How did Netscape make money? (I mean, before it was bought by AOL)
How does/will Napster make money?
Maybe they'll be forced to sell IE. Maybe they just do a public offereing. More likely, they'll start selling web server software to support their IE product.
You have to ask yourself... does MS make money off of IE? If not, why does it exist? Why would they fight so fiercly with Netscape. Answer: because they want to dominate the industry. And web browsing is just one part of that.
Here's the deal... XFree 4.0 which _has_ been released, supports DRI (Direct Rendering Infrastructure) which lets you have direct access to the graphics hardware giving a _big_ improvement over XFree 3.X's older archecture.
Now, it is still a bit of a pain to set up, and you can't run Quake or Quake II (only Quake III) under it, but it gives _awesome_ performance. Have they bothered to try this, they would have found Linux KICKS WINDOWS ASS.
Check 3dfx's linux website, source forge, and XFree for more info...
It may an outrage, but the law, the way it currently stands (the DMCA) _does make Napster illegal_!
Think of it this way... Gun are inherently bad. They don't kill people by themselves. They can have good uses, self-defense, sport, hunting, etc. But guns can be bad. Very bad. Thus, they are regulated. You need a permit to have a handgun. A felon can't buy a gun, etc. Napster is similar. Inherently, it doesn't make people pirate music. But honestly, 99+% of its use is to pirate music. The DMCA explicitly forbids this. Napster makes no attempt to regulate it. The key here is that the majority of its use is for illegal purposes. There is no legitamate use for Napster, and Napster does not enforce coypright laws itself. I won't be surprised if I see the courts rule against it.
Now whether the DCMA is legit is another matter entirely.
Considering the severity of the charges brought against Slashdot by Microsoft, I'm surprised they responded in such a manner.
First of all, legally, this has nothing to do with the current anti-trust suit against MS. That is beside the point -- and it doesn't have anything at all to do with whether is was okay for Slashdot to allow those comments to stay
If I were going to defend myself from legal action, I'd stay on the point, and carefully state why I felt I was not breaking the law. Not respond with questions whose purpose just seems to be to annoy and provoke Microsoft.
Of course, if Slashdot doesn't really care about a lawsuit from Microsoft, well then, go ahead. I certainly enjoy pissing Microsoft off.
I can see it now... one million years in the future when Aliens discover the remains of our civilization...
They would say: "Neebork sulu si koo traka traka oopoop pwe" oops, sorry... babelfish... ok, here we go "and we found a strange metal object encoded with these cryptic words 'Natalie Portman, naked and petrified.' Our research has shown that Natalie Portman was some sort of icon, a deity maybe, worshiped several hundred thousand years ago... The word 'naked' has been translated to mean 'wearing no clothes' and 'petrified' appears to either relate a sense of extreme fear or a physically solid state of being. Why Natalie Portman is naked ad petrified is currently the subject of much debate. Perhaps it is a warning left on their moon to warn future visitors. Maybe they were aware of their impending doom. Whatever the case may be, we must procede with extreme caution as we do not know what we will find on the main planet's surface itself..."
Honestly, is this the message we want to send to future civilizations?
The DMCA says: "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title"
It the defines "a technological measure that 'effectively controls access to a work' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work"
This is odd, I guess extracting the spec with Winzip is a "process", but so is opening a PDF with Acrobat. And it doesn't seem like you need the authority of the copyright owner to bypass the protection in this case. Does that make the copy protection not "effective" and thus not covered by the DCMA?
It seems that you would have to make some attempt at reasonable copy protection to be covered by the DCMA. MS didn't really do that.
Oops, I did it again. I posted how to extract the spec without accepting the license. Damn.
Maybe if you want to read that spec, you know, "Microsoft Authorization Data Specification v.1.0 for Microsoft Windows 2000 Operating Systems" (trademark) well, then you can download it from their site. Hmmm, it appears there is a program to run.
I have an idea, don't run it! Looks like a self-extracting zip to me. Maybe winzip would be able to extract the information from it...
License agreement, I don't see any license to agree to. Ahhhh! Wait, don't look, con...fi...den...tial in..for..ma..tion, must avert eyes.
too late
Dang, I've just pissed MS off.
(If this post is deleted, do I lose my karma for it?)
