I'm not a criminal and I don't mind seeing people get away with lots and lots of crimes. In some countries, a woman getting an education is a crime. In some countries, criticizing the government is a crime. Some people get away with it and I hope like hell they keep getting away with it. Here in the good old US of A, distributing a copy of the code for DeCSS may be a crime. I hope people keep getting away with it. I could keep going but I won't waste the ASCII.
So insert valves and flow meters and adjust until you get the ratio you want. (Extra credit if you have the computer monitor and automatically adjust its own cooling.)
If you'd like to sit back with a self-righteous sneer on your face and condemn my actions in accessing the network, then be my guest. You're welcome to feel that I'm a unethical cur with loose morals and no sense of propriety. I promise, I won't lose a bit of sleep over it. Whether or not the action is immoral or unethical isn't at issue. The question is whether it is (or whether it should be) criminal. And your arguments are woefully insufficient to justify laws making such actions criminal.
First and foremost, you're admitting you're making an ASSUMPTION, and you're not 100% sure it's meant for open use. If you're even 1% uncertain as to whether or not it's intended for open use, you're making an unethical decision to use it!
You make assumptions all the time and act on them. We all do. It's part of life. When we approach a green light, we assume that the cars which have a red light are going to stop. It's not a 100% assumption - someone is proven wrong at that assumption every day. If you're wrong, you may pay with your life. That's an assumption that's a much higher risk than the one here, and people make it every day.
Nearly 100% of WiFi routers sold to end users are configured to work "out of the box", and their default is to have no password. Being the technically minded person you are, if you've had any experience whatsoever in the real world with the average person, you'd know that the average person is completely ignorant to how technology works. A safer assumption is that your average idiot has no idea he/she is sitting there with an open network.
Let me see if I understand this. The law should assume than anyone who sets up a WiFi router is technologically ignorant, and has no idea how to secure the connection, or even know that the connection should be secured. But the law should assume that anyone who connects to that network is technologically knowledgable, is aware of the other persons ignorance, and is wilfully taking advantage of their ignorance to steal service from them. Is that what you're saying? Because we are talking about the law here. We're not talking about ethics or morality or what would Jesus do. We're talking about people being arrested for accessing an open network. Or are you arguing that the law should only criminalize technologically ignorant people who aren't aware that they shouldn't be accessing the network? When the cop is called out, he has to give you a TCP/IP quiz to determine if you're technically knowledgable or not so that he knows whether your actions are criminal?
1) You have a choice as to whether or not to use a wireless connection. This isn't just about RECEIVING a signal - it's about configuring your computer to receive it, and transmitting signals back as well. This is nothing at all like walking by and "seeing" a picture.
Not always. Many default setups will detect an open network and connect to it with no action on the users part.
2) Being a technically minded person, it can easily be argued in a court of law that you were aware this "magical free wireless" connection was owned by someone, and was probably owned by the coffeeshop. If someone leaves their bike out on the public sidewalk unattended, are you free to take it for a spin? No. Illegal. Not yours despite someone being ignorant enough to leave it unlocked. The fact it's on public property is meaningless.
There are lots of people who intentionally leave connections open for people to use. Take a look here. It isn't unreasonable to assume that an open, unencrypted network is intended for public use. The bicycle analogy simply isn't the same thing. I've yet to find a web site which lists spots you can go to find free bicycles to ride.
3) Not only do you know the signal comes from some owner, but there's not just the TOS of the "wireless connection" (which may be posted inside, or may be nonexistent) -- there is the TOS of the ISP serving bandwidth to the coffeeshop.
The ISP's TOS is an agreement between the shop and the ISP. It has nothing to do with me. I'd assume that the TOS are such that it allows the coffeeshop to share it's bandwidth as it sees fit. If not, then is the shop violating those TOS' by allowing customers to access its bandwidth? I'd be willing to wager that there IPS's TOS don't say "You're allowed to share this bandwidth if you want, but only with people who are paying customers of yours."
I'm growing really tired of the way people are trying to justify what they know is stealing by arguing that because a wireless signal is "intangible" or "encroaches public property", it's somehow public domain. It's not. Someone owns the device that's transmitting it, and someone pays for the connection to the internet that it's using.
And I'm growing really tired of people who don't understand basic principles. By all means, it's your bandwidth. Share it or not, as you choose. But if you choose not to, then take steps to make it clear that it's not an open access point. If you don't, then I'm perfectly justified in assuming that it's an intentionally open spot, just like thousands of others all across the US.
