, but how was Iraq oppressing the US? When did Iraq's existence (and Saddam's control) constitute oppression of US citizens? How were Iraqi's opressing US citizens' right to freedom? And think about these question with the additional thought that the US hasn't found any WMDs in Iraq and has given up the search for them. People died for that lie. They were unnecessary deaths.

I don't know if there is a right way or a wrong way to do things. But I do know this: the way it was done didn't make any sense. It was senseless violence for no real reason.

And as Grundislav and Naranjas say, there was very little scrutiny by the media. And sometimes that makes me ashamed that I studied journalism.

It's been a while since we've had a serious political debate with some blood on the dance floor, so allow me to present...

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7307840

Everyone can already guess my opinion on the matter, so we'll skip my "blah blah Bush lied not my president blah blah blah" rant. What's your opinion, looking back after 2 years? Are there still people here who can justify the war? And why?

Also, how do you think the upcoming elections will go?

I'm very happy you got the job. Congrats, dude!

You like Mr. T both more and less than John/Joan Cusack ?

It's complicated. Like an Avril song.

Mr T for spots 1 through to 10. Except for number 7, which I'd place either John Cusack or Joan Cusack. I haven't made up my mind yet.