Yes the compresion algorithm is patented, so you can't just do your own implementation of the algorithm.
But, you _can_ make your own compression algorithm that still conforms to the mp3 standard. As was said earlier, there are _many_ ways to encode mp3s, and they patented the best one. By pulling open code from various sources (it seems) LAME is able to come pretty close to Fraunhofer's ideal solution.
What we really need is the option to disallow web browers from opening up new windows without asking (or even disallowing this entirely).
I'm sure we've all been to pages that open up several new windows filled with ads and we close them only to find they spawn even more copies when they close. Its just silly that a web page can have such control over your computer. The people who thought that "feature" up were probably the ones who let you run VB scripts directly in Outlook. Or maybe it was those at Netscape who let let the Netscape "banner" box hover on top of your applications while you wait minutes for navigator to load (hey, my computer is slow).
Lastly, I think its ironic that the only web page I've seen that actually has a "close" button on it actually causes IE to prompt me before it closes the window.
I can't believe Bill saying that a breakup would cause more viruses. 'We need to "innovate" to prevent more viruses'... Hello? I think it was "innovation" (sarcastic quotes) that got us in to this mess. The fact you can embed VB scripts in E-mail is the stupidest "innovation" I've seen in a while. This feature seems to be used primarily for sending viruses. Folks like me who read E-mail with that "ancient" OS, UNIX, don't catch these viruses.
Microsoft has made it extremely easy for any idiot to write viruses these days. Back in the good ole DOS days at least it required a bit of intelligence: writing a TSR, assembly language, boot sector viruses, stealth viruses, etc. Nowadays, its just a silly little VB script. And having looked over the code for ILOVEYOU myself it is not the "sophisticated virus" that MS claims it was. I have a feeling that we'll see many more like it in the future, at least until people wisen up and stop using Outlook for E-mail!
Recall, according to the RIAA that copying to a digital recording device that does not follow the requirement of the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 is _illegal_. See http://www.riaa.com/tech/tech_ht.htm This means that it is not legal to make an mp3 _even if you own the CD_!
Of course, recently in the case against the Diamond Rio, it was found that a computer where _not_ considered a digital recording device because they are primarily used for other purposes, thus they are not subject to the AHR Act.
This is the first inconsistency.
If we then assume that it is legit to make mp3s for personal use, where can we draw the line? Isn't mp3.com simply offering a internet-accessable place to store your "files" which you can record legally since you own the CD. This judge's statement is very confusing. It is still unclear as to whether mp3.com would be violating the law if the users made the mp3s themselves and uploaded them to mp3.com for storage and later playblack. Once that question is answered, we can argue it from there...
Its possible that there is a legal inconsistency here (with copyright law) but no, it is still against the law.
Check out www.riaa.com/tech/tech_ht.htm##top if you don't believe me. The Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 regulates how you make digital recordings even if it is for personal use! According to this law you are not allowed to make a digital copy of music you have purchased unless it is device with the approved safeguards (ie. minidisc players etc.)
First, according to the RIAA you cannot legally make an mp3 of a CD even if you own it. This is because of the Audio Home Recording act which regulates how you make digital copies.
Second, mp3.com lost a big court case in which they did what you just said -- they let you download mp3s of CDs you already own. This was found to be illegal, though I'm not sure on what grounds.
I posted a comment about this a few weeks ago (Napster steals my music).
I make mp3s of my CDs so I can listen to them at work and even though I explicity did not put them in a Napster sharable directory (in fact I want to share NO mp3s, so I made the shared directory completing random) I still see people download mp3s from me!
This is dangerous bug and causes my to unwillingly violate the law on the mp3s I made from CDs I own! I course it may be even illegal to make mp3s from my CDs, but that is another story...
Ignorance of the law does not give one the excuse to break it.
The fact that many users of Naptser are "children" (I would disagree, it appears that most are high school/college age students) does not give them the right to break the law, even if they are unaware of it.
I believe that Metallica is doing the right thing in this case. By requesting that Napster disable these accounts they are trying to avoid the alternative -- suing each and every illegal distributor of Metallica's music. They are going after the problem at its source, the individual users of Napster, and not Napster itself. They are avoiding needless legal action. They are giving the internet a chance to clean itself up. They are make a clear statement that they are against piracy and I respect them for it.
