Laws against cell phone use while driving have been around for years in some places, but I have not seen data or studies to see what effect the laws have had. I expect that it should reduce accidents, but I would also expect politicians to brag about the success of such laws, which I haven't seen, so I can't help but wonder if the laws have had no significant effect.
I'll bet far more people drive and use cell phones than drive and bring a baby along. Not to mention many people agree cell phone use while driving is a risk and should be legally controlled- while most people will agree a baby in the car is a distraction, there will be less popular support for active controls against it. An unpopular law will be ignored, and may make the situation worse (see copyright if you need an example).
Since you brought it up: is Google in favor of a different flavor of net neutrality than what is in our best interests? I wouldn't think twice about adopting their version over ATT's, but their view of the internet is still different from ours.
For all due purposes I consider politicians against net neutrality untouchable. I have yet to see an argument against it that isn't based in either ignorance or being owned by the corporations.
In that case/. should run a 401 scam email drive to soak up any stupidity money before it goes to waste to real crooks. There shouldn't be a problem- we'll be doing them a service by putting their money to good use stimulating the economy where otherwise it would go down the drain.
In an ideal world this would be too big of a strain on EU relations and member states would start pulling out until it's just France. What would be left? FU.
If you can ban commercial use (like with non-commercial CC licenses), and there is demand for commercial use, it makes perfect sense to license your product for commercial situations. I could understand an argument against any restrictions on commercial use, but it wouldn't make sense to me to allow a ban on commercial use while disallowing licensing.
That said, the store should be dealing with getting a license from the radio station- the music company should only be dealing with the radio unless the store uses CDs or something. The music companies could base the radio's license fee on the number of licenses the radio gives out, but there should not be any money going directly from the store to the music companies.
Don't forget to delete the songs so you can download them again. Each pirated song is worth $80000, and piracy is stealing, so download enough and you can bankrupt these guys once and for all!
As much as I think this kind of enforcement is ridiculous, before we try to get rid of it we should try to put it to good use: someone needs to get the scientologists to start singing top hits as part of their 'religion'. That would create a (lawyer) fight I would pay to watch.
The greed! First they get lots of money, then they go and put it to good so as to deprive me of being able to indignantly call them out for their immoral ways. The government can never do anything right!
I forgot the exact amount but I recently bought Halflife 1 for under a dollar off of Steam during a sale. They do sell their old games at low prices, you just have to catch when they do it.
Please post on the FCC site! Lots of the posts are misguided (out of ignorance or malice, probably a mix), and I don't see enough posts trying to explain net neutrality. At this rate most posts are against net neutrality. Not good.
I'm looking at the comments on the OpenInternet.gov site- I am not surprised at the responses, although they are as depressing as they can get. Many comments are along the lines of this one:
The free and open part of it is the best thing going. Please do not screw it up with regulations like the net neutrality proposal.
People have no clue what net neutrality is, and just assume it's government regulation that will make things worse. Hopefully some influential people on our side reads those comments and understands what these people really mean. Otherwise the overwhelming majority of responses are against net neutrality, which is not the kind of backing we want the big corps to have.
I have no doubts about the overall benefit of vaccines (properly tested and controlled of course), but I don't get the impression a string of insults will help the situation.
I don't want to spend too much time searching - I found studies related to the MMR vaccine, being a popular target of public mistrust. This is a paper discussing a lack of association between Autism and MMR vaccine: http://www.immunisation.nhs.uk/Library/Research/Key_Research_Papers/50. I couldn't immediately find studies about flu vaccines, but I merely did a low-effort search of the NIH and NHS sites.
Maybe someone else can find evidence to show to people that believe the flu vaccine is more harmful than helpful.
the copyright lobby has been pushing to remove parts of the bill that would take away exceptions which currently allow spyware to be installed without authorization
Warning: summary makes little sense. This says there is an exception allowing uninformed installation of programs, and that the copyright lobby is against the exception. According to the article, the copyright lobby is trying to add an exception to allow certain programs to be installed in this manner. If you read the summary expecting the copyright lobby to support bad things, you'll read the summary as it should read.
Maybe it's a ploy to trick us into actually reading the article.
most bank customers are going to be using computers with some amount of malware on them for the foreseeable future
Not if the banks become liable for theft due to poor security. Give the banks financial incentive to improve security and they will do so as soon as they are done trying to lawyer their way out of it.
