Indeed, to paraphrase, "In theory, theory and practice are the same, in practice, they are different". The weakest link in security is always the human element (coders, users, attackers...). I was just clearing up the misconception that the algorithm is weak/backdoored as conjectured by another poster.
No, AES has been independently vetted and attacked by multiple security organizations. The only flaws that have been discovered in the algorithm are minor and inconsequential. The NSA is a double-edged sword - they help with useful security tools such as SELinux as well as their traditional spook espionage. The NSA can't crack AES even with a supercomputer (right now, and only if the user has a decent password and/or 2-factor authentication).
Unfortunately, easy to pick up is not the same thing as easy to continue playing. Fortunately, Megaman is retro-style enough that the difficulty is easy enough to tweak. (Health, enemy aggressiveness...)
The key to make a game appeal to both types of gamers is to include elements such as 'rubberband AI' (In Mario Kart, CPU speed was adjusted by player position; items get better as you fall behind) and difficulty levels (imagine that!), choices, or chaos (The Super Smash Bros series can turn a near-win into a loss or a tie through items or stage elements). Super Mario Galaxy 2 allows players to choose between easy, doable and brutally difficult Stars. Frequent checkpoints and lives ensure that the challenge is painless for those who wish to undertake it. Since you only need 60 or so to win, the challenge is self-adjusted. Unfortunately, as games have become more complex, tweaking hardness is nigh impossible without losing balance or frustrating players; this is a brilliant little strategy that leaves all players fulfilled.
Now, 'casual' games made in 5 minutes are a different story....
As soon as censorship is mentioned, media coverage (pro and anti) will jump in the fray. Not good for an organization committed to facts (in principle, anyway), not controversy. Fox and "family" groups will always contend Wikipedia is not going far enough regardless of anything they do. What I see happening (unfortunately) is the de-sexualization of topics (i.e. stick figures for examples and clinical language for descriptions) now that this can of worms has opened. This will inevitably lead to a loss of information, as Wikipedia's rabid destruction of lists and articles on rare subjects has told us time and time again.
Perhaps in its execution, but not in its intent. According to my studies, criminal law is intended to prevent crime and civil law to correct damage done. There is no mention of "punishment" in either.
The FCC does not need to be regulating this. We could be spending the cash on eliminating our trillion-dollar deficit instead, or another worthy pursuit.
This law co-opts censorship. It labels it as good and necessary, when in reality it depends on the maturity and development of each child. This is a fact that psychological studies always seem to sidestep.
I play videogames and watch violent movies. This does not make me a cold-blooded assassin. My brother, on the other hand, could not as it would rub off on him significantly. The Senate is subtly saying "Censorship is OK".
1. Most violent games reward destruction of distinctly evil characters. Does this not foment desirable characteristics? Not just 'bad people' in general, but specific images of totalitarianism, world annihilation, etc.
2. It is worth noting that if such a great, simple link existed (as TFA suggests), then it should be far more noticeable.
3. Since videogames have been known to increase visual acuity and reflexes by a significant amount (30%+), the negatives are easily matched by the positives. Specifically, first person shooters were found to have the most beneficial effect. How's that for a spin? (Source: The New Scientist)
4. It is the greatest test of freedom of speech if one is able to tolerate what he cannot bear. The choice is what counts. I wouldn't play some games, but why deprive someone else of that right?
5. Information overload is already here. 'Parental control' programs do not work. Free games are becoming more common. Most of my friends restricted by such device have used some sort of circumvention device (Proxies, SSH, and a variety of cunning software workarounds) to download material they aren't supposed to. None of them could be considered aggressive in any sense of the word. AKA 'You can't stop it'.
6. If it isn't broken, don't fix it. To any politician who thinks about regulating video games, I say this: "Prove to me that depriving people of freedom and entertainment is worth it. Prove that it would save a life."
Depriving many because of a few. Where have I head this before...?
