Doesn't one of Microsoft's main anti-Linux arguments involve Linux fragmenting into many different versions? Or is this just a "better" fragmenting because it's all under one roof? The only way I see this making any sense to the majority of users is if they give them significantly different product names.
Great. Now we're turning into the auto industry. Come get your new 2008 Windows Vista today, for the all-time low bargain employee price of $1,595*!
*MSAC financing required. All sales are final. Activation not included.
I caught at least three Star Wars/George Lucas references when I watched it:
The door of the laboratory (where Polly breaks the window with a rock) is numbered 1138. 1138 is a number commonly seen in Lucas' films ("Prisoner transfer from cell block 1138.") and is a reference to THX-1138, Lucas' first movie.
(Pretty sure about this one) When Joe and Polly are on approach to Franky's mobile airstrip, the radio hisses with "Permission granted to land on platform 327." This was a line spoken by the air traffic controllers of the tibanna gas mining station on Bespin in The Empire Strikes Back.
When Joe's plane surfaces in Dr. Totenkopf's secret base, they emerge in a kind of swampish area, with some remarkable similarities to Dagobah. In fact, if you watch as they walk away, you can see a swamp monster arch its back out of the water just as it did in The Empire Strikes Back.
I'm sure there are more, these are just little bits I picked up on.
I've got to agree with you, auzy. He seems to lack even rudimentary knowledge of computer security, despite the brief credentials at the bottom.
the author hasn't gone any further than a normal port scan
It's worse than that, actually. He uses netstat as his source of open ports--of course, even if a program is listening and visible through netstat, the firewall still blocks it! He doesn't appear to have used any sort of external source to check for open ports.
I've just recently performed a fresh ("slipstream") install of XP SP2 on my laptop, and my nmap scans and observations of active services are quite different from this article's report. Maybe he upgraded a fresh XP or XP SP1 install?
Honestly, the guy says that services like DHCP and DNS should be disabled by default and that "most home machines" don't need it. I guess he doesn't expect people to read his article from home, then, because without being able to get an IP address lease from an ISP or resolving theregister.co.uk, they aren't going to be able to read it!
I was going to make a disc launcher a la Starsiege Tribes, but never took the time to find/make the proper gun structure. My idea was to cut the top off a CD-R spindle full of AOL CD's and mount it upside down on the gun so gravity would feed ammo into it.
What I'd have is a typical gun structure, but with a loading mechanism made to support stock spindles (of 25, 50, or perhaps even 100 CD's). When recoiled, the CD should fall into place onto a small bolt or something. The trigger would drive this bolt forward sharply along a rail by a spring or rubber band. At the end of the rail, the bolt would have to drop down so the CD can fly free of the mechanism. I hadn't put much thought into a semi-auto system, though.
Recheck my history, how clever. Don't you have anything better to contribute?
By careful study, I assume you're referring to the Wright brothers testing a large number of wing segments in a wind tunnel and measuring the amount of lift from them, thus providing them with at the very least an intuitive sense of what worked best.
How is this different from testing thousands of mix ratios in Hurtubise's fire paste? The point is it was empirical observation to see what works best, rather than simply hopping off the pages of an intensive scientific study. There was plenty of prior study--DaVinci was way ahead of his time but didn't have adequate materials, and you hinted at Bernoulli--but when it came down to it, testing real models is what got the job done. Then the subject of aerospace engineering started to become an area of expertise.
Now in this case, there are prior areas of study in subjects like chemistry and thermodynamics. So, it's up to those experts to take a good look at the paste and then figure out how it works.
Well, I'm assuming for now he's done of a lot of experimentation and it's a legitimate invention. Countless inventions were stumbled upon by mistake. I'm sure the Wright brothers said something similar at one point or another.
Okay, I agree with you there. It's been my experience that the "learn to code" type wouldn't go on to do any serious programming work. Often times they're just trying to get through classes they have to take. I've seen them in both CS and IS. A lot of times they're simply intimidated by the learning curve and need to be coaxed through it.