I'm sure it would be more enjoyable for there to be a spy movie that stayed within plausiblilty science-wise so I don't keep getting pulled out of the movie by bad physics and have to convince my brain to turn back off. Quality of the action would have to be maintained by other means.
If you can agree with me, then you can get how sci-fi can be improved by some science backing. "Non-science" sci-fi isn't bad (I like most sci-fi I've seen), it just lacks an element that could potentially make it more enjoyable.
The OP is asking about playing styles, too. We've all played games where the AI has some flaw (built-in or not) that you learn to take advantage of to systematically progress through the game. If the AI can recognize systematic playing patterns, it can respond and adapt to keep things interesting. There difficulty could be constant (on hard or medium or whatever) where the adaptable AI makes you identify when to use rock and when to use paper, as opposed to simply patching holes and leaving no new openings. Ideally the rock/paper/scissors is made more of a gradient to keep from over-simplifying.
Another way to look at it is, if you're playing a shooter and pick up a sniper, the enemy bulks up on snipers so you get more interesting shootouts. If you pick up a shotgun they all charge in... the AI could adapt to let you play the style you want (but keeping difficulty where you want it).
There could always be some sections where the AI "trains" you by adapting to your playing style, while other sections it is entirely difficulty-based, that way you could have some constants to allow you to see how you've progressed. Many people who play Guitar Hero genre games knows this mechanic- they go to practice mode to build muscle memory at a slowed meter, then occasionally try the song on full speed to see how they've improved. Practice mode isn't fun for everyone, even though it is very useful. Adapt the practice mode to most skill-based games and make it more fun. I see a lot of potential here, but not knowing AI programming I won't make a guess how to do it.
There was John Philip Sousa in 1906 warning that recording technology would destroy the US pastime of gathering around the piano to sing music ...and replace it with drunken karioke nights.
Slashdot Mirror
Laws against cell phone use while driving have been around for years in some places, but I have not seen data or studies to see what effect the laws have had. I expect that it should reduce accidents, but I would also expect politicians to brag about the success of such laws, which I haven't seen, so I can't help but wonder if the laws have had no significant effect.
I'll bet far more people drive and use cell phones than drive and bring a baby along. Not to mention many people agree cell phone use while driving is a risk and should be legally controlled- while most people will agree a baby in the car is a distraction, there will be less popular support for active controls against it. An unpopular law will be ignored, and may make the situation worse (see copyright if you need an example).
Since you brought it up: is Google in favor of a different flavor of net neutrality than what is in our best interests? I wouldn't think twice about adopting their version over ATT's, but their view of the internet is still different from ours.
I guess that concern comes down to whether you want Congress or the courts to define the specifics on net neutrality.
For all due purposes I consider politicians against net neutrality untouchable. I have yet to see an argument against it that isn't based in either ignorance or being owned by the corporations.
In that case /. should run a 401 scam email drive to soak up any stupidity money before it goes to waste to real crooks. There shouldn't be a problem- we'll be doing them a service by putting their money to good use stimulating the economy where otherwise it would go down the drain.
Clearly, in a libel suit, the person spreading the lies owns those lies, so the victim has no right to demand the lies be recanted.
In an ideal world this would be too big of a strain on EU relations and member states would start pulling out until it's just France. What would be left? FU.
If you can ban commercial use (like with non-commercial CC licenses), and there is demand for commercial use, it makes perfect sense to license your product for commercial situations. I could understand an argument against any restrictions on commercial use, but it wouldn't make sense to me to allow a ban on commercial use while disallowing licensing.
That said, the store should be dealing with getting a license from the radio station- the music company should only be dealing with the radio unless the store uses CDs or something. The music companies could base the radio's license fee on the number of licenses the radio gives out, but there should not be any money going directly from the store to the music companies.
Don't forget to delete the songs so you can download them again. Each pirated song is worth $80000, and piracy is stealing, so download enough and you can bankrupt these guys once and for all!
As much as I think this kind of enforcement is ridiculous, before we try to get rid of it we should try to put it to good use: someone needs to get the scientologists to start singing top hits as part of their 'religion'. That would create a (lawyer) fight I would pay to watch.
So you've got a Linux fan and not a Windows fan. Not surprising on this site.