The restrictions on public broadcasts are enough.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed, to paraphrase, "In theory, theory and practice are the same, in practice, they are different". The weakest link in security is always the human element (coders, users, attackers...). I was just clearing up the misconception that the algorithm is weak/backdoored as conjectured by another poster.
No, AES has been independently vetted and attacked by multiple security organizations. The only flaws that have been discovered in the algorithm are minor and inconsequential. The NSA is a double-edged sword - they help with useful security tools such as SELinux as well as their traditional spook espionage. The NSA can't crack AES even with a supercomputer (right now, and only if the user has a decent password and/or 2-factor authentication).
Right now, yes, but it is unwise to predict limits to technology.
Unfortunately, easy to pick up is not the same thing as easy to continue playing. Fortunately, Megaman is retro-style enough that the difficulty is easy enough to tweak. (Health, enemy aggressiveness...)
The key to make a game appeal to both types of gamers is to include elements such as 'rubberband AI' (In Mario Kart, CPU speed was adjusted by player position; items get better as you fall behind) and difficulty levels (imagine that!), choices, or chaos (The Super Smash Bros series can turn a near-win into a loss or a tie through items or stage elements). Super Mario Galaxy 2 allows players to choose between easy, doable and brutally difficult Stars. Frequent checkpoints and lives ensure that the challenge is painless for those who wish to undertake it. Since you only need 60 or so to win, the challenge is self-adjusted. Unfortunately, as games have become more complex, tweaking hardness is nigh impossible without losing balance or frustrating players; this is a brilliant little strategy that leaves all players fulfilled. Now, 'casual' games made in 5 minutes are a different story....
As soon as censorship is mentioned, media coverage (pro and anti) will jump in the fray. Not good for an organization committed to facts (in principle, anyway), not controversy. Fox and "family" groups will always contend Wikipedia is not going far enough regardless of anything they do. What I see happening (unfortunately) is the de-sexualization of topics (i.e. stick figures for examples and clinical language for descriptions) now that this can of worms has opened. This will inevitably lead to a loss of information, as Wikipedia's rabid destruction of lists and articles on rare subjects has told us time and time again.
Strategy from the start?
Perhaps in its execution, but not in its intent. According to my studies, criminal law is intended to prevent crime and civil law to correct damage done. There is no mention of "punishment" in either.
The FCC does not need to be regulating this. We could be spending the cash on eliminating our trillion-dollar deficit instead, or another worthy pursuit. This law co-opts censorship. It labels it as good and necessary, when in reality it depends on the maturity and development of each child. This is a fact that psychological studies always seem to sidestep. I play videogames and watch violent movies. This does not make me a cold-blooded assassin. My brother, on the other hand, could not as it would rub off on him significantly. The Senate is subtly saying "Censorship is OK".
1. Most violent games reward destruction of distinctly evil characters. Does this not foment desirable characteristics? Not just 'bad people' in general, but specific images of totalitarianism, world annihilation, etc.
2. It is worth noting that if such a great, simple link existed (as TFA suggests), then it should be far more noticeable. 3. Since videogames have been known to increase visual acuity and reflexes by a significant amount (30%+), the negatives are easily matched by the positives. Specifically, first person shooters were found to have the most beneficial effect. How's that for a spin? (Source: The New Scientist)
4. It is the greatest test of freedom of speech if one is able to tolerate what he cannot bear. The choice is what counts. I wouldn't play some games, but why deprive someone else of that right?
5. Information overload is already here. 'Parental control' programs do not work. Free games are becoming more common. Most of my friends restricted by such device have used some sort of circumvention device (Proxies, SSH, and a variety of cunning software workarounds) to download material they aren't supposed to. None of them could be considered aggressive in any sense of the word. AKA 'You can't stop it'.
6. If it isn't broken, don't fix it. To any politician who thinks about regulating video games, I say this: "Prove to me that depriving people of freedom and entertainment is worth it. Prove that it would save a life."
Depriving many because of a few. Where have I head this before...? The restrictions on public broadcasts are enough.