And back to the main point, I think a "learn to code" person that participates in one of the oral exams I mentioned would undoubtedly reveal their limited understanding with appropriate probing. Interviewing is an expensive technique, but can be very valuable in assessing a person's abilities. For instance, what if one of the questions was something on the order of "what is the value of this variable at this line after X executions of the loop?" The person would either have to have memorized tons of information about the programs, or be able to think like a machine and go through the program.
Actually, if you look at the current state of programs out there, a software developer is just supposed to fill a current need, but not necessarily in the most efficient manner.;-)
As a computer scientist you are expected to demonstrate an ability to derive solutions from basic principles and operate in areas where there is no precedent, i.e. in research.
So a computer scientist is supposed to conduct their research in a vacuum? Are they required to reconstruct the principles of binary logic on a napkin for every new project they do? I should hope not. Like anyone else, they learn things that other people have done (mathematics for example) and then they build on it to create something new (perhaps a more efficient sorting algorithm).
I'm assuming you are a computer scientist, so surely you realize that the compiler these students are learning is built on another system, which is built on another system, which is built on another system (etc.) So you draw the line at what, the standard C library? Or is using strcpy() cheating because someone already wrote it? If you were looking to teach students how to create something from the ground up, why don't you start them at principles of turing machines and then have them create their own C compiler before they can use it?
Regarding your "thinking" comment: some people think at the micro level, some people think at the macro level, and without both we're doomed to failure. I can look at piece of code and ask "why did they check for this at this point?", read up on it, and chances are I'll have learned and understood the system better than a novice that didn't see that exceptional case when s/he was implementing it from scratch.
Do the powers that be in CS departments frown on the GPL, too? I don't get it. As a computer scientist, you're supposed to solve problems, and solve them in the most efficient manner possible. I think sharing code counts as efficient. That terminator was just being systematic.
When you think there's a need for a program, what's the first thing you do? I always look to see if someone's done it first. Even if you do have to start from square one, examining other peoples' work can make your first implementation that much more forward-thinking. My university's CS department is also very picky about copying--and people wonder why "not built here" syndrome is a big problem. I think our IS department has a much more realistic point of view.
Perhaps the key problem you're having is not "cheating" per se, but rather the students breezing over the assignments without giving it a second thought. What my professor does is give us assignments where we can use every resource at our disposal to solve the problem, provided that we understand (and can more or less explain) the code we use. Assignments are turned in individually or in groups, and then validation procedures are performed. This is in the form of a brief quiz or in the more complex cases, an oral exam. I'm told that the latter is a very good measure of telling whether students actually understand the material or not. You do of course have to take into account that they might be nervous and lock up, but apparently the system seems to work. I can get more details if you want to give it a shot.
I like browsing articles at howstuffworks.com. I go there looking for something specific and end up spending hours reading the articles. They're not overly technical, but not so simple as to be inaccurate either. It's something I can share with others and not confuse them right out.;-)
If I understand the article correctly, in order to reduce the amount of plastic bags floating around their cities, they're going to...require stores by law to have thicker bags? Is there some sort of relationship between bag thickness and the propensity to not recycle it or stick it in the trash? Or maybe they're just so light they float out easily.;-)
Okay, so I don't know any, but gosh darnit, I'll fight to the death for their rights! But don't you think it's going a little too far to classify these people as superhuman? I mean, if they were, would I have just had to pay $500 to get my car fixed this weekend? Honestly!
Yes, quite true with the TV multitasking point. In your example, I would be the one that tells them I'd call them back. It's either that, or my attention switches between the two and I often end up losing both.
My point is that it doesn't hold true unilaterally with driving; talking on the phone for me and a great deal of other people creates a distraction greater than that of someone sitting next to you. Heck, it could be greater than or equal to. The point that it's a danger still holds true. I can carry on a conversation with a person in the vehicle without it affecting my driving. However, talking on the phone while driving does have a noticable effect. And you said yourself it's a rare number of people that can successfully multitask. Those are the few people that could get away with it. Pity they aren't a majority, or it wouldn't even be an issue.
Anyway, I think we've beaten this subtopic to death. All I want is to not have to be plagued by people that can't multitask but try to and fail horribly. I respect peoples' freedom to do it, but when it starts endangering others I'd really rather they didn't. I don't think that's too much to ask.
