This sounds like it would raise the issue of single point of failure; if someone managed to knock one of the GPS satellites out of orbit, a bunch of other satellites that were relying on it would then follow it out of the sky. That doesn't sound like such a great idea to me.
Unless, of course, there were multiple GPS satellites, and each satellite relyed on the positioning information returned by the majority of them. The odds of all of them being knocked out at once are much lower than just one being knocked out.
Still, if someone were interested in knocking out communications in the united states, they would still only have to knock out the GPS ones in order to knock out the rest. Not quite as bad as single point of failure, but close.
Yes, but if we misuse the definition of "reverse engineering," then what these guys did was reverse engineer his work by acquiring the source code.
Personally, though, I'm kind of amused.. how does one reverse-engineer that which one already has the source code for? Convert it to message sequence charts for recoding? Run it through an obfuscating program?:-)
Right, and then some moron's firearm accidentally goes off, blows a hole in the floor, depressurizes the plane and kills everyone.
There's a reason firearms aren't typically allowed on planes.
Mirrors of news sites; check Google.
on
Our New Pearl Harbor
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Google's front page now contains links to a few major news sites, along with links to their own mirrors of those sites. If you're trying to access a given news organization's reports on recent events, I suggest checking Google for a mirrored link.
How arrogant to single out Americans as those who shouldn't have to deal with something like this, and even more so is using the country's capacity for retribution as the basis for your argument.
This sort of thing happens all over the world; lives are lost on a massive scale every day. We should all be horrified if something like this happened to anyone; not just Americans. And definitely not just because the country can "give you a new bodily orifice."
Still, if there was a Doom port on this, I could see it being a good outlet for frustrations/anger after annoying phone calls from telemarketers and the like.. although could you imagine playing Doom on a numeric keypad?:-)
Pick up any tech publication these days, and you'll see this kind of thing. If you really want to see it, though, you should check out the gaming rags.
GamePro is a good one to check if you want to see the antithesis of reporting. They put out a magazine full of screenshots and one or two paragraph previews and reviews. EGM at least tries for some content. (Even if it is very industry-praising.)
In the PC market, if you want to see some really kiss-ass writing, grab any recent copy of PC Gamer. First, check the advertiser's index, and count the number of reviews for each company. Then check the review scores for said companies. See a correlation?
These online "breaking news" sites aren't much better. Blue's News, for instance, is a good place to go if you want to check out the current state of the gaming industry's PR department. I mean really, how many screenshots and developer's journals do they have to pump out before we finally get the point that oh, hey, they might actually be working on that game.. Anyone remember those Tribes 2 screenshots?
Speaking of screenshots, if I see one more "exclusive," I think I'm gonna puke.
VoodooExtreme's not much better, but at least they don't have ads all over the place.. and they filter out most of the "we just fixed another bug" crap.
Perhaps, but the essence of the plot of Dogma was based around the concept of general absolution, a practice which is heavily frowned upon by the Catholic church. And the thirteenth apostle was Judas.
Lotsa things wrong here, boys.. still, the new movie was pretty funny.
Btw, you're comparing apples to oranges here; DirectX is a gaming architecture, while OpenGL a graphics one. You should compare Direct3D with OpenGL.:-)
Simple answer:
Direct3D is now simpler to use, better supported by video card manufacturers, and more OO than OpenGL.
Long answer:
Up until recently, OpenGL was considered more advanced because it was more high-level. You didn't have to write as much OpenGL code to get stuff to work as you did in Direct3D. (Immediate mode, we're talking about here; only a complete moron would write Direct3D retained mode code, what with the overhead it causes.)
However, with the release of DirectX 8.0, this has changed. Direct3D is now a lot cleaner and easier to use. No more does every card have all these annoying mode bits for every single little thing; the market has consolidated in such a way that the major players all support simultaneous use of the most important stuff. (In the olden days, you had to check mode bits to see if you could use alpha blending and bilinear filtering at the same time, for example. Some cards did it, some didn't. You had to have a work-around in case each of these things failed. This is no longer a problem.)