What the hell are you talking about? No one is infiltrating any freedoms here. If you own the hub, you can set up any rules you want to who uses it. You have no constitutional right to open Wi-Fi signals provided by private businesses.
That's an open question. If you're broadcasting signals, what right do you have to tell me that I can't receive them?
My opinion is that it's up to you to at least indicate that this is a private network that you shouldn't access. You do that by at least setting up basic security. Sure, WEP is easy to break. So are most door locks. But if you enable WEP and I break in, then I'm knowingly trespassing where I don't belong.
And no, posting a TOS inside your business isn't the same thing. I can easily access the signal without ever seeing that TOS. Suppose I hang a picture up that's visible through my plate glass window, and beside it post a sign that says that I own this picture and if you look at it, you agree to pay me the sum of $100. If you walk by and look at my picture through the window, are you bound by those TOS? And if you're going to claim that that's different, you need to specify exactly why I should be bound by a TOS posted inside your business that I've never seen when I access a public, unencrypted signal.
I will have to explore it more, but it will be intriguing to see how they handle things like pointers and structs that are not in python.
Uh, why would they have to? This goes from Python to C++, not vice versa. If there are no pointers or structs in the Python code, why would they have to handle them? Certainly, it's quite possible that some Python variable types will be converted to pointers or structs in the output code, but that's orthagonal to the issue of Python not having them natively.
If you were trying to go from C++ to Python, then you'd have to convert C++ pointers and structs to some sort of Python data type, and your comment would make sense. As it is, I'm not sure what you were trying to say.
The article did not state that Linux had 20% less uptime. It stated 20% more downtime. Since downtime numbers are smaller than uptime numbers in a year, the average downtimes would still be fairly close together.
I don't know what the study itself said. The article linked to in the story said:
Windows 2003 Server, in fact, led the popular Red Hat Enterprise Linux with nearly 20 percent more annual uptime.
I don't trust reporters or bloggers as far as I can throw them when it comes to statistics and mathematics, so I don't put any faith in the article accurately representing the study. But the article did indeed claim Windows had 20% more uptime.
Email will get replaced the same way that land lines are being replaced by cell phones.
In what world has land lines _replaced_ cell phones?
How did "being replaced" become "has...replaced"? The first is a process that's underway. The second is a fait accompli.
I don't think, and did not say, that cell phones will completely replace POTS any time soon. But that's exactly the point. We don't need to completely eleminate traditional email. We need a better system that will take over much of its functioning while still allowing the old system to function for those who can not or will not switch.
Well, yes, that's the point. The solution needs to be integrated into the software so that the users need no hand holding. I was replying to a post asking why third-party, after-the-fact solutions that require extra configuring wouldn't work.
Agreed, setting up keys and such is hard, but with friends and familiy we geeks can help. We do that with E-Mail, Games, Wordprocessors, why not with PGP?
Because we're looking for a long term, widespread, permanent solution. There aren't enough of us geeks to hold the hand of every user in the world.
Bad analogies. Email will get replaced. I certainly can't tell you with what, but it will get replaced. And the reason it can be replaced and the others can't is because it doesn't need to be an instant and complete replacement. Email will get replaced the same way that land lines are being replaced by cell phones.
If you'd tried to instantly replace the phone system with a different, portable system, you'd have been doomed to failure. There's no way you would have ever gotten everyone to just give up their telephone and buy a new, different device for voice communications. But cell phones are replacing land lines because they're compatible. Even though a cell phone and a land line phone work very differently at the hand set level, they both go back to the same place and you can call one from the other. All of the differences are handled transparently to the user. He doesn't care if his voice is going out over copper pairs or over RF to a cell tower. He doesn't care if it's switched through mechanical switches or digitized and sent through a IP network. He dials and a number and he talks.
To replace email, we need to come up with a new system which provides security and authentication when communicating with other addresses on the new system but degrades gracefully when sending to a legacy email address. As more and more people switch to the new system, the old system can be abandoned. It's a piecemeal replacement, not a wholesale changeout.
The article talks about all of this, all though I've tried to clarify a few things. It even gives a possible mechanism for graceful degradation.
What is a "range of applications?"... are we talking Solitaire? MS Office? World of Warcraft? A little vague if you ask me:-)
RTFA. It runs WindowsCE. It'll run anything which is available for WindowsCE. That does include a limited version of Office but does not include WoW. However, it's primarily intended as a thin client. If you want to run an MS Server OS and install WoW on it, you could play WoW on the server via the client. Not being a WoW player, I can't tell you how much the display latency would affect your game.