No, I don't think so. As I noted in my other response, I've tried talking on the phone in the car and there's a big difference (at least for me, and everyone I know) between talking on the phone and talking to someone in the seat next to you.
My opinion of contributing factors for passenger vs. cell phone:
* Without a phone, I have both hands at the wheel, so less attention to coordination is needed.
* With a passenger in the car, I tend to pause more in my speech, particularly when my attention is needed for driving. The passenger sees why and doesn't pay any mind. If I were on the phone, I'd probably get a few "Hello?"'s.
Case in point: once I was with a couple of my friends in the car. Friend #1 was at the wheel talking to Friend #2 on his phone. We approached a light with a turn lane. The left-hand lane adjacent to the turn lane was quite full, but had almost enough space to get in. The driver proceeded to keep talking on the phone and tried to wedge through. Friend #3 and I (in the car) kept yelling "Hey, stop! You don't have enough room!" but he kind of shrugged it off, and next thing you know *scrraaape* "Uh, Friend #2, I've gotta go now. I just caused an accident."
Fortunately the damage was superficial. In any case, I'm certain it wouldn't have happened if he wasn't talking on the phone. The cause, IMHO: reduced field of concentration, lack of situational awareness, and not listening to a couple people yelling at him.;-) I'd say that's at least one example where phones have been more of a distraction than passengers.
Quite frankly, you can use a study to prove anything. Look at the way the study was conducted--people in a simulator who clearly must have known what was being studied. I consider that a tainted experiment. My own non-controlled, non-simulated observation is the basis for my annoyance. I have a 32-mile commute (each way) daily, the majority of which takes place on the interstate highway in a major metropolitan area. I consistently see people doing what I mentioned.
Now, I'm not saying that only people on cell phones do these things. If there are multiple people in the car, and a heated conversation is taking place (arms flailing), it tends to happen as well. So, I will concede that correlation does not mean causation.
I think it's still significant, though, given that I have tried talking on a cell phone and driving, and noticed in the middle of it that I was moving slower than I should have (I only noticed due to the behavior of drivers around me), and when I tried to rectify that situation, I also realized that I didn't have as good a degree of control over my vehicle as I'd have liked. Driving with one hand on the armrest is different from driving with one on the wheel and one up to your ear. I didn't run a light, though.;-)
You can think it arrogant if you wish, but my own experience kind of weighs more with me than a bunch of University of Utah people strapped into a simulator, psychology Ph.D. or not.
It's the interesting nature of communications technology--it becomes more valuable because everyone posesses it, rather than only a limited number of people having it. It's backwards from the "normal" type of service.
The social rules that are arising from it are very intriguing, though, indicative of how popular phones and messaging are. Increasing use of text messages as a "knock" seems to be something useful evolving out of it. Sometimes I wish people would IM me before calling so I don't get distracted. (Cooperative vs. Preemptive Dfiant-tasking.;-) It 's good that people are starting to respect each others' time a little more.
Now can we please make the next taboo not having a hands-free headset while driving? I'd like to decrease the odds of me being splattered all over the pavement from the sociable idiot in the SUV near me who either a) drifts into my lane and almost sideswipes me, b) drives slow in the lefthand lane but fails to yield, or c) didn't know where that red light/stop sign/parking lot came from.
For some people it's some sort of unhealthy social addiction. If you can't just run down to the store briefly without yacking away to your friend while you sift through the items on the shelf, it's just a little weird and annoying. Especially if you have friends there standing next to you. But when I'm constantly seeing peoples' lives endangered, that's where I draw the line.
Which means that if I think my 10 year old (well, he's only 6 now, but that's not the point) can handle a "mature" game, I can give him permission to get it.
And along this same line of thought, an irresponsible parent wouldn't even look at the rating for a game before buying or renting it for their child. It doesn't sound like this law solves much at all.
In fact, they seemed to consider the issue of selling to parents in the article, but stopped short of mentioning that parents generally buy stuff for their kids. The law only applies to buying...and who at the counter is going to say, "Sorry, sir. I can't sell this game to you because you have children."? When do kids generally have money to afford it themselves? Working age, ~15-17.