Additionally, Direct3D 8.0 takes OpenGL's way of looking at things, adopts, extends and surpasses. Ever heard of vertex shaders? Pixel shaders? In OpenGL, these are just extensions that are implemented differently by the video card manufacturers. (If they're available at all..) In Direct3D, they're an integral part of the API. And they'll become even more important in years to come. Here's why:
Anyone remember back before video cards could do stuff on their own, when you did everything on the main processor and pumped it to the video card raw? Well, we're in those days right now with video card design. These processors have very specific things they do; if you want to make a dynamic texture, you'll have to ship it back to the main CPU to process it there. Weighted vertices that use in excess of a certain number of matrices (I'm talking about skinned animation systems here) have to be done on the CPU. The message here is that what the video card can do is very limited, and is "hard coded" in the hardware. There isn't much flexibility here.
Enter "shaders." These are little applications (more like scripts, though, since there are no branches in execution) that you can run inside the video card. Instead of going through all the vertices on the CPU and transforming 'em or whatever on the CPU, you can write a little program called a vertex shader which'll do it for you on the video card. And pixel shaders will do the same for your textures; now you can have zoom effects, warp effects.. heck, you could probably implement Photoshop as a set of pixel shaders. (In fact, I don't doubt they're looking into it as I type.)
You see, the graphics API's no longer just a one-processor API with DirectX 8; Direct3D has become an operating system unto itself! Vertex shaders and pixel shaders are like specialized mini-drivers that you load to access the additional functionality. It's really quite neat! I can't wait to see what the demo scene does with these things; the possibilities are endless!:-)
As for the OO thing, have you ever considered just how many games are OO? Considering OpenGL's very C-ish nature, C++ programmers are easily going to gravitate towards Direct3D, simply because of it's C++ OO design. (And lets not even get started on what happens whenever you throw more than one monitor into the mix. I mean, with DirectX, all you do is use another pointer; what do you do in OpenGL..?) Add in the fact that you'll need DirectX for input and audio either way, and..
Wrapping things up, until OpenGL catches up to Direct3D in terms of it's integration of vertex and pixel shaders directly into the API, (programmers are lazy; they don't want to have to go searching for a frickin' function pointer to access an extension..) it'll be playing second fiddle to Direct3D in the minds of developers. Especially with the X-Box coming out, and everybody and their cow wanting to port to it.
As a Canadian, I can tell you that most americans definitely do have an accent. (With the exception, of course, of most movie stars, who manage to speak with a common movie-star accent. Except for "about," which I'll get to in a second.)
As a Canadian, here's how you, too, can learn to speak like an American:
1) "About." This is the hardest word to get down, because it's so different and so commonly used. Americans typically pronounce it "Abowwwt," as if someone just punched them in the stomach. If you're having trouble getting this down, ask a friend for assistance. If they're anything like my friends, I'm sure they'll be more than happy to oblige you with a quick jab to your gut.
2) If you currently use the words "sorry," "pardon me," "excuse me," or "thank you" more than twenty times an hour, then I'm sorry but you can stop now; there's no way you'll ever pass for an American. My most sincere apologies.
3) When you're typing something with an "our" on the end, there's a good chance that there is no "u." (Apparently, Webster ever liked "u.")
4) A bag is now a sack. A Joe Louis' replaced by a Twinkie. Washrooms? Not anymore; now you use the bathroom. And you wait on line to use one, not in. A keener's now a brownnoser. Elastics are rubber bands. Runners are sneakers... track pants are sweat pants, a pop's a soda or coke, and brown bread's referred to as whole wheat...
What I'm really saying, of course, is that you'll never be able to do it. The Yanks have us, m'lads. They have us outmatched, outwitted and outnumbered when it comes mashing up the queen's English. I say you just do what I do; give up! Straighten your toque, crack open another two-four, place your arse upon the chesterfield, and watch yourself another Toronto-filmed Hollywood movie on your telly. That's the spirit! Cheers.:)
James (off to score some timbits..)
