While I don't share your view that these games will warp a kid's mind, I do believe that a rating system for games is a good thing. I think it should be up to the parents whether or not a child should be allowed to play a certain game. A rating system would help them to decide whether the game is something they want their kid to play or not. It's as simple as that. Don't sell games with a 17+ rating to a kid unless the kid is at least 17. Just like going to the movies. No big deal. Once they are old enough to be held fully responsible for their actions in a court of law, then let them buy what they want and do what they want and pay the price if they do something stupid.
Even though I had read otherwise in the article, after reading the previous posts here, I started thinking that it was the parents of the child who were suing. This is not the case, and so I must correct my post.
I think those defendants should countersue and bring in witness after witness who will testify that they, like me, have been subjected to all those things that the parents claim turned their son into a killer, and yet they have not killed anyone.
The above should read:
I think those defendants should countersue and bring in witness after witness who will testify that they, like me, have been subjected to all those things that the parents of the victims claim turned the child into a killer, and yet they have not killed anyone.
There. All fixed. I promise to try harder in the future:)
This suit is typical. I don't know how they will prove any of it in court though. I've watched the movies. I've played the games. I've seen internet porn sites. I haven't shot anybody at any time to my knowledge. Now does that mean I am abnormal? Should those things have caused me to do something that my parents taught me was wrong?
If they should have, then perhaps I need treatment. Otherwise, I'd say the child who shot those people is the one who is in need of treatment as well as a set of parents who are willing to accept the responsibility of raising a child. I think those defendants should countersue and bring in witness after witness who will testify that they, like me, have been subjected to all those things that the parents claim turned their son into a killer, and yet they have not killed anyone.
The simple fact is that when you look at the big picture, there are vast numbers of people who have seen the violent movies, played the violent games, and visited internet porn sites, and have not committed a violent crime. The parents will probably be hard pressed to come up with more than a handful of people to testify otherwise. In that case, I would say that those who blame their crimes on movies and games and such are the abberrations and there is probably another factor involved. It could be something as simple as bad parenting, or it could be more complex. Either way, frivolous lawsuits aren't going to fix the problem.
This is a good idea actually. Especially if it can get some media coverage. Point out that he is not only running the site on close-source proprietary software, but that he seems to meet virtually none of the requirements of Open Source software. Those that he does meet seem almost accidental. Al and his lawyers need to be educated with a really big clue-stick.
Read the report before making judgements.
on
WSJ Says Linux Lags
·
· Score: 1
I believe the report actually said that Linux didn't do SMP well, and that it didn't have a journaling FS. Which, oddly enough, it said that NT did have.
As near as I can tell from the executive summary, Linux lost to NT mainly because there wasn't enough information available about its performance. The requisite studies and benchmarks didn't exist for Linux, so it lost in those categories by default. The executive summary claimed that NT has a journaling FS. Is this even true? The only other thing that NT seemed to win out on is clustering for web and database serving.
They apparently went strictly on functionality rather than price too. While they do tell you that Linux is can be used to build a Beowulf supercomputer, they say that NT can do basically the same thing using public domain software packages. What they forgot to tell you is that for the price of all the NT licenses you'll need for that, you could buy a real supercomputer.
I think the report tried to be objective, but I also think they cut NT a lot more slack than they did Linux.
A report by D.H. Brown Associates is used as a source for John Kirch's NT Server 4.0 vs. Unix page. They don't seem to be too biased. On the other hand, I couldn't figure out how Linux came in under NT. Even if they were talking about journaling, NT doesn't do that either, and Linux DOES do SMP. They either got their facts screwed up, or they had some reason that they didn't present in the article.
A study by D. H. Brown was used as a source for John Kirch's NT Server 4.0 vs. Unix Page. I don't know where they get their funding, so I can't say for sure whether they are objective or not, but this is at least one in their favor.
Of course that kinda works in our favor too. While they have similar tastes, their taste is also similar to most/. readers. If both of them like it, then most of us will probably like it too.
If they make a sequel, they better not dumb it down. It should be at least as smart as this one, and probably more so. I would hate to see a bad sequel to this movie.
Yeah... now that I think about it, it was a little Dune-like. Had some Dark City, Face Off (what other movie paid so much attention to bullets?), and of course Jackie Chan for the cool martial arts scenes.