Lastly, this is _not_ and invasion of privacy. You don't need to give your name to Napster, and Napster is not distributing the names to Metallica. When you are logging on to Napster look what you are already giving up, namely the ability for other people to see what music you have download from your hard drive. It you don't want the whole world to see that information, don't use Napster! Metallica has the right to use this information to protect their own copyrights.
What Metallica is doing is not an invasion of "privacy" but an invasion of "piracy". (ok so its cheesy).
Exactly, "accurate" but not "correct". For pretty much everyone's calculations Newton is good enough, but he is still not correct, just a decent approximation.
General relativity is the "real" way to do things. Unfortunately, not very many people understand general relativity (it is quite complicated).
One analogy which gives you the idea is think of a circle with a radius of a few million miles. Now, up close the circle appears to be a straight line, but in reality it is curved! It is this kind of difference that physicists missed for years until the extreme case of Mecury's orbit was brought up.
Wasn't he wrong about his theory of gravitation? What about the orbit of Mercury? What about general relativity?
How can this article call it an important fundemental constant when it really is just an approximation of gravity and not even an accurate prediction of its effects?
With DGPS you don't have to worry about the govt induced error. It also gets rid of errors due to weather and the atmosphere (another significant source of error). The concept is simple - an independent station with a known, fixed position transmits its GPS readings via radio or the internet (internet, cool!). The mobile stations looks at these readings (including the all important timestamps) and uses the error observed by the fixed station, due to the above mentioned effects, to correct its own GPS readings. Using this method you can get sub-10 meter accuracy! This best part is you can do this at any time! In other words, if you record your data you can post process it and figure out your "real" position. There are several available GPS beacons, especially along the coast. (Here in Boston the closest one is in Chatham, off Cape Cod) As long as the GPS station is within a thousand miles or so, you'll get a pretty accurate reading.
- Is it legal for me to make mp3s of my CDs and store them on my web server so I can download them and listen to them elsewhere even if I don't bring the CD with me?
- Is it legal for me to do this one my friends/school file server.
- Is it legal for me to make mp3s of my CDs at all?
- Can I listen to a friend's mp3 if he made and he is in the room? What if he isn't? What if he brought thr mp3 over and put it on my computer?
- What if he's not home? What if he left them on my computer and left the CD with me? What if he lost the CD and doesnt have a copy of the mp3 itself?
Too many legal ambiguities. Anybody really understand it? I wish it would be more consistent.
It seems to me that it would make the most sense if we followed the same laws that we did for computer software. One copy per machine per license. Never can too separate machines be running the same software at the same time. It doesn't seem like mp3.com was violating this "rule"
Sounds like a cool idea, but I'm tired of these "Ask Slashdots" where we end up doing someones work for them.
Can't he do his own market research? What does slashdot get back from this? It seems to me that the point of "Ask Slashdot" is so one may ask a question that others might also be interested in learning the answer to. Who cares whether people will buy a voice-activated mp3 player.
I tired of have slashdot being used a guinea pig population of geeks that others can pitch their ideas at. Lets go back to the intellectually stimulating "Ask Slashdot".
Its seems funny to me that people point to the fact that Eric Harris (of Columbine) liked to play Doom as one of the reasons he committed the act he did.
I would find it unusual if he _didn't_ like to play Doom. Doom is violent. So are war movies. So is hunting. The fact that a person with a violent personality likes to do violent things is not a surprise to me. It also says nothing about whether these violent activities _cause_ violent behavior in youth. I love to play Doom and Quake too, but I am probably the least violent person you could meet. For me, these games provide an outlet to relieve some frustration and aggression that we _all_ experience from time to time. The games don't make me more violent.
Now Doom is probably not for the small child. But as for the teenager who likes to play Doom and then kills a dozen of his classmates. I think there is something else wrong with him. Its due to something more than Doom.
Slashdot Mirror
Thats a funny question...
How did Netscape make money? (I mean, before it was bought by AOL)
How does/will Napster make money?
Maybe they'll be forced to sell IE. Maybe they just do a public offereing. More likely, they'll start selling web server software to support their IE product.
You have to ask yourself... does MS make money off of IE? If not, why does it exist? Why would they fight so fiercly with Netscape. Answer: because they want to dominate the industry. And web browsing is just one part of that.