I'd suspect that it will be relatively easy to install Linux on the device, which will open up a whole new realm of uses and capabilities.
For nothing (other than the cost of the electricity), you can play Solitaire for 50 hours. Or 100 hours.
My point is that yes, you can find other ways to spend your time for more or less money. But it isn't the same experience you'll get playing this. The real question is whether or not this game is worth the money, not what else you could do with that money.
I agree with the reviewer that at 20 bucks, it's probably slightly overpriced. If it were a little longer or a little cheaper, it'd be a great deal. But, having played the entire game, if I could get in a time machine and go back and advise myself on whether or not to buy the game, I'd tell myself to go ahead. I'd probably grumble about it, but I'd give it a nod.
No, I think they're quite aware that Harlan's angry public persona is nothing of the sort - it's his personality, not a persona. Harlan is (or was, in his day) a great and innovative author and editor. He deserves all of the props he receives for his writing. His also a flamming ahole, and he deserves all of the abuse he gets for his arrogance and his complete lack of common decency. I can respect and revere his work while still holding him in utter contempt as a person.
Yes, because one data point invalidates a 140-year upward trend!
So, this 140 year upward trend is being caused by the release of CO2 and other gases, primarily from automobiles that were invented 100 years or so ago and didn't become widespread until 60 or so years ago.
You're correct that the federal government is involved in a great many issues which it should leave to the states. You're also correct that the Supreme Court has been complicit in this slow (and sometimes not so slow) creep of federal authority and jurisdiction. However, you're mistaken in your application of these principles to this case.
The Constitution does not contain the word "obscenity." What the Constitution does contain is the words "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech..." "Obscenity" is essentially an exception carved into that restriction by judicial fiat. That restriction applies to all forms of government, not just to the federal government. The issue of exactly how states can apply the obscenity exception is proper material for the Supreme Court's attention.
As the article indicates, this was somewhat reasonable when content was localized. You could publish a magazine in one state without publishing it in another. You can't do the same with a web site. Regardless of whether you think the obscenity exception to free speech is justified or not, a community standard of what is obscene is plainly unworkable in the Internet age. The Supreme Court erred (actually, chickened out) in not addressing the issue.
You think that because this is the way everyone else does it, then Google HAS to do it that way too. If they refuse, you sputter and spit and insist "But...but...but... you HAVE too....!!!!"
No, they don't. If you don't like it, don't buy their stock. If the analysts don't like it, they can issue "sell" recomendations or decline to issue a "buy" recommendation. But the fact that analysts want information to make their decisions on doesn't ethically or leagally compell Google to offer it. The fact that some people chose to buy Google stock doesn't ethically compel Google to act in a manner that those shareholders find proper. If those same stockholders feel that Google is going to lose money or market value, they'll abandon Google in a heartbeat and recoup whatever portion of their investment they can get back. They certainly feel no obligation to stick with Google. Why, then, should Google feel any obligation to satisfy them? Google simply offers a chance for people to ride on their coat tails. That doesn't require them to offer a chance to decide where those coat tails are going.
(You might argue that this conflicts with certain laws, and you'd be right in some sense. The problem, however, isn't with my analysis. It's with the laws which interfere with the free market.)
I agree. I use it day in and day out. I just wish I could find something remotely similar for Linux. I can cover all of the features by combining a variety of programs, but it's much more difficult to do. I'd have thought that this was an itch some programmer would have scratched, but eveidently not...
That a correlation between America's increasingly violent entertainment options and increasingly violent culture exists is beyond question.
Interesting argument. Too bad that it is completely unconnected to reality.
Wait, that must have been a type. You must have meant our decreasingly violent culture. If there's no question of a correlation between violent entertainment options and violent culture, what exactly do you suppose accounts for this negative correlation? Are we, perhaps, expending stress or energy on games that were formerly expended against other living human beings? Do you think this correlation will continue? If we continue to increase the violence of our entertainment options, will we at eventually reach a point where we have no violence what-so-ever in our culture?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not a criminal and I don't mind seeing people get away with lots and lots of crimes. In some countries, a woman getting an education is a crime. In some countries, criticizing the government is a crime. Some people get away with it and I hope like hell they keep getting away with it. Here in the good old US of A, distributing a copy of the code for DeCSS may be a crime. I hope people keep getting away with it. I could keep going but I won't waste the ASCII.