Since he doesn't have to talk geek-talk in this one it works. He probably wouldn't have been my first (or second, etc.) choice, but he was ok for a plastic person.
Yep. I don't care how many other people want the disc. If I want it, then I'd like to be able to buy it from whatever country it's available in and play it on my player. Bummer that it doesn't work that way. Might be able to play it on a PC player with the right software. Dunno for sure.
I went to CC with a friend just to let them try to talk me into buying a Divx player instead of a DVD. I already knew I was going to buy a DVD player, and not from CC, but what the heck.. they're fun to mess with.;) I brought up several of the points raised in the BB comparison just to see how he would try to squirm out of it. You're right though.. everything he said was like it was read out of a sales brochure. They must have a Circuit City Divx Re-education Camp somewhere. This guy was brainwashed. He kept trying to tell me what features I should want. I think the ASPCA should investigate. They aren't treating their trained mammals right at CC.;)
What I think is more likely is that Divx will go out of bussiness and a lot of angry people will be stuck with worthless players and movies and you will probally see a class action lawsuit against circuit city.
A lot of stupid angry people will be stuck with players that will probably still be able to play DVDs, but with arguably less quality and they still paid more for their machine. One could only hope that Divx bites the dust someday soon. As for the lawsuit.. I dunno... maybe it'll happen. I won't shed a tear for either side though. Anyone who bought Divx didn't do their research. It's not like it was a secret that Divx sucked.
1) How many times have you had a good idea, independently, and later found out that someone else had already thought of it and patented it?
That's why we have patent searches and the IBM patent database (for those of us who can't afford to have someone do the search for us).
In most cases a 1 to 2 year patent would be enough to make alot of money, thereby encouraging ideas *and* encouraging value added ideas (the sole reason patent laws were created). The only time this falls apart is in the case of really long projects such as creation of new drugs, for which other measures can be taken.
I think it depends on the kind of product. I think 5 years is fair for most products. For software patents, I would say 2 or 3 years is optimal.
Companies like Monsanto, Fraunhofer (MP3), etc. should not be allowed to patent those ideas and inventions which are logically viewed as trade secrets. Creating a new strain of corn, for example, doesn't involve the creation of a new gene or genes, nor does it involve any great discovery in the process of inserting genes from one organism into another. Rather, it involves the novel combination of known substances via known processes into a novel and useful product.
Trade secrets don't work very well anymore. We can pick apart just about anything to see how it works. Monsanto could create the corn and a month or two later someone else would be making it as well. Where is the benefit to Monsanto? That's why they are prohibiting farmers from saving some of their crop for replanting. They would not be able to recoup the money that was spent on developing the corn. The same goes for Fraunhofer. Their compression algorithm would be figured out and they would have face competitors who can sell their products for whatever price they want because they didn't have to invest anything in the development.
I don't necessarily agree that Monsanto should not have been awarded a patent. I do think that patents, as they exist today, do more harm than good. They simply last too long for the rate of innovation today to be truly useful to society as a whole. Our government enforces these supposedly for the benefit of the country as a whole. I don't think patents are benefitting us as much as they used to. Namely because they last way too long. By the time a patent runs out, the technology it covers is usually long outdated. They should be reduced to half their length, or perhaps just 5 years. Software patents only last for maybe 3 years. That's time enough for a software company to profit from its creation and still give other companies a chance to do something with the technology before it becomes obsolete.
Whoops. That's obvious. I meant reselling it for planting purposes. That was the issue here. If the seed is sold for planting purposes, then the person who buys the grain will be under the same restrictions.
Yep. I bought this book the day it came out. I had already heard about a lot of the bad things Microsoft has done in the name of market share, but some of the things she revealed just floored me. I would like to see sources for some of the info, but I think they were mostly confidential. If I was running a business, I wouldn't want Microsoft to know that I was revealing that kind of stuff either. Could be VERY bad for business:)
well.. yeah.. except with free beer they don't usually make you tatoo the beer company's logo on your forehead or tell you that you can't drink any other beer if you drink theirs.
Slashdot Mirror
Have you seen the inside of a prison lately? They aren't there for reform. They don't even pretend to be.