So, this law is mainly going to stop a small bit of an age group from buying games at the expense of what? Carding everyone that looks remotely young? Limiting the job market in an already precarious economic position, when young workers are having trouble trying to find jobs because older people can't afford to retire?
"Myself, I was rather appauled by the use of Steven Speilberg so prominently. [...] By tagging on a big league name, the further drew people in."
I for one am thankful for the prominent mention of Spielberg. Now I won't be surprised when I sit through another long presentation only to have it spoiled by an ending from way out in left field.
Visible light is a small subset of the electromagnetic spectrum, the same spectrum phones already use, but at a non-visible wavelength. It sounds more like optical is being used as a buzzword in the article.
I'm not familiar with "wavelength division multiplexing," but it sounds like they're trying to apply the technique (which is traditionally optical) to the cell phone bands.
My friends and I use the deadly combination (it's good for getting rid of random people that say "hi who r u?"). They must be close to becoming sentient. After being fed lots of Disturbed lyrics and other assorted things, it eventually came up with statements such as:
"a galaxy is in my soul!" "you like barney porn!" "no! you are down with the sickness! put on some pants." "progressive is a scary place now that i have a soul?"
Sometimes if you start typing lyrics from songs it'll sing along... or worse yet, invent its own.
If I'd known I could've just said "I'm about to" to that age old question of "When are you going to take the trash out?" and mean 1,000 years, I'd have used it about 1,000 years ago!
Yes, yes, of course it's redundant. The article practically required people to say it. But it wouldn't count as such if referenced other redundant commentary like putting down Microsoft, patent laws, or the RIAA, would it? Hmm, let's see... Oh yes. The RIAA's threat to attack file traders is going to lead Microsoft to patent the Slashdot effect, thus allowing them to make money off Linux advocates from licensing fees.
...Palm took a universally-understood benchmark -- bit depth in colour -- and advertised an incorrect value.... Then, when caught, they suddenly want to redefine the universally-accepted benchmark into something that is more palatable to them but incomprehensible to everyone else.
Maybe you (as well as moderators) should try reading the thread before firing off a heated response (a flame "or something").
My comment was in regards to the movie theater analogy ("would you build a cinema where everybody can enter for free?"). Movie theaters charge money for admittance, and are also supported in part by advertising. A movie theater that did not charge for entrance would be cutting off a huge part of their source of revenues, while retaining their advertising.
AOL Time Warner, on the other hand, has tons of ways to make money, including their online service. Combine that with the decreasing payouts given by people to banner advertisement. The movie theater analogy would translate to something more like AOL being free and the advertisements remaining.
Do you pay money to use AIM? I don't. I don't see many ads up there, either, and I generally consider it a free service. Sure, they might make a few bucks off advertisements, but the point is they're going out of their way (spending more money to modify the software) to restrict a relatively small percentage of their user base.
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't one of Microsoft's main anti-Linux arguments involve Linux fragmenting into many different versions? Or is this just a "better" fragmenting because it's all under one roof? The only way I see this making any sense to the majority of users is if they give them significantly different product names.
Great. Now we're turning into the auto industry. Come get your new 2008 Windows Vista today, for the all-time low bargain employee price of $1,595*!
*MSAC financing required. All sales are final. Activation not included.
I'm sure there are more, these are just little bits I picked up on.
I've just recently performed a fresh ("slipstream") install of XP SP2 on my laptop, and my nmap scans and observations of active services are quite different from this article's report. Maybe he upgraded a fresh XP or XP SP1 install?
Honestly, the guy says that services like DHCP and DNS should be disabled by default and that "most home machines" don't need it. I guess he doesn't expect people to read his article from home, then, because without being able to get an IP address lease from an ISP or resolving theregister.co.uk, they aren't going to be able to read it!
I was going to make a disc launcher a la Starsiege Tribes, but never took the time to find/make the proper gun structure. My idea was to cut the top off a CD-R spindle full of AOL CD's and mount it upside down on the gun so gravity would feed ammo into it.
What I'd have is a typical gun structure, but with a loading mechanism made to support stock spindles (of 25, 50, or perhaps even 100 CD's). When recoiled, the CD should fall into place onto a small bolt or something. The trigger would drive this bolt forward sharply along a rail by a spring or rubber band. At the end of the rail, the bolt would have to drop down so the CD can fly free of the mechanism. I hadn't put much thought into a semi-auto system, though.
