Still, sad to see the once-great China, who gave us paper, movable type, gunpowder, the compass, and too many other world-changing inventions to name here, devolving into a dystopian nation of bean-counting surveillance monkeys. A great society (and I am not implying that America and the West are "great" in this sense) does not police private communications between adults in order to detect the use of lewd or subversive words...period. Such behavior is symptomatic of a system of government that is rotten to its core.
I doubt you can extrapolate from your experiences on a single MMORPG to the industry as a whole. Grind may well be intentional in your case, or in WoW; but in (many) other MMORPGs, the designers put a lot of work into reducing grind. Grind is always a double-edged sword, and rather than focus on grinding for grinding's sake, I recommend you focus on creating a compelling gaming experience first; worry about metastructure when you've managed to do that.
I never said I focused on grinding for grinding's sake.
Our game is a parody, and our main focus is on creating a universe that is funny and engaging. It would simply be bad game design if we didn't recognize that grinding is part of the MMORPG experience.
You obivously know this because you used the word "reducing" when referring to it.
Well I guess I'll be the only one saying it: this entire article reeks of male geek condescension. I didn't know Clay Shirky was a feminist-apologist but I certainly grow tired of messages like this delivered from male bloggers about how women need to change, to do this or that or the other. This is a thin rewrite of a post that appeared I believe here on HN a few weeks back; only that post was actually written by a woman. These outside-looking-in pieces that male bloggers do are almost always a bad idea.
I don't think Shirky is a "feminist-apologist" so much as that this kind of thinking has become a bit of "received wisdom" in liberal, especially academic, circles.
It's extremely difficult for a global warming skeptic to get published in scientific journals because the decision-makers are beholden in one way or another to the global warming movement. This is why we've yet to see a fair and honest debate of this issue. What we have today is 90% politics 10% science.
As far as my experience goes, papers just get submitted and then go into the peer-review process. If a paper comes down to the level of discourse we're seeing in these blogs, it won't get published, but if it contains some valid science, I see no reason why it wouldn't get published. If you have proof otherwise, please share it.
> What we have today is 90% politics 10% science.
Yes. This is both unfortunate and as it should be. It's unfortunate for the scientific debate. The level of discourse has dropped dramatically because of the politicisation.
On the other hand, scientists have been researching this for many years. The scientific debate has been ongoing for at least that long. Their conclusions do have a strong effect on policy. Political decisions have to be made about how to handle the issue.[1] Such policy-making has already started years ago and lead to the Kyoto Accord in 1997. So we're more in the political phase than we are in the scientific phase. 90% politics is probably as it should be right now.
[1] You can read this as "how to handle the issue if at there is an issue" if you want. It doesn't change what I'm saying.
It strips content down to plain text, removing any advertising, promotional links, social networking buttons, etc., and it does so without the permission of the originating site. Digg tried to pull something similar when they introduced the Digg toolbar (embedding original content in a frame) and people got hopping mad. But I guess on the iPhone anything goes, since Apple owns the copyright for rounded rectangles.
Think about Instapaper's use case: Offline or slow connection. On iPhones or iPod touches.
There's no point in having a social network button when you can't reach Digg or Reddit to submit or to vote. There's no point in having a blank space for an ad, if the user doesn't have a persistent internet connection that can be used to retrieve the ad to show on your page.
And because this is an iPhone or an iPod touch, the screen space is still limited. This means: Only having the text of the site - the essential content - is the goal for the end user. For the end user, this is very much preferred to displaying the entire webpage and zooming back and forth (while ignoring ugly empty spaces for ads that didn't load). Or maybe your ads are in flash and just won't load at all, because they can't be displayed.
I can't disagree with your right to make money from ads. I can only point out my right to not want to waste bandwidth (which can be expensive if going over the limits with the iPhone, on AT&T at least) in order to display useless content that does't contribute anything to the item I wish to read. And I can ask you to revisit your stance on Instapaper. Because as a consumer of content, presumably someone who you may potentially target, your stance seems irrational.
Sorry, but I don't see where you are getting the idea that you have a 'right to not want to waste bandwidth'. That is your choice, not a right, so if you don't want to waste bandwidth then don't use high bandwidth sites.