Re:What about Stargate SG-1
on
Andromeda
·
· Score: 2
Worf-alike? Buddy, just because he's tall, has long hair, doesn't smile a lot, and just happens to have a dark skin-tone doesn't mean he's a Worf-alike.:)
Amen.
It's times like this that you remember that ideology's never as important as the individual.
My younger brother committed suicide just last December. Bright boy, but was hiding problems with depression. The only commonality I can see between my brother's case and Shinjan's is that they both spent, in their parents' eyes, way too much time on the computer.
My condolences to Shinjan's family, and the staff and students of the school this fellow attended. This kind of thing's never easy. We should be offering our support to their community, instead of judging him and his peers.
(That having been said, I do believe that his parents have a right to know what the infractions were. The least the school could do is that. His parents need to grasp onto these things in order to heal, and accept.)
James
While I do agree with the idea that people are allowing television to raise their kids to an increasing degree, I can't help but find a bit of a paradox here. We're getting a distinct mixed message from those people who're anti-ratings.
On one hand, they say that parents shouldn't allow their kids to watch certain material. It's the parents' own fault and responsibility, etc. However, on the other hand, you see them talking about how kids should have an increasing world view. How they should be allowed to access the internet unfiltered or unrestricted because of the holes in the ratings software.
Why do I think this is a paradox? Because on one hand, we have people saying that this system is flawed, so we shouldn't use it. And on the other hand, we see people expressing outrage because "soccermoms" are bringing into effect a ratings system that, from looking at the video industry, at least, appears it would work.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but this sounds like a double standard. It sounds to me more like people here just want to protect their own interests, and will embrace any philosophy on a subject that fits their wants.
This is the kind of politics that put George W Bush in power. Do we really want to continue down this road further? Do people not see that personal politics can really screw up a system something good?
Personally, I think that a ratings system for video games is a great idea. Currently, there are video games out there that are twice as violent as any movie I've ever seen. (Granted, I haven't seen many, but still..) As long as the ratings system bases it's ratings upon simple, clear core ideas, (ie; whether the title contains visible violence, sex or nudity, and whether or not swearing is featured--and whether or not it can be toggled) then I think it would be perfectly okay to use.
However, this probably won't help things one iota in the area where it's probably needed most, which is the warez industry. If a kid can download a game off the net, then he can easily circumvent the system. I personally don't see any way around this, other than to maybe put the rating on the load-up graphic, so parents can recognize the ratings if they happen to be passing by..?
The problem is that movies are controlled from a central location--theatres--whilest video games are decentralized as soon as they become warezed. So while it won't help the soccermom whose kid is sitting online dl/ding warez, it will help the family who's trying to pick out a good Christmas present for their kid and don't want to accidentally end up with the gore game of the year.
And how, exactly, is this harming the rights of adults? I mean, if my right to see someone brutally decapitated and someone crap down their neck is infringed upon, I probably won't be too disturbed. Idunno, maybe it's just because I'm now approaching 21, and all of this adultish material's not as interesting any more. Maybe I even childish. Maybe I'm finally growing up? I dunno.
Personally, I think that if games spent as much time extolling the downsides of violence as they did the virtues of it (ie; through funeral sequences or cutscenes of regret or maybe even someone watching in horror as someone dies) then maybe we wouldn't need this kind of thing. The reason for this type of legislation shouldn't be to ban violence or hide it from children, it should be an attempt to make sure that the audience is presented with the consequences of theirs and others violent actions in the game.
See Half-Life for some good examples of this. (Medics, people running away in horror from monsters, etc.)
I don't see this legislation as stepping on many toes, therefor, except maybe a few select memebers of the gaming industry that tend to gloralize violence; there'll probably be an increase in warezing of violent video games.
Rather than answer your question directly, I think I'll answer it with a joke I heard a long time ago. May it's punchline bring enlightenment.:)
A chief from a small village deep in the jungle flew to the United States to visit the President.
When he arrived at the airport, there was a large group of reporters and people with television cameras. One of the reporters asked the chief if he had a comfortable flight. The chief made a series of weird noises...."screech, scratch, honk, buzz, whistle, z-z-z-z-"...and then he added in perfect English, "Yes, I had a very nice flight."