So insert valves and flow meters and adjust until you get the ratio you want. (Extra credit if you have the computer monitor and automatically adjust its own cooling.)
If you'd like to sit back with a self-righteous sneer on your face and condemn my actions in accessing the network, then be my guest. You're welcome to feel that I'm a unethical cur with loose morals and no sense of propriety. I promise, I won't lose a bit of sleep over it. Whether or not the action is immoral or unethical isn't at issue. The question is whether it is (or whether it should be) criminal. And your arguments are woefully insufficient to justify laws making such actions criminal.
First and foremost, you're admitting you're making an ASSUMPTION, and you're not 100% sure it's meant for open use. If you're even 1% uncertain as to whether or not it's intended for open use, you're making an unethical decision to use it!
You make assumptions all the time and act on them. We all do. It's part of life. When we approach a green light, we assume that the cars which have a red light are going to stop. It's not a 100% assumption - someone is proven wrong at that assumption every day. If you're wrong, you may pay with your life. That's an assumption that's a much higher risk than the one here, and people make it every day.
Nearly 100% of WiFi routers sold to end users are configured to work "out of the box", and their default is to have no password. Being the technically minded person you are, if you've had any experience whatsoever in the real world with the average person, you'd know that the average person is completely ignorant to how technology works. A safer assumption is that your average idiot has no idea he/she is sitting there with an open network.
Let me see if I understand this. The law should assume than anyone who sets up a WiFi router is technologically ignorant, and has no idea how to secure the connection, or even know that the connection should be secured. But the law should assume that anyone who connects to that network is technologically knowledgable, is aware of the other persons ignorance, and is wilfully taking advantage of their ignorance to steal service from them. Is that what you're saying? Because we are talking about the law here. We're not talking about ethics or morality or what would Jesus do. We're talking about people being arrested for accessing an open network. Or are you arguing that the law should only criminalize technologically ignorant people who aren't aware that they shouldn't be accessing the network? When the cop is called out, he has to give you a TCP/IP quiz to determine if you're technically knowledgable or not so that he knows whether your actions are criminal?
1) You have a choice as to whether or not to use a wireless connection. This isn't just about RECEIVING a signal - it's about configuring your computer to receive it, and transmitting signals back as well. This is nothing at all like walking by and "seeing" a picture.
Not always. Many default setups will detect an open network and connect to it with no action on the users part.
2) Being a technically minded person, it can easily be argued in a court of law that you were aware this "magical free wireless" connection was owned by someone, and was probably owned by the coffeeshop. If someone leaves their bike out on the public sidewalk unattended, are you free to take it for a spin? No. Illegal. Not yours despite someone being ignorant enough to leave it unlocked. The fact it's on public property is meaningless.
There are lots of people who intentionally leave connections open for people to use. Take a look here. It isn't unreasonable to assume that an open, unencrypted network is intended for public use. The bicycle analogy simply isn't the same thing. I've yet to find a web site which lists spots you can go to find free bicycles to ride.
3) Not only do you know the signal comes from some owner, but there's not just the TOS of the "wireless connection" (which may be posted inside, or may be nonexistent) -- there is the TOS of the ISP serving bandwidth to the coffeeshop.
The ISP's TOS is an agreement between the shop and the ISP. It has nothing to do with me. I'd assume that the TOS are such that it allows the coffeeshop to share it's bandwidth as it sees fit. If not, then is the shop violating those TOS' by allowing customers to access its bandwidth? I'd be willing to wager that there IPS's TOS don't say "You're allowed to share this bandwidth if you want, but only with people who are paying customers of yours."
I'm growing really tired of the way people are trying to justify what they know is stealing by arguing that because a wireless signal is "intangible" or "encroaches public property", it's somehow public domain. It's not. Someone owns the device that's transmitting it, and someone pays for the connection to the internet that it's using.
And I'm growing really tired of people who don't understand basic principles. By all means, it's your bandwidth. Share it or not, as you choose. But if you choose not to, then take steps to make it clear that it's not an open access point. If you don't, then I'm perfectly justified in assuming that it's an intentionally open spot, just like thousands of others all across the US.
What the hell are you talking about? No one is infiltrating any freedoms here. If you own the hub, you can set up any rules you want to who uses it. You have no constitutional right to open Wi-Fi signals provided by private businesses.
That's an open question. If you're broadcasting signals, what right do you have to tell me that I can't receive them?