While I can certainly see why someone would want to use Instapaper and that it clearly has a lot of benefits for the user, that doesn't change the fact that their app operates in a grey area of copyright infringement.
Just because something is practical does not mean that it is therefore legal.
And content providers have a choice, too. No one is forcing them to put their stuff out on the Internet, in a wide open format, where anyone can just take it.
But ad-supported pages are equivalent to selling newspapers in giant heavy boxes, where you can't just get the newspaper, you have to take all the crap in its box. Well what if you don't want to carry a whole box? What if it would take you 10 times as long to bring the newspaper home by carrying the box? Would you not be tempted to rip open the box and just take the paper? Or, tempted to just go away, and not take the box or the stupid paper? At some point, the obnoxious mechanism outweighs the value of the content.
Instead, there could be a stack of papers on a table, with a cup and a sign "please deposit 50 cents". Some people will take a paper and leave nothing. Others will leave 50 cents. Still others will leave a buck or two, because they want to. You might even see people drop off a new stack of papers for you, and not care if you get the cash. Maybe somebody else sees your stuff (because it's not locked in boxes), and that leads to other opportunities. So maybe it isn't "fair" that some people pay more than others, but this is certainly does not spell doom for the content provider.
...that doesn't change the fact that their app operates in a grey area of copyright infringement.
Like I mentioned earlier: I'm not as informed in copyright law as I would like. Would you mind pointing out to me where this is a grey area? Since I'm personally an American citizen, where - in the US Code, the DMCA, or some other law that we have - is this a grey area?
I think you're missing the point. The people that are likely to use this application for articles are likely the kind of people that either (a) regularly visit your site, (b) are new to your site but presently don't have time to read the content, or (c) the kind of people that would say "tl;dr" and have moved on.
By encouraging use of InstaPaper (or its ilk) with longer articles on your site you may just find that it improves your readership.
Do you have data to prove these claims? My original comment was trying to point out that many "hot application" get hot because they enable theft or copyright circumvention in some way. Publishers continue to grumble about putting their stuff behind paywalls because offering it up for free offers very little protection.
By encouraging use of InstaPaper (or its ilk) with longer articles on your site you may just find that it improves your readership.
Yes, and by allowing users to share MP3's of your songs you may find that over the long run your listenership is improved.
Nonetheless, under current (US?) copyright code, reformatting documents by stripping out 'extraneous' advertising and saving them in a different format for later use is flat-out illegal. This may not make it 'wrong', and certainly does not make the app any less useful, but I think the OP's point stands.
Nonetheless, under current (US?) copyright code, reformatting documents by stripping out 'extraneous' advertising and saving them in a different format for later use is flat-out illegal.
Really? Would you mind pointing out where in the US Code or the DMCA (or whatever else you're referring to) that says this? I'm not as knowledgeable on copyright as I'd like to be; need to start learning more somewhere, and this seems like a good place.
It's possible that 'flat-out illegal' is too strong of a statement, although upon reflection I'll still stand by 'almost certainly illegal'. Here's a law review paper with lots of background and references:
Please don't mistake my opinion here on what the law is for my feelings on what the law should be. It sounds like a great app. I'd be very happy to proven wrong, and to find that the copyright law regarding such matters is more user friendly than I've been led to believe.
This is wrong. Distributing that stripped-down version (or a non-stripped-down version) would be illegal. But writing a program that lets you do it for personal use is perfectly legal.
Consider ripping your CDs so you can play them on your MP3 player. Legal. Selling those MP3s? Not legal.
Does the Instapaper iPhone app do the stripping, or does Instapaper serve the stripped version? I'd say the former is illegal, and the latter is legal, though it'd be nice if a publisher could opt out and/or provide their own stripped down version that the app would use.
It's possible that I'm wrong, but I'd appreciate if you could point to the legal precedent that establishes this. The general rule is that making a copy of any copyright work is forbidden, unless you have a license or it's fair use.
You are right that ripping a CD (that you own?) to MP3 for personal use is covered as fair use. This was established relatively recently in RIAA vs Diamond Multimedia[1], a case that primarily decided that the Rio was legal because it _wasn't_ a digital music recorder. But it also stated "the Rio's operation is entirely consistent with the Act's main purpose -- the facilitation of personal use" and that "Such copying is paradigmatic noncommercial personal use entirely consistent with the purposes of the Act".