The greed! First they get lots of money, then they go and put it to good so as to deprive me of being able to indignantly call them out for their immoral ways. The government can never do anything right!
I forgot the exact amount but I recently bought Halflife 1 for under a dollar off of Steam during a sale. They do sell their old games at low prices, you just have to catch when they do it.
Please post on the FCC site! Lots of the posts are misguided (out of ignorance or malice, probably a mix), and I don't see enough posts trying to explain net neutrality. At this rate most posts are against net neutrality. Not good.
The free and open part of it is the best thing going. Please do not screw it up with regulations like the net neutrality proposal.
People have no clue what net neutrality is, and just assume it's government regulation that will make things worse. Hopefully some influential people on our side reads those comments and understands what these people really mean. Otherwise the overwhelming majority of responses are against net neutrality, which is not the kind of backing we want the big corps to have.
I have no doubts about the overall benefit of vaccines (properly tested and controlled of course), but I don't get the impression a string of insults will help the situation.
I don't want to spend too much time searching - I found studies related to the MMR vaccine, being a popular target of public mistrust. This is a paper discussing a lack of association between Autism and MMR vaccine: http://www.immunisation.nhs.uk/Library/Research/Key_Research_Papers/50. I couldn't immediately find studies about flu vaccines, but I merely did a low-effort search of the NIH and NHS sites.
Maybe someone else can find evidence to show to people that believe the flu vaccine is more harmful than helpful.
Schuchat warned parents with sick children to be alert for signs that medical attention is required including [...] turning blue or gray
Would any parent not recognize on their own that there's a problem when their kid is blue or gray? Please tell me people don't need to be told this...
Mod parent down! He can't read, he's wrong and he's an idiot.
Despite all that, he's managed to be +5 insightful.
the copyright lobby has been pushing to remove parts of the bill that would take away exceptions which currently allow spyware to be installed without authorization
Warning: summary makes little sense. This says there is an exception allowing uninformed installation of programs, and that the copyright lobby is against the exception. According to the article, the copyright lobby is trying to add an exception to allow certain programs to be installed in this manner. If you read the summary expecting the copyright lobby to support bad things, you'll read the summary as it should read.
Maybe it's a ploy to trick us into actually reading the article.
most bank customers are going to be using computers with some amount of malware on them for the foreseeable future
Not if the banks become liable for theft due to poor security. Give the banks financial incentive to improve security and they will do so as soon as they are done trying to lawyer their way out of it.
I'm sure it would be more enjoyable for there to be a spy movie that stayed within plausiblilty science-wise so I don't keep getting pulled out of the movie by bad physics and have to convince my brain to turn back off. Quality of the action would have to be maintained by other means.
If you can agree with me, then you can get how sci-fi can be improved by some science backing. "Non-science" sci-fi isn't bad (I like most sci-fi I've seen), it just lacks an element that could potentially make it more enjoyable.
But what if the universe doesn't allow God to exist?
The OP is asking about playing styles, too. We've all played games where the AI has some flaw (built-in or not) that you learn to take advantage of to systematically progress through the game. If the AI can recognize systematic playing patterns, it can respond and adapt to keep things interesting. There difficulty could be constant (on hard or medium or whatever) where the adaptable AI makes you identify when to use rock and when to use paper, as opposed to simply patching holes and leaving no new openings. Ideally the rock/paper/scissors is made more of a gradient to keep from over-simplifying.
Another way to look at it is, if you're playing a shooter and pick up a sniper, the enemy bulks up on snipers so you get more interesting shootouts. If you pick up a shotgun they all charge in... the AI could adapt to let you play the style you want (but keeping difficulty where you want it).
There could always be some sections where the AI "trains" you by adapting to your playing style, while other sections it is entirely difficulty-based, that way you could have some constants to allow you to see how you've progressed. Many people who play Guitar Hero genre games knows this mechanic- they go to practice mode to build muscle memory at a slowed meter, then occasionally try the song on full speed to see how they've improved. Practice mode isn't fun for everyone, even though it is very useful. Adapt the practice mode to most skill-based games and make it more fun. I see a lot of potential here, but not knowing AI programming I won't make a guess how to do it.
There was John Philip Sousa in 1906 warning that recording technology would destroy the US pastime of gathering around the piano to sing music
...and replace it with drunken karioke nights.