NO.
A separate Troll Board would destroy the whole point of trolling!
Trolls are _supposed_ to post offtopic posts in random discussions! (For reasons that are only known to them).
Any real troll would never use the Troll Board because, being "authorized" it wouldn't be trolling!
...A Beowolf Cluster of these.
Here's the deal...
XFree 4.0 which _has_ been released, supports DRI (Direct Rendering Infrastructure) which lets you have direct access to the graphics hardware giving a _big_ improvement over XFree 3.X's older archecture.
Now, it is still a bit of a pain to set up, and you can't run Quake or Quake II (only Quake III) under it, but it gives _awesome_ performance. Have they bothered to try this, they would have found Linux KICKS WINDOWS ASS.
Check 3dfx's linux website, source forge, and XFree for more info...
It may an outrage, but the law, the way it currently stands (the DMCA) _does make Napster illegal_!
Think of it this way...
Gun are inherently bad. They don't kill people by themselves. They can have good uses, self-defense, sport, hunting, etc. But guns can be bad. Very bad. Thus, they are regulated. You need a permit to have a handgun. A felon can't buy a gun, etc.
Napster is similar. Inherently, it doesn't make people pirate music. But honestly, 99+% of its use is to pirate music. The DMCA explicitly forbids this. Napster makes no attempt to regulate it. The key here is that the majority of its use is for illegal purposes. There is no legitamate use for Napster, and Napster does not enforce coypright laws itself. I won't be surprised if I see the courts rule against it.
Now whether the DCMA is legit is another matter entirely.
I'm surprised...
Considering the severity of the charges brought against Slashdot by Microsoft, I'm surprised they responded in such a manner.
First of all, legally, this has nothing to do with the current anti-trust suit against MS. That is beside the point -- and it doesn't have anything at all to do with whether is was okay for Slashdot to allow those comments to stay
If I were going to defend myself from legal action, I'd stay on the point, and carefully state why I felt I was not breaking the law. Not respond with questions whose purpose just seems to be to annoy and provoke Microsoft.
Of course, if Slashdot doesn't really care about a lawsuit from Microsoft, well then, go ahead. I certainly enjoy pissing Microsoft off.
I can see it now... one million years in the future when Aliens discover the remains of our civilization...
They would say: "Neebork sulu si koo traka traka oopoop pwe"
oops, sorry... babelfish... ok, here we go
"and we found a strange metal object encoded with these cryptic words 'Natalie Portman, naked and petrified.' Our research has shown that Natalie Portman was some sort of icon, a deity maybe, worshiped several hundred thousand years ago...
The word 'naked' has been translated to mean 'wearing no clothes' and 'petrified' appears to either relate a sense of extreme fear or a physically solid state of being. Why Natalie Portman is naked ad petrified is currently the subject of much debate. Perhaps it is a warning left on their moon to warn future visitors. Maybe they were aware of their impending doom. Whatever the case may be, we must procede with extreme caution as we do not know what we will find on the main planet's surface itself..."
Honestly, is this the message we want to send to future civilizations?
The DMCA says: "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title"
It the defines "a technological measure that 'effectively controls access to a work' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work"
This is odd, I guess extracting the spec with Winzip is a "process", but so is opening a PDF with Acrobat. And it doesn't seem like you need the authority of the copyright owner to bypass the protection in this case. Does that make the copy protection not "effective" and thus not covered by the DCMA?
It seems that you would have to make some attempt at reasonable copy protection to be covered by the DCMA. MS didn't really do that.
Oops, I did it again. I posted how to extract the spec without accepting the license.
Damn.
I have an idea!
Maybe if you want to read that spec, you know, "Microsoft Authorization Data Specification v.1.0 for Microsoft Windows 2000 Operating Systems" (trademark) well, then you can download it from their site. Hmmm, it appears there is a program to run.
I have an idea, don't run it! Looks like a self-extracting zip to me. Maybe winzip would be able to extract the information from it...
License agreement, I don't see any license to agree to. Ahhhh! Wait, don't look, con...fi...den...tial in..for..ma..tion, must avert eyes.
too late
Dang, I've just pissed MS off.
(If this post is deleted, do I lose my karma for it?)
Yes the compresion algorithm is patented, so you can't just do your own implementation of the algorithm.