But simply transforming a musical recording into a different format isn't quite a parallel example, as the goal is usually to make a complete copy. I think a closer parallel would be recording a television show with the ads clipped out. While 'time-shifting' is held to be legal (under Sony vs Universal), if you save a version with advertisements removed, you may well have created a derivative work.
I think Tivo is probably a pretty close example. While I don't think there has been a precedent setting case yet, it's probably worth noting that Tivo does not allow its users to automatically skip advertisements in the shows it records, despite the fact that this would be a popular feature with users. They no longer even have a button on the remote to allow the ads to be skipped easily.
For example, a law review article[2] titled "The TiVo Question: Does Skipping Commercials Violate Copyright Law?" reaches this simple conclusion: "Using a DVR to skip television advertisements violates copyright law, and DVR manufacturers should be contributorily liable. By providing a means for television viewers to skip advertisements, DVR manufacturers deny television networks the intended incentive for their creative
expression--advertising revenues."
I've only skimmed it, but the article provides a lot of useful background on the relevant arguments and case law.
Do you know how html works?
Normal browser
* Have link to content, say blah.html
* Download blah.html
* Parse blah.html,
* extract links to css, js, images, flash ...
* Download from extracted links
* Display
Instapaper
* Have link blah.html
* Download blah.html
* Don't parse, don't worry about any built-in links
* Display
Now realize this has NOTHING to do with a derived work or copyright infringement. I'm merely choosing not to download and display some parts of published content, saving bandwidth which I'm paying for!
Well I'll be the lone dissenting voice here. Downmod away...
First, I think illegal immigration is still ILLEGAL immigration and yes, the laws need to be reformed but until they are, let's not be too devious in how we aid and abet criminal behaviors.
Second and more to the point, anybody who's considering immigrating to the US of A (or Canada) for "technology" will face a rude awakening in another 5-10 years. You're immigrating to the wrong hemisphere. Now if you think you might be a good producer of trash reality TV then hey! Come on over. That's where America truly excels.
I don't like to downmod to express my disagreement, so let me try to put it into words instead of the 'down arrow'.
I think that your stance is absolutely indefensible since the poster explicitly states that he came to America as a young child and 'inherited' his status as an illegal from his parents.
So, even if he/she has done everything possible to stay clear of the law (if there is one thing you do not do as an illegal it is breaking ANY laws, since that can lead to instant deportation) simply by walking around on the street there is a risk.
If you have been in a country for as long as you remember and you have been a productive element in that society then by any definition you are part of that society, and not a criminal.
To pretend it is otherwise because of a bunch of stupid pieces of paper is putting the horse behind the cart.
So, even if he/she has done everything possible to stay clear of the law ... been a productive element in that society
If he has been a productive member of society then he has broken several laws around the employment of illegals, including tax evasion.
It as if he broke in to your house and has been living in your attic. He contributed to the upkeep of the house by fixing a holes in the roof so that his bed would stay dry. Now that he has lived in your attic for so long he demands ownership since he doesn't remember living anywhere else and doesn't have anywhere else to go.
...in that society then by any definition you are part of that society
No, you are member of society when you live by the rules of that society, and take your punishment when you violate their rules. Doing what you want and breaking whichever rules you want because they don't apply to you doesn't make you member of society. That is not to say the law is correct, but violating them because you don't like them makes you a criminal not a citizen. If he were practicing Civil Disobedience then there would be a political component to his action instead of entitlement whining.
Society is not the state, and the state is not society. The state can and does create arbitrary rules that are actually harmful to society. I consider this one of them.
Real criminals are people who do harm to others, not people who simply break bureaucratic rules.
If your parents take you along on their illegal trip as a child that does not make YOU a criminal, it makes you a victim, but the system will treat you as though you are a criminal.
Age has no bearing on the legality of the action in question. So yes you are a criminal weather you are 6 months or 60 years old. I am pretty sure they treat you differently based on age though. I can't see them deporting a 6 month old without a care taker like they would an adult. I wouldn't be surprised if it were possible to set up a mail relay to "leave" the country while you work on your citizenship papers. Nor would I be surprised to find out that it were quicker to get a Canadian citizenship and use that to apply for a US citizenship.