Recheck my history, how clever. Don't you have anything better to contribute?
By careful study, I assume you're referring to the Wright brothers testing a large number of wing segments in a wind tunnel and measuring the amount of lift from them, thus providing them with at the very least an intuitive sense of what worked best.
How is this different from testing thousands of mix ratios in Hurtubise's fire paste? The point is it was empirical observation to see what works best, rather than simply hopping off the pages of an intensive scientific study. There was plenty of prior study--DaVinci was way ahead of his time but didn't have adequate materials, and you hinted at Bernoulli--but when it came down to it, testing real models is what got the job done. Then the subject of aerospace engineering started to become an area of expertise.
Now in this case, there are prior areas of study in subjects like chemistry and thermodynamics. So, it's up to those experts to take a good look at the paste and then figure out how it works.
Well, I'm assuming for now he's done of a lot of experimentation and it's a legitimate invention. Countless inventions were stumbled upon by mistake. I'm sure the Wright brothers said something similar at one point or another.
Okay, I agree with you there. It's been my experience that the "learn to code" type wouldn't go on to do any serious programming work. Often times they're just trying to get through classes they have to take. I've seen them in both CS and IS. A lot of times they're simply intimidated by the learning curve and need to be coaxed through it.
And back to the main point, I think a "learn to code" person that participates in one of the oral exams I mentioned would undoubtedly reveal their limited understanding with appropriate probing. Interviewing is an expensive technique, but can be very valuable in assessing a person's abilities. For instance, what if one of the questions was something on the order of "what is the value of this variable at this line after X executions of the loop?" The person would either have to have memorized tons of information about the programs, or be able to think like a machine and go through the program.
Actually, if you look at the current state of programs out there, a software developer is just supposed to fill a current need, but not necessarily in the most efficient manner. ;-)
As a computer scientist you are expected to demonstrate an ability to derive solutions from basic principles and operate in areas where there is no precedent, i.e. in research.
So a computer scientist is supposed to conduct their research in a vacuum? Are they required to reconstruct the principles of binary logic on a napkin for every new project they do? I should hope not. Like anyone else, they learn things that other people have done (mathematics for example) and then they build on it to create something new (perhaps a more efficient sorting algorithm).
I'm assuming you are a computer scientist, so surely you realize that the compiler these students are learning is built on another system, which is built on another system, which is built on another system (etc.) So you draw the line at what, the standard C library? Or is using strcpy() cheating because someone already wrote it? If you were looking to teach students how to create something from the ground up, why don't you start them at principles of turing machines and then have them create their own C compiler before they can use it?
Regarding your "thinking" comment: some people think at the micro level, some people think at the macro level, and without both we're doomed to failure. I can look at piece of code and ask "why did they check for this at this point?", read up on it, and chances are I'll have learned and understood the system better than a novice that didn't see that exceptional case when s/he was implementing it from scratch.
Do the powers that be in CS departments frown on the GPL, too? I don't get it. As a computer scientist, you're supposed to solve problems, and solve them in the most efficient manner possible. I think sharing code counts as efficient. That terminator was just being systematic.
When you think there's a need for a program, what's the first thing you do? I always look to see if someone's done it first. Even if you do have to start from square one, examining other peoples' work can make your first implementation that much more forward-thinking. My university's CS department is also very picky about copying--and people wonder why "not built here" syndrome is a big problem. I think our IS department has a much more realistic point of view.
Perhaps the key problem you're having is not "cheating" per se, but rather the students breezing over the assignments without giving it a second thought. What my professor does is give us assignments where we can use every resource at our disposal to solve the problem, provided that we understand (and can more or less explain) the code we use. Assignments are turned in individually or in groups, and then validation procedures are performed. This is in the form of a brief quiz or in the more complex cases, an oral exam. I'm told that the latter is a very good measure of telling whether students actually understand the material or not. You do of course have to take into account that they might be nervous and lock up, but apparently the system seems to work. I can get more details if you want to give it a shot.
