I guess it's easier to drive down a road after someone else has paved it.
Exactly that. Excellent improvisors like Richard Grayson and Keith Jarrett are perfectly able to improvise in any music style - it's creating something new yet interesting that's difficult.
What happens when we have the ability to generate as much music of a particular style as we want?
Pretty much the same as when you ask a good improvisor to improvise as much music of a particular style as you want. It's the invention of an entirely new style that is a) probably way too much to ask of a computer program and b) very very hard to come up with nowadays.
For example, look up Richard Grayson on Youtube, who does exactly this (example for those too lazy to navigate: Star Wars theme in a Baroque style).
IMO, it's pretty cool to watch and listen to, but just doesn't fully compare to the works of the real composers.
Do a quick Google on "Spore pirated", just for fun. Page after page of links to articles about how Spore's DRM did affect pirating. Now if that hasn't reached EA...
Spoiler: it has, EA has in fact announced they'll use less obtrusive DRM in the future. Plus, they released this tool to reduce DRM obtrusiveness from certain games, including Spore.
Are you freaking kidding me? In France, you can't even wear a small catholic cross around your neck to a public school, unless it's well hidden under your shirt.
I'll go out on a limb saying that this isn't necessarily a symptom of the lack of freedom of speech. In the Netherlands (where I'm from), politicians are debating whether to ban certain symbols of muslim value, because of practical considerations but, alas, also because certain people experience discomfort seeing other people display these symbols. Would a ban be instated, I'd find it only fair if other such symbols would be banned as well. After all, why only go after muslims? (I'm not exactly in favor of banning religious symbols for other than practical reasons, mind you)
And in both France and Germany, books like "Mein Kampf" and so-called nazi paraphernalia are banned (not that this does any good mind you, it only makes the extreme right feel more victimized and it drove that kind of market for that stuff underground).
As it is in the Netherlands (for "Mein Kampf" at least). A little nuance though: I'm not sure about Germany or France, but in NL it's forbidden to replicate the book. Government hasn't got anything to do with what I own, so owning the book isn't forbidden. In fact, even the ban on replication is being discussed because of exactly the issue regarding freedom of speech you address.
Also, considering WWII, I don't find it strange that extreme measurements are still in place. That's not to say it isn't about time they're dismissed, though.
announced plans to introduce a filter not entirely different from the thing the Australian wants
No idea why I have missed this in the news. Do you happen to have a link or so? Seems about time to write some MP's.
And in those countries you don't have 'citizens', you have 'subjects'.
There are lots of reasons to need to keep and bear arms other than the need to have a check on Governmental power. Hunting, self-defense, recreation, the collection of rare or valuable firearms, etc, etc.
Your comment was modded up, though you completely miss my point. I wasn't talking oppressive countries here. For example, where I live arms are allowed but the right to them is not constitutionally empowered. You'll need a permit for them, and weapons are only available at special shops (as opposed to several countries I've been to where guns and other weapons are on display in the larger tobacco stores). This results in the general public not owning firearms. People that hunt do, as do people that collect guns. And that was exactly what I said, right? Restricted access to lethal arms.
And frankly, I'm quite content with that. Especially when people like you point out that weapons can be used for self defense. Man, that would be just the thing we need! Untrained people trying to shoot 'invaders' off their lawn! I can see how that worked on a ranch somewhere in the Wild West, but we live in a crowded, somewhat civilized 20th-century world now.
Plus, when do you think you'd be using your gun for self defence? If defending yourself would require bullets, you can count on your adversary wielding something way more dangerous than you own, not to mention his/hers ability to use it. I really don't think you'll be wanting to wave a gun in the face of danger, unless you're a cop or well trained.
However, it's not the restrictions they propose that matter. You might not care about them, and neither do I. What I do care about however is the trend of taking idiotic measures to prevent... Well, what actually? Bad stuff from happening? I know cars cause bad stuff to happen to people wandering at the wrong time in the wrong place, and yet cars aren't prohibited, nor is there some kind of 3-strikes-law in place. Yet, on the internet we have the file sharing thing, oh and we also have child porn. So let's cut people off internet and ban a load of websites from our country, and then some things will stop.
However, the trend will be set, and corporations will find their way to the ones writing laws. And of course someone will think of a way in which more money can be made. One might be curious as to what to expect, but it won't be pretty, I'm sure.
Congratulations! You are the one-millionth user to log into our system. If there's anything special we can do for you, anything at all, don't hesitate to ask!