It isn't like the punishment is something horrible. We don't put illegal emigrants in Leavenworth. We give them a free plane ride home. Where they are fully able to try to come into the country again legally or illegally.
Believe what you like. Personally I am happy with the fact that murder is illegal for everyone not just people over the age of 35. Personally I am happy that theft is illegal to everyone not just people over the age of 40. Personally I like the fact that courts are allowed to deal with assaults committed by minors and even have special rules regarding their care. I believe you have to have rules that apply to everybody, you can't decide that this isn't a crime today but wake up tomorrow and you get death row for it.
For someone that was brought in to the US and is now at an age to have completed their secondary education home is the United States. No amount of paper waving and applying of the rules is going to change that.
Anyway, I'm wasting my time with this, I only wish that in your life you will never ever come up against a situation where you will be forced to realize just how cruel your stance is.
We're not debating murder here, that's just a straw man. We are not dealing with assault, committed by minors or otherwise.
The subject was immigration, specifically by minors too young to even realize what that means.
you will be forced to realize just how cruel your stance is.
What is cruel about expecting people to live by the rules they have agreed to live by?
Yes and he is a grown up now and has known for years that he is in the wrong. Instead of doing the right thing he complains about how we should all just love him for it. It would be a big relief for him if he went home no more fear of being discovered, no more I can't do that because I might be found out, the ability to get an id, bank account, health insurance, take the GRE. If he wanted to go to grad school he could be back in a semester on a student visa.(according to travel.state.gov a student visa takes at most 120 days and $300)
The subject was immigration, specifically by
minors too young to even realize what that means.
No I was talking about the fact that the rules apply to everyone, and the fact that is not a bad thing like you seem to think it is.
Stonemetal, what would you do if you discovered that you were actually born in, say, Ethiopia, and were brought to the US illegally as an infant?
Would you simply leave for a foreign country you have no knowledge of, abandoning your life, severing your relationships, giving up all of the property that you earned through your own endeavors, just because the law is the law?
Any rule that would compel you to do so is simply, unequivocally _wrong_, and deserves to be violated.
First, I am done, d o n e, debating the legality of my existence. Normally you debate to reach a compromise. In this case, "debating" these laws, and people like me along with them, out of existence is the strategy of our opposition. They are not interested in compromise. While we debate, the time is ticking, and then, before you know it the Congressional session is over. Lather, rinse, repeat.
They even came up with a name for it, "enforcement through attrition." Make our life so horrible that we opt for voluntary departure. How fucked up is that? How full of bigotry do you have to be to come up with something like that?
To people who truly want to help, stop debating, stop listening. Start pressuring your legislators to action!
Second, I didn't immigrate here for "technology" or anything else. I grew up here. I went to school with brilliant engineers who now do brilliant things. I think YC itself is a testament to the talent that exists in this country. So, good luck with that thinking.
Over the years that I've been working towards the passage of the DREAM Act legislation this has been the most effective rhetoric used by our opposition.
"Until the laws change illegal is illegal. We need to enforce the law not change it, illegal is illegal. ILLEGAL"
Did you know that there is butter that isn't butter?
If only our valedectorians got as deep a look as butter did. A man can dream.
Frankly, I found this article a little insulting, and the comparison of the USA to Germany prior to the Nazi movement completely out of line. The fears the author voices may have been a real possibility 50 years ago, but the author makes a load of assumptions here, real leaps:
1. China and the U.S. will compete for resources 2. They'll compete in a brutal way 3. This will sour "Americans" against ALL Asians 4. Racism and genocide will result.
Give me a break. Well sure, and an asteroid might hit the planet tomorrow. It's possible, but it's entirely unlikely.
Does anybody else feel like there's just been a rash of this kind of stuff lately? Apple really seems to be dropping the ball on a number of issues. Whether it's the attempted trademarking of "glossy chat bubbles", lethargic update cycles, or app rejection decisions like the one in this article, I really feel like the Apple user and developer experience has soured. I think the iPhone store (and the iPhone phenomenon) is perilously close to jumping the shark.