While I don't share your view that these games will warp a kid's mind, I do believe that a rating system for games is a good thing. I think it should be up to the parents whether or not a child should be allowed to play a certain game. A rating system would help them to decide whether the game is something they want their kid to play or not. It's as simple as that. Don't sell games with a 17+ rating to a kid unless the kid is at least 17. Just like going to the movies. No big deal. Once they are old enough to be held fully responsible for their actions in a court of law, then let them buy what they want and do what they want and pay the price if they do something stupid.
Even though I had read otherwise in the article, after reading the previous posts here, I started thinking that it was the parents of the child who were suing. This is not the case, and so I must correct my post.
I think those defendants should countersue and bring in witness after witness who will testify that they, like me, have been subjected to all those things that the parents claim turned their son into a killer, and yet they have not killed anyone.
The above should read:
I think those defendants should countersue and bring in witness after witness who will testify that they, like me, have been subjected to all those things that the parents of the victims claim turned the child into a killer, and yet they have not killed anyone.
There. All fixed. I promise to try harder in the future :)
This suit is typical. I don't know how they will prove any of it in court though. I've watched the movies. I've played the games. I've seen internet porn sites. I haven't shot anybody at any time to my knowledge. Now does that mean I am abnormal? Should those things have caused me to do something that my parents taught me was wrong?
If they should have, then perhaps I need treatment. Otherwise, I'd say the child who shot those people is the one who is in need of treatment as well as a set of parents who are willing to accept the responsibility of raising a child. I think those defendants should countersue and bring in witness after witness who will testify that they, like me, have been subjected to all those things that the parents claim turned their son into a killer, and yet they have not killed anyone.
The simple fact is that when you look at the big picture, there are vast numbers of people who have seen the violent movies, played the violent games, and visited internet porn sites, and have not committed a violent crime. The parents will probably be hard pressed to come up with more than a handful of people to testify otherwise. In that case, I would say that those who blame their crimes on movies and games and such are the abberrations and there is probably another factor involved. It could be something as simple as bad parenting, or it could be more complex. Either way, frivolous lawsuits aren't going to fix the problem.
Didn't look at the date, but the report does claim that they used Open Linux 2.2 with the 2.2.5 kernel. Perhaps they are confused?
This is a good idea actually. Especially if it can get some media coverage. Point out that he is not only running the site on close-source proprietary software, but that he seems to meet virtually none of the requirements of Open Source software. Those that he does meet seem almost accidental. Al and his lawyers need to be educated with a really big clue-stick.
I believe the report actually said that Linux didn't do SMP well, and that it didn't have a journaling FS. Which, oddly enough, it said that NT did have.
They used OpenLinux 2.2 which uses the 2.2.5 kernel for the review, as well as RedHat 5.2 with the 2.0.36 kernel.
As near as I can tell from the executive summary, Linux lost to NT mainly because there wasn't enough information available about its performance. The requisite studies and benchmarks didn't exist for Linux, so it lost in those categories by default. The executive summary claimed that NT has a journaling FS. Is this even true? The only other thing that NT seemed to win out on is clustering for web and database serving.
They apparently went strictly on functionality rather than price too. While they do tell you that Linux is can be used to build a Beowulf supercomputer, they say that NT can do basically the same thing using public domain software packages. What they forgot to tell you is that for the price of all the NT licenses you'll need for that, you could buy a real supercomputer.
I think the report tried to be objective, but I also think they cut NT a lot more slack than they did Linux.
A report by D.H. Brown Associates is used as a source for John Kirch's NT Server 4.0 vs. Unix page. They don't seem to be too biased. On the other hand, I couldn't figure out how Linux came in under NT. Even if they were talking about journaling, NT doesn't do that either, and Linux DOES do SMP. They either got their facts screwed up, or they had some reason that they didn't present in the article.
A study by D. H. Brown was used as a source for John Kirch's NT Server 4.0 vs. Unix Page. I don't know where they get their funding, so I can't say for sure whether they are objective or not, but this is at least one in their favor.
Isn't that why Taco put spoiler warnings all over the place??
Of course that kinda works in our favor too. While they have similar tastes, their taste is also similar to most /. readers. If both of them like it, then most of us will probably like it too.
There are some similarities, but the plot isn't the same. Go see the movie. It's too good to pass up.
If they make a sequel, they better not dumb it down. It should be at least as smart as this one, and probably more so. I would hate to see a bad sequel to this movie.