But, you _can_ make your own compression algorithm that still conforms to the mp3 standard. As was said earlier, there are _many_ ways to encode mp3s, and they patented the best one. By pulling open code from various sources (it seems) LAME is able to come pretty close to Fraunhofer's ideal solution.
BLADE, by the way, sucks.
Backstreet Boys?
But I like that song where they dance like robots...
What we really need is the option to disallow web browers from opening up new windows without asking (or even disallowing this entirely).
I'm sure we've all been to pages that open up several new windows filled with ads and we close them only to find they spawn even more copies when they close. Its just silly that a web page can have such control over your computer. The people who thought that "feature" up were probably the ones who let you run VB scripts directly in Outlook. Or maybe it was those at Netscape who let let the Netscape "banner" box hover on top of your applications while you wait minutes for navigator to load (hey, my computer is slow).
Lastly, I think its ironic that the only web page I've seen that actually has a "close" button on it actually causes IE to prompt me before it closes the window.
This is _hilarious_!
I can't believe Bill saying that a breakup would cause more viruses. 'We need to "innovate" to prevent more viruses'... Hello? I think it was "innovation" (sarcastic quotes) that got us in to this mess. The fact you can embed VB scripts in E-mail is the stupidest "innovation" I've seen in a while. This feature seems to be used primarily for sending viruses. Folks like me who read E-mail with that "ancient" OS, UNIX, don't catch these viruses.
Microsoft has made it extremely easy for any idiot to write viruses these days. Back in the good ole DOS days at least it required a bit of intelligence: writing a TSR, assembly language, boot sector viruses, stealth viruses, etc. Nowadays, its just a silly little VB script. And having looked over the code for ILOVEYOU myself it is not the "sophisticated virus" that MS claims it was. I have a feeling that we'll see many more like it in the future, at least until people wisen up and stop using Outlook for E-mail!
Recall, according to the RIAA that copying to a digital recording device that does not follow the requirement of the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 is _illegal_. See http://www.riaa.com/tech/tech_ht.htm
This means that it is not legal to make an mp3 _even if you own the CD_!
Of course, recently in the case against the Diamond Rio, it was found that a computer where _not_ considered a digital recording device because they are primarily used for other purposes, thus they are not subject to the AHR Act.
This is the first inconsistency.
If we then assume that it is legit to make mp3s for personal use, where can we draw the line? Isn't mp3.com simply offering a internet-accessable place to store your "files" which you can record legally since you own the CD. This judge's statement is very confusing. It is still unclear as to whether mp3.com would be violating the law if the users made the mp3s themselves and uploaded them to mp3.com for storage and later playblack. Once that question is answered, we can argue it from there...
Its possible that there is a legal inconsistency here (with copyright law) but no, it is still against the law.
Check out www.riaa.com/tech/tech_ht.htm##top if you don't believe me. The Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 regulates how you make digital recordings even if it is for personal use! According to this law you are not allowed to make a digital copy of music you have purchased unless it is device with the approved safeguards (ie. minidisc players etc.)
Yes, you are breaking the law.
First, according to the RIAA you cannot legally make an mp3 of a CD even if you own it. This is because of the Audio Home Recording act which regulates how you make digital copies.
Second, mp3.com lost a big court case in which they did what you just said -- they let you download mp3s of CDs you already own. This was found to be illegal, though I'm not sure on what grounds.
Yes, there is a bug!
I posted a comment about this a few weeks ago (Napster steals my music).
I make mp3s of my CDs so I can listen to them at work and even though I explicity did not put them in a Napster sharable directory (in fact I want to share NO mp3s, so I made the shared directory completing random) I still see people download mp3s from me!
This is dangerous bug and causes my to unwillingly violate the law on the mp3s I made from CDs I own!
I course it may be even illegal to make mp3s from my CDs, but that is another story...
Ignorance of the law does not give one the excuse to break it.
The fact that many users of Naptser are "children" (I would disagree, it appears that most are high school/college age students) does not give them the right to break the law, even if they are unaware of it.
I believe that Metallica is doing the right thing in this case. By requesting that Napster disable these accounts they are trying to avoid the alternative -- suing each and every illegal distributor of Metallica's music. They are going after the problem at its source, the individual users of Napster, and not Napster itself. They are avoiding needless legal action. They are giving the internet a chance to clean itself up. They are make a clear statement that they are against piracy and I respect them for it.