My opinion is that it's up to you to at least indicate that this is a private network that you shouldn't access. You do that by at least setting up basic security. Sure, WEP is easy to break. So are most door locks. But if you enable WEP and I break in, then I'm knowingly trespassing where I don't belong.
And no, posting a TOS inside your business isn't the same thing. I can easily access the signal without ever seeing that TOS. Suppose I hang a picture up that's visible through my plate glass window, and beside it post a sign that says that I own this picture and if you look at it, you agree to pay me the sum of $100. If you walk by and look at my picture through the window, are you bound by those TOS? And if you're going to claim that that's different, you need to specify exactly why I should be bound by a TOS posted inside your business that I've never seen when I access a public, unencrypted signal.
I will have to explore it more, but it will be intriguing to see how they handle things like pointers and structs that are not in python.
Uh, why would they have to? This goes from Python to C++, not vice versa. If there are no pointers or structs in the Python code, why would they have to handle them? Certainly, it's quite possible that some Python variable types will be converted to pointers or structs in the output code, but that's orthagonal to the issue of Python not having them natively.
If you were trying to go from C++ to Python, then you'd have to convert C++ pointers and structs to some sort of Python data type, and your comment would make sense. As it is, I'm not sure what you were trying to say.
Right. But surely no one will enter false information and use a gmail address for the registration form. This is MUCH more secure!
The article did not state that Linux had 20% less uptime. It stated 20% more downtime. Since downtime numbers are smaller than uptime numbers in a year, the average downtimes would still be fairly close together.
I don't know what the study itself said. The article linked to in the story said:
Windows 2003 Server, in fact, led the popular Red Hat Enterprise Linux with nearly 20 percent more annual uptime.
I don't trust reporters or bloggers as far as I can throw them when it comes to statistics and mathematics, so I don't put any faith in the article accurately representing the study. But the article did indeed claim Windows had 20% more uptime.
Section 285 of Query 17 of "Notes on the State of Virinia."
Email will get replaced the same way that land lines are being replaced by cell phones.
In what world has land lines _replaced_ cell phones?
How did "being replaced" become "has...replaced"? The first is a process that's underway. The second is a fait accompli.
I don't think, and did not say, that cell phones will completely replace POTS any time soon. But that's exactly the point. We don't need to completely eleminate traditional email. We need a better system that will take over much of its functioning while still allowing the old system to function for those who can not or will not switch.
Well, yes, that's the point. The solution needs to be integrated into the software so that the users need no hand holding. I was replying to a post asking why third-party, after-the-fact solutions that require extra configuring wouldn't work.
Agreed, setting up keys and such is hard, but with friends and familiy we geeks can help. We do that with E-Mail, Games, Wordprocessors, why not with PGP?
Because we're looking for a long term, widespread, permanent solution. There aren't enough of us geeks to hold the hand of every user in the world.
Bad analogies. Email will get replaced. I certainly can't tell you with what, but it will get replaced. And the reason it can be replaced and the others can't is because it doesn't need to be an instant and complete replacement. Email will get replaced the same way that land lines are being replaced by cell phones.
If you'd tried to instantly replace the phone system with a different, portable system, you'd have been doomed to failure. There's no way you would have ever gotten everyone to just give up their telephone and buy a new, different device for voice communications. But cell phones are replacing land lines because they're compatible. Even though a cell phone and a land line phone work very differently at the hand set level, they both go back to the same place and you can call one from the other. All of the differences are handled transparently to the user. He doesn't care if his voice is going out over copper pairs or over RF to a cell tower. He doesn't care if it's switched through mechanical switches or digitized and sent through a IP network. He dials and a number and he talks.
To replace email, we need to come up with a new system which provides security and authentication when communicating with other addresses on the new system but degrades gracefully when sending to a legacy email address. As more and more people switch to the new system, the old system can be abandoned. It's a piecemeal replacement, not a wholesale changeout.
The article talks about all of this, all though I've tried to clarify a few things. It even gives a possible mechanism for graceful degradation.
So...anything 99% of my users at work won't be doing on a normal basis is protected by the popup boxes you so loathe.
I suspect some of your users might occasionally want to delete an icon from the desktop.
What is a "range of applications?" ... are we talking Solitaire? MS Office? World of Warcraft? A little vague if you ask me :-)
RTFA. It runs WindowsCE. It'll run anything which is available for WindowsCE. That does include a limited version of Office but does not include WoW. However, it's primarily intended as a thin client. If you want to run an MS Server OS and install WoW on it, you could play WoW on the server via the client. Not being a WoW player, I can't tell you how much the display latency would affect your game.