Yeah... now that I think about it, it was a little Dune-like. Had some Dark City, Face Off (what other movie paid so much attention to bullets?), and of course Jackie Chan for the cool martial arts scenes.
Since he doesn't have to talk geek-talk in this one it works. He probably wouldn't have been my first (or second, etc.) choice, but he was ok for a plastic person.
Yep. I don't care how many other people want the disc. If I want it, then I'd like to be able to buy it from whatever country it's available in and play it on my player. Bummer that it doesn't work that way. Might be able to play it on a PC player with the right software. Dunno for sure.
I went to CC with a friend just to let them try to talk me into buying a Divx player instead of a DVD. I already knew I was going to buy a DVD player, and not from CC, but what the heck.. they're fun to mess with. ;) I brought up several of the points raised in the BB comparison just to see how he would try to squirm out of it. You're right though.. everything he said was like it was read out of a sales brochure. They must have a Circuit City Divx Re-education Camp somewhere. This guy was brainwashed. He kept trying to tell me what features I should want. I think the ASPCA should investigate. They aren't treating their trained mammals right at CC. ;)
What I think is more likely is that Divx will go out of bussiness and a lot of angry people will be stuck with worthless players and movies and you will probally see a class action lawsuit against circuit city.
A lot of stupid angry people will be stuck with players that will probably still be able to play DVDs, but with arguably less quality and they still paid more for their machine. One could only hope that Divx bites the dust someday soon. As for the lawsuit.. I dunno... maybe it'll happen. I won't shed a tear for either side though. Anyone who bought Divx didn't do their research. It's not like it was a secret that Divx sucked.
1) How many times have you had a good idea, independently, and later found out that someone else had already thought of it and patented it?
That's why we have patent searches and the IBM patent database (for those of us who can't afford to have someone do the search for us).
In most cases a 1 to 2 year patent would be enough to make alot of money, thereby encouraging ideas *and* encouraging value added ideas (the sole reason patent laws were created). The only time this falls apart is in the case of really long projects such as creation of new drugs, for which other measures can be taken.
I think it depends on the kind of product. I think 5 years is fair for most products. For software patents, I would say 2 or 3 years is optimal.
Companies like Monsanto, Fraunhofer (MP3), etc. should not be allowed to patent those ideas and inventions which are logically viewed as trade secrets. Creating a new strain of corn, for example, doesn't involve the creation of a new gene or genes, nor does it involve any great discovery in the process of inserting genes from one organism into another. Rather, it involves the novel combination of known substances via known processes into a novel and useful product.
Trade secrets don't work very well anymore. We can pick apart just about anything to see how it works. Monsanto could create the corn and a month or two later someone else would be making it as well. Where is the benefit to Monsanto? That's why they are prohibiting farmers from saving some of their crop for replanting. They would not be able to recoup the money that was spent on developing the corn. The same goes for Fraunhofer. Their compression algorithm would be figured out and they would have face competitors who can sell their products for whatever price they want because they didn't have to invest anything in the development.
I don't necessarily agree that Monsanto should not have been awarded a patent. I do think that patents, as they exist today, do more harm than good. They simply last too long for the rate of innovation today to be truly useful to society as a whole. Our government enforces these supposedly for the benefit of the country as a whole. I don't think patents are benefitting us as much as they used to. Namely because they last way too long. By the time a patent runs out, the technology it covers is usually long outdated. They should be reduced to half their length, or perhaps just 5 years. Software patents only last for maybe 3 years. That's time enough for a software company to profit from its creation and still give other companies a chance to do something with the technology before it becomes obsolete.
Whoops. That's obvious. I meant reselling it for planting purposes. That was the issue here. If the seed is sold for planting purposes, then the person who buys the grain will be under the same restrictions.
Yep. I bought this book the day it came out. I had already heard about a lot of the bad things Microsoft has done in the name of market share, but some of the things she revealed just floored me. I would like to see sources for some of the info, but I think they were mostly confidential. If I was running a business, I wouldn't want Microsoft to know that I was revealing that kind of stuff either. Could be VERY bad for business :)
well.. yeah.. except with free beer they don't usually make you tatoo the beer company's logo on your forehead or tell you that you can't drink any other beer if you drink theirs.