Lastly, this is _not_ and invasion of privacy. You don't need to give your name to Napster, and Napster is not distributing the names to Metallica. When you are logging on to Napster look what you are already giving up, namely the ability for other people to see what music you have download from your hard drive. It you don't want the whole world to see that information, don't use Napster! Metallica has the right to use this information to protect their own copyrights.
What Metallica is doing is not an invasion of "privacy" but an invasion of "piracy". (ok so its cheesy).
Exactly, "accurate" but not "correct". For pretty much everyone's calculations Newton is good enough, but he is still not correct, just a decent approximation.
General relativity is the "real" way to do things. Unfortunately, not very many people understand general relativity (it is quite complicated).
One analogy which gives you the idea is think of a circle with a radius of a few million miles. Now, up close the circle appears to be a straight line, but in reality it is curved! It is this kind of difference that physicists missed for years until the extreme case of Mecury's orbit was brought up.
Wasn't he wrong about his theory of gravitation? What about the orbit of Mercury? What about general relativity?
How can this article call it an important fundemental constant when it really is just an approximation of gravity and not even an accurate prediction of its effects?
Differential GPS is the way to go.
With DGPS you don't have to worry about the govt induced error. It also gets rid of errors due to weather and the atmosphere (another significant source of error).
The concept is simple - an independent station with a known, fixed position transmits its GPS readings via radio or the internet (internet, cool!). The mobile stations looks at these readings (including the all important timestamps) and uses the error observed by the fixed station, due to the above mentioned effects, to correct its own GPS readings. Using this method you can get sub-10 meter accuracy!
This best part is you can do this at any time! In other words, if you record your data you can post process it and figure out your "real" position.
There are several available GPS beacons, especially along the coast. (Here in Boston the closest one is in Chatham, off Cape Cod) As long as the GPS station is within a thousand miles or so, you'll get a pretty accurate reading.
This brings up all sorts of questions:
- Is it legal for me to make mp3s of my CDs and store them on my web server so I can download them and listen to them elsewhere even if I don't bring the CD with me?
- Is it legal for me to do this one my friends/school file server.
- Is it legal for me to make mp3s of my CDs at all?
- Can I listen to a friend's mp3 if he made and he is in the room? What if he isn't? What if he brought thr mp3 over and put it on my computer?
- What if he's not home? What if he left them on my computer and left the CD with me? What if he lost the CD and doesnt have a copy of the mp3 itself?
Too many legal ambiguities. Anybody really understand it? I wish it would be more consistent.
It seems to me that it would make the most sense if we followed the same laws that we did for computer software. One copy per machine per license. Never can too separate machines be running the same software at the same time.
It doesn't seem like mp3.com was violating this "rule"
Sounds like a cool idea, but I'm tired of these "Ask Slashdots" where we end up doing someones work for them.
Can't he do his own market research? What does slashdot get back from this? It seems to me that the point of "Ask Slashdot" is so one may ask a question that others might also be interested in learning the answer to. Who cares whether people will buy a voice-activated mp3 player.
I tired of have slashdot being used a guinea pig population of geeks that others can pitch their ideas at. Lets go back to the intellectually stimulating "Ask Slashdot".
You've found the hidden slashdot poll!!!
It appears that for every redundant article Taco lists on Slashdot, some new info gets hidden away such as this poll.
E-mail postmaster@unix.com to claim your prize.
Its seems funny to me that people point to the fact that Eric Harris (of Columbine) liked to play Doom as one of the reasons he committed the act he did.
I would find it unusual if he _didn't_ like to play Doom.
Doom is violent. So are war movies. So is hunting. The fact that a person with a violent personality likes to do violent things is not a surprise to me.
It also says nothing about whether these violent activities _cause_ violent behavior in youth. I love to play Doom and Quake too, but I am probably the least violent person you could meet. For me, these games provide an outlet to relieve some frustration and aggression that we _all_ experience from time to time. The games don't make me more violent.
Now Doom is probably not for the small child. But as for the teenager who likes to play Doom and then kills a dozen of his classmates. I think there is something else wrong with him. Its due to something more than Doom.