Also, an arcade is harder to control than a television within your own home. I agree with this. However, that depends on parents actually controlling what the kids see. The problem is when parents use the TV as a babysitter, which is an all-too-common occurence
Let me start by saying I'm in BC, so I've got this Soldier of Fortune thing hanging over me, too.
Now, from what I understand, the governments are trying to "protect" us by separating us from violent games. However, they don't seem to have a problem with TV, where people get killed all the time, or (even worse), cartoons where characters "should" get killed (eg fall off cliffs, get shot in the head, etc) walk away without a scratch - or at worst a cast that stays on 'til the next scene.
Let's not forget the evening news. For example, school shootings. When there's a school shooting, every station covers it. Not just for a news clip, though. We have to see every detail - where the shooter stood, how he did it, etc. A few days later, there's another one.
If it wasn't for the sensationalism that the media puts on these things, there wouldn't be such a large problem. If you want to "control" everything, start with North America's babysitter - the TV.
Or, an even better way. Parents should supervise their children. Period. If the parents don't like what the child is watching, change it. If the parents don't like what the kid's playing, uninstall it.
Oh, I forgot...that would require parents to have some involvement in their childrens' lives. As a person who works with children, I know how often that happens.
OK, I took a look at the article, but I don't see how this is going to be the "death of paper as we know it". This looks more like monitor technology. Do you really think that this will replace your speeches? I can't see the refresh on this being very good - I think I'll stick with going in front of an audience. But that's just me...
The reason it matters is simple. If I were to refer to myself as a hacker, meaning an enthusiastic programmer, what response am I likely to get? Usually, people will look at me as if I'm a kind of criminal. Try it sometime. When a potential employer asks about your computer skill level, tell them you're a hacker.
Aren't these guys just a startup? Sure their stuff isn't all that great right now. But how long until they prove to sponsors that it works? Then they will be able to afford better servers, with greater capacity. Sounds like a great idea to me.
and by the way, maybe a little campaign to bring down microsoft.com using only windows 2000 machines would be sort of fun. think of the contortions we'd send their pr monkeys through! too bad that would be immature, immoral and illegal...;)
If more of the training is virtual, less soldiers will die/be incapacitated, which is a good thing not only from the soldiers' point of view but also from the taxpayers'
So what you're saying is that the soldier, who is verifiably a (previously?) living human being, is only worth the money it takes to train him/her?
See, out here in the real world, sometimes people have to be killed
Why do people have to be killed? Because their government said that someone else's government is wrong.
Ever notice that the people who should have the most blame never see the battle? It's just the average Private Joe Random who goes and gets himself killed.
I have some military ties, and I know that the Canadian military is more effective than the American military during war exercises. I admit that it may not be the same during an actual invasion, but the fact remains.
Why are we more effective? Glad you asked. You see, while the Americans rely on technology, getting a bigger and better bomb, the Canadians do something a little more time-tested - our troops know what they're doing <gasp!> If you take away an American electronic command post, you've destroyed their operation. You know the one - it sends out signals all over the world, but for some reason nobody can find it? Except, of course, the Canadians. OTOH, the average Canadian foot soldier knows who the enemy is, its weaknesses, etc. because he had to learn them. No reliance on computers - less damage done if a command center gets blown up.
>Many modern weapons are too expensive to expend in peacetime training. And soldiers are more expensive than that. No matter how much you spend on your killing machine, it's going to be a 25-cent bullet that kills your human solder. What price is put on that human life?
Easy. They make the new standard and convince manufacturers to make CD players that play both RedBook and their own standard.
Of course, it my be easier said than done - "Hello, Sony Tech department? Can you stop working on standard CD players so everyone has to use ours? I hope that isn't too much of a problem."
Slashdot Mirror
Also, an arcade is harder to control than a television within your own home.
I agree with this. However, that depends on parents actually controlling what the kids see. The problem is when parents use the TV as a babysitter, which is an all-too-common occurence
Now, from what I understand, the governments are trying to "protect" us by separating us from violent games. However, they don't seem to have a problem with TV, where people get killed all the time, or (even worse), cartoons where characters "should" get killed (eg fall off cliffs, get shot in the head, etc) walk away without a scratch - or at worst a cast that stays on 'til the next scene.
Let's not forget the evening news. For example, school shootings. When there's a school shooting, every station covers it. Not just for a news clip, though. We have to see every detail - where the shooter stood, how he did it, etc. A few days later, there's another one.
If it wasn't for the sensationalism that the media puts on these things, there wouldn't be such a large problem. If you want to "control" everything, start with North America's babysitter - the TV.
Or, an even better way. Parents should supervise their children. Period. If the parents don't like what the child is watching, change it. If the parents don't like what the kid's playing, uninstall it.
Oh, I forgot...that would require parents to have some involvement in their childrens' lives. As a person who works with children, I know how often that happens.
If you've figured it out, can you share it with the rest of us?
OK, I took a look at the article, but I don't see how this is going to be the "death of paper as we know it". This looks more like monitor technology.
Do you really think that this will replace your speeches? I can't see the refresh on this being very good - I think I'll stick with going in front of an audience. But that's just me...
The humor was the fact that a M$ person didn't have Windows in his office...
And M$ can afford to get us all offices, not cubicles, although mine is windowless.
Am I the only one who finds this amusing?
The reason it matters is simple. If I were to refer to myself as a hacker, meaning an enthusiastic programmer, what response am I likely to get? Usually, people will look at me as if I'm a kind of criminal. Try it sometime. When a potential employer asks about your computer skill level, tell them you're a hacker.
Not to mention working out where your PC/TV/Palm/AIBO is if it/they wonder off without you.
Or maybe your high-security laptop?
Aren't these guys just a startup? Sure their stuff isn't all that great right now. But how long until they prove to sponsors that it works? Then they will be able to afford better servers, with greater capacity. Sounds like a great idea to me.
Was I the only one who noticed that the head of software development (Gates) was interviewed, but not the CEO (Ballmer)
Has that stopped anyone before?
Are you implying that there is good security there somewhere?
So what you're saying is that the soldier, who is verifiably a (previously?) living human being, is only worth the money it takes to train him/her?
Why do people have to be killed? Because their government said that someone else's government is wrong.
Ever notice that the people who should have the most blame never see the battle? It's just the average Private Joe Random who goes and gets himself killed.
Then why does it always happen?
Why are we more effective? Glad you asked. You see, while the Americans rely on technology, getting a bigger and better bomb, the Canadians do something a little more time-tested - our troops know what they're doing <gasp!> If you take away an American electronic command post, you've destroyed their operation. You know the one - it sends out signals all over the world, but for some reason nobody can find it? Except, of course, the Canadians. OTOH, the average Canadian foot soldier knows who the enemy is, its weaknesses, etc. because he had to learn them. No reliance on computers - less damage done if a command center gets blown up.
>Many modern weapons are too expensive to expend in peacetime training. And soldiers are more expensive than that. No matter how much you spend on your killing machine, it's going to be a 25-cent bullet that kills your human solder. What price is put on that human life?
You can already write them in one line...it just has to be _really_ long.
There is a problem with showing them Linux, though. The masses don't want "better". They want "easier". Linux doesn't have that - yet.
It's 1.0.0 (You can find out by going to their website :)
Of course, it my be easier said than done - "Hello, Sony Tech department? Can you stop working on standard CD players so everyone has to use ours? I hope that isn't too much of a problem."