I'd suspect that it will be relatively easy to install Linux on the device, which will open up a whole new realm of uses and capabilities.
For nothing (other than the cost of the electricity), you can play Solitaire for 50 hours. Or 100 hours.
My point is that yes, you can find other ways to spend your time for more or less money. But it isn't the same experience you'll get playing this. The real question is whether or not this game is worth the money, not what else you could do with that money.
I agree with the reviewer that at 20 bucks, it's probably slightly overpriced. If it were a little longer or a little cheaper, it'd be a great deal. But, having played the entire game, if I could get in a time machine and go back and advise myself on whether or not to buy the game, I'd tell myself to go ahead. I'd probably grumble about it, but I'd give it a nod.
It's completely uncredible. The "archeologist" behind this claims that it was built by descendents of Atlantis, who themselves came from the Pleiades.
Debunking here.
No, I think they're quite aware that Harlan's angry public persona is nothing of the sort - it's his personality, not a persona. Harlan is (or was, in his day) a great and innovative author and editor. He deserves all of the props he receives for his writing. His also a flamming ahole, and he deserves all of the abuse he gets for his arrogance and his complete lack of common decency. I can respect and revere his work while still holding him in utter contempt as a person.
Yes, because one data point invalidates a 140-year upward trend!
So, this 140 year upward trend is being caused by the release of CO2 and other gases, primarily from automobiles that were invented 100 years or so ago and didn't become widespread until 60 or so years ago.
You're correct that the federal government is involved in a great many issues which it should leave to the states. You're also correct that the Supreme Court has been complicit in this slow (and sometimes not so slow) creep of federal authority and jurisdiction. However, you're mistaken in your application of these principles to this case.
... abridging the freedom of speech..." "Obscenity" is essentially an exception carved into that restriction by judicial fiat. That restriction applies to all forms of government, not just to the federal government. The issue of exactly how states can apply the obscenity exception is proper material for the Supreme Court's attention.
The Constitution does not contain the word "obscenity." What the Constitution does contain is the words "Congress shall make no law
As the article indicates, this was somewhat reasonable when content was localized. You could publish a magazine in one state without publishing it in another. You can't do the same with a web site. Regardless of whether you think the obscenity exception to free speech is justified or not, a community standard of what is obscene is plainly unworkable in the Internet age. The Supreme Court erred (actually, chickened out) in not addressing the issue.
In other words, by "free," you mean "a market that is compelled to operate in the manner that I think is fair." Interesting use of the word "free."
The absurd naivity is on your part, not GPs.
You think that because this is the way everyone else does it, then Google HAS to do it that way too. If they refuse, you sputter and spit and insist "But...but...but... you HAVE too....!!!!"
No, they don't. If you don't like it, don't buy their stock. If the analysts don't like it, they can issue "sell" recomendations or decline to issue a "buy" recommendation. But the fact that analysts want information to make their decisions on doesn't ethically or leagally compell Google to offer it. The fact that some people chose to buy Google stock doesn't ethically compel Google to act in a manner that those shareholders find proper. If those same stockholders feel that Google is going to lose money or market value, they'll abandon Google in a heartbeat and recoup whatever portion of their investment they can get back. They certainly feel no obligation to stick with Google. Why, then, should Google feel any obligation to satisfy them? Google simply offers a chance for people to ride on their coat tails. That doesn't require them to offer a chance to decide where those coat tails are going.
(You might argue that this conflicts with certain laws, and you'd be right in some sense. The problem, however, isn't with my analysis. It's with the laws which interfere with the free market.)
I agree. I use it day in and day out. I just wish I could find something remotely similar for Linux. I can cover all of the features by combining a variety of programs, but it's much more difficult to do. I'd have thought that this was an itch some programmer would have scratched, but eveidently not...
That a correlation between America's increasingly violent entertainment options and increasingly violent culture exists is beyond question.
Interesting argument. Too bad that it is completely unconnected to reality.
Wait, that must have been a type. You must have meant our decreasingly violent culture. If there's no question of a correlation between violent entertainment options and violent culture, what exactly do you suppose accounts for this negative correlation? Are we, perhaps, expending stress or energy on games that were formerly expended against other living human beings? Do you think this correlation will continue? If we continue to increase the violence of our entertainment options, will we at eventually reach a point where we have no violence what-so-ever in our culture?