I like browsing articles at howstuffworks.com. I go there looking for something specific and end up spending hours reading the articles. They're not overly technical, but not so simple as to be inaccurate either. It's something I can share with others and not confuse them right out. ;-)
If I understand the article correctly, in order to reduce the amount of plastic bags floating around their cities, they're going to...require stores by law to have thicker bags? Is there some sort of relationship between bag thickness and the propensity to not recycle it or stick it in the trash? Or maybe they're just so light they float out easily. ;-)
Okay, so I don't know any, but gosh darnit, I'll fight to the death for their rights! But don't you think it's going a little too far to classify these people as superhuman? I mean, if they were, would I have just had to pay $500 to get my car fixed this weekend? Honestly!
(Hooray acronym clash!)
Yes, quite true with the TV multitasking point. In your example, I would be the one that tells them I'd call them back. It's either that, or my attention switches between the two and I often end up losing both.
My point is that it doesn't hold true unilaterally with driving; talking on the phone for me and a great deal of other people creates a distraction greater than that of someone sitting next to you. Heck, it could be greater than or equal to. The point that it's a danger still holds true. I can carry on a conversation with a person in the vehicle without it affecting my driving. However, talking on the phone while driving does have a noticable effect. And you said yourself it's a rare number of people that can successfully multitask. Those are the few people that could get away with it. Pity they aren't a majority, or it wouldn't even be an issue.
Anyway, I think we've beaten this subtopic to death. All I want is to not have to be plagued by people that can't multitask but try to and fail horribly. I respect peoples' freedom to do it, but when it starts endangering others I'd really rather they didn't. I don't think that's too much to ask.
No, I don't think so. As I noted in my other response, I've tried talking on the phone in the car and there's a big difference (at least for me, and everyone I know) between talking on the phone and talking to someone in the seat next to you.
;-) I'd say that's at least one example where phones have been more of a distraction than passengers.
My opinion of contributing factors for passenger vs. cell phone:
* Without a phone, I have both hands at the wheel, so less attention to coordination is needed.
* With a passenger in the car, I tend to pause more in my speech, particularly when my attention is needed for driving. The passenger sees why and doesn't pay any mind. If I were on the phone, I'd probably get a few "Hello?"'s.
Case in point: once I was with a couple of my friends in the car. Friend #1 was at the wheel talking to Friend #2 on his phone. We approached a light with a turn lane. The left-hand lane adjacent to the turn lane was quite full, but had almost enough space to get in. The driver proceeded to keep talking on the phone and tried to wedge through. Friend #3 and I (in the car) kept yelling "Hey, stop! You don't have enough room!" but he kind of shrugged it off, and next thing you know *scrraaape* "Uh, Friend #2, I've gotta go now. I just caused an accident."
Fortunately the damage was superficial. In any case, I'm certain it wouldn't have happened if he wasn't talking on the phone. The cause, IMHO: reduced field of concentration, lack of situational awareness, and not listening to a couple people yelling at him.
Quite frankly, you can use a study to prove anything. Look at the way the study was conducted--people in a simulator who clearly must have known what was being studied. I consider that a tainted experiment. My own non-controlled, non-simulated observation is the basis for my annoyance. I have a 32-mile commute (each way) daily, the majority of which takes place on the interstate highway in a major metropolitan area. I consistently see people doing what I mentioned.
;-)
Now, I'm not saying that only people on cell phones do these things. If there are multiple people in the car, and a heated conversation is taking place (arms flailing), it tends to happen as well. So, I will concede that correlation does not mean causation.
I think it's still significant, though, given that I have tried talking on a cell phone and driving, and noticed in the middle of it that I was moving slower than I should have (I only noticed due to the behavior of drivers around me), and when I tried to rectify that situation, I also realized that I didn't have as good a degree of control over my vehicle as I'd have liked. Driving with one hand on the armrest is different from driving with one on the wheel and one up to your ear. I didn't run a light, though.
You can think it arrogant if you wish, but my own experience kind of weighs more with me than a bunch of University of Utah people strapped into a simulator, psychology Ph.D. or not.
It's the interesting nature of communications technology--it becomes more valuable because everyone posesses it, rather than only a limited number of people having it. It's backwards from the "normal" type of service.
;-) It 's good that people are starting to respect each others' time a little more.
The social rules that are arising from it are very intriguing, though, indicative of how popular phones and messaging are. Increasing use of text messages as a "knock" seems to be something useful evolving out of it. Sometimes I wish people would IM me before calling so I don't get distracted. (Cooperative vs. Preemptive Dfiant-tasking.
Now can we please make the next taboo not having a hands-free headset while driving? I'd like to decrease the odds of me being splattered all over the pavement from the sociable idiot in the SUV near me who either a) drifts into my lane and almost sideswipes me, b) drives slow in the lefthand lane but fails to yield, or c) didn't know where that red light/stop sign/parking lot came from.
For some people it's some sort of unhealthy social addiction. If you can't just run down to the store briefly without yacking away to your friend while you sift through the items on the shelf, it's just a little weird and annoying. Especially if you have friends there standing next to you. But when I'm constantly seeing peoples' lives endangered, that's where I draw the line.
And along this same line of thought, an irresponsible parent wouldn't even look at the rating for a game before buying or renting it for their child. It doesn't sound like this law solves much at all.
In fact, they seemed to consider the issue of selling to parents in the article, but stopped short of mentioning that parents generally buy stuff for their kids. The law only applies to buying...and who at the counter is going to say, "Sorry, sir. I can't sell this game to you because you have children."? When do kids generally have money to afford it themselves? Working age, ~15-17.
So, this law is mainly going to stop a small bit of an age group from buying games at the expense of what? Carding everyone that looks remotely young? Limiting the job market in an already precarious economic position, when young workers are having trouble trying to find jobs because older people can't afford to retire?
"Myself, I was rather appauled by the use of Steven Speilberg so prominently. [...] By tagging on a big league name, the further drew people in."
I for one am thankful for the prominent mention of Spielberg. Now I won't be surprised when I sit through another long presentation only to have it spoiled by an ending from way out in left field.
Visible light is a small subset of the electromagnetic spectrum, the same spectrum phones already use, but at a non-visible wavelength. It sounds more like optical is being used as a buzzword in the article.
I'm not familiar with "wavelength division multiplexing," but it sounds like they're trying to apply the technique (which is traditionally optical) to the cell phone bands.
My friends and I use the deadly combination (it's good for getting rid of random people that say "hi who r u?"). They must be close to becoming sentient. After being fed lots of Disturbed lyrics and other assorted things, it eventually came up with statements such as:
"a galaxy is in my soul!"
"you like barney porn!"
"no! you are down with the sickness! put on some pants."
"progressive is a scary place now that i have a soul?"
Sometimes if you start typing lyrics from songs it'll sing along... or worse yet, invent its own.
If I'd known I could've just said "I'm about to" to that age old question of "When are you going to take the trash out?" and mean 1,000 years, I'd have used it about 1,000 years ago!
Yes, yes, of course it's redundant. The article practically required people to say it. But it wouldn't count as such if referenced other redundant commentary like putting down Microsoft, patent laws, or the RIAA, would it? Hmm, let's see... Oh yes. The RIAA's threat to attack file traders is going to lead Microsoft to patent the Slashdot effect, thus allowing them to make money off Linux advocates from licensing fees.
...the Slashdot effect.
How incredibly Microsoft of them.
Maybe you (as well as moderators) should try reading the thread before firing off a heated response (a flame "or something").
My comment was in regards to the movie theater analogy ("would you build a cinema where everybody can enter for free?"). Movie theaters charge money for admittance, and are also supported in part by advertising. A movie theater that did not charge for entrance would be cutting off a huge part of their source of revenues, while retaining their advertising.
AOL Time Warner, on the other hand, has tons of ways to make money, including their online service. Combine that with the decreasing payouts given by people to banner advertisement. The movie theater analogy would translate to something more like AOL being free and the advertisements remaining.
Do you pay money to use AIM? I don't. I don't see many ads up there, either, and I generally consider it a free service. Sure, they might make a few bucks off advertisements, but the point is they're going out of their way (spending more money to modify the software) to restrict a relatively small percentage of their user base.