Another reporter asked, "Chief, do you plan to visit the Statue of Liberty while you're in the United States?"
The chief made the same noises..."screech, scratch, honk, buzz, whistle, z-z-z-z"...and then said, "Yes, and I also plan to visit the White House and the Grand Canyon."
"Where did you learn to speak English so well, Chief?" asked the next reporter. The chief replied, "Screech, scratch, honk, buzz, whistle, z-z-z-z...from the shortwave radio."
(Stolen from http://bennyhills.fortunecity.com/billmurray/532/e sljokes/radio.html)
Re:The point is, the Register wants to get us exci
on
Copy Protection Galore
·
· Score: 1
I don't think that PCs are the real target for these drives. I suspect that the real target are devices like TIVO et al, and video toaster-like devices (Amiga Toaster). This sounds like an attempt to keep people from being able to pull out their older TIVO hard drive, and stuff in a new one easily. Or to transfer files from a TIVOesque drive to a regular computer for uploading on the internet.
The fact that they'll try and use these in home computers too is just part of the ploy. There's an old saying in business; never ask for what you want; ask for more first, so that when you do ask for what you really want, you sound generous. Whenever they give up the home computing copy protection, people will relax--but it'll already be too late for TIVOesque devices.
Them businesspeople... they are a sneaky lot, they are..
The problem is that, while universities and colleges have the resources to shop around and look at different security packages, budgets are so much lower for high schools that they really have to make do with the crap that they get from their school boards.
This, of course, leads to a tighter security-though-obscurity focus. (Plus, realistically, what are the chances of a high school student being hired by a school board for such activity? The school boards are supposed to have people to handle these things. Those people are going to be right pissed that some upstart's taking over their job. Likewise, the amount of additional money that it'd cost in support costs, etc., to switch to a better security model typically eclipses what your average school board can afford. And yes, I realize there are quite a few that can afford them, but they prove to be more the exception than the rule.)
This is done in Canada too. And since Trudeau was our prime minister, we've tended to have just one person in charge of everything; namely, the prime minister. We don't have the same checks and balances in our system that Americans do.
However, because we have so few checks and balances, people tend to be more interested in what actually goes on, because it's up to the people to respond if their politicians do something they don't like.
Additionally, our bills are required to be read three times in the house of commons before they can be passed. From some of the comments I've been reading, I'm assuming that this doesn't happen in the US..?
I don't really know. Most addictive sorta implies that you can't stop playing 'em even thought they kinda suck graphically or whatever, so I'll just list my childhood favorites instead:
- Star Control II (my first RPG!)
- Wing Commander Privateer
- the original Duke Nukem
- Commander Keen 4-6
- Monkey Island
I also remember playing Wing Commander 1 a lot. I remember the first time I saw a dralthi, and just going "whoa.." : )
Slashdot Mirror
This sounds like it would raise the issue of single point of failure; if someone managed to knock one of the GPS satellites out of orbit, a bunch of other satellites that were relying on it would then follow it out of the sky. That doesn't sound like such a great idea to me.
Unless, of course, there were multiple GPS satellites, and each satellite relyed on the positioning information returned by the majority of them. The odds of all of them being knocked out at once are much lower than just one being knocked out.
Still, if someone were interested in knocking out communications in the united states, they would still only have to knock out the GPS ones in order to knock out the rest. Not quite as bad as single point of failure, but close.
How about Orson Scott Card? (Probably too good for Star Trek, admittedly, but a guy can dream..)
Yes, but if we misuse the definition of "reverse engineering," then what these guys did was reverse engineer his work by acquiring the source code.
:-)
Personally, though, I'm kind of amused.. how does one reverse-engineer that which one already has the source code for? Convert it to message sequence charts for recoding? Run it through an obfuscating program?
DMCA applies in Canada; for the purposes of copyrighted materials that were made in the US, Canada is treated as being domestic to the US.
On the CBC, the only word yesterday was that the gov't had said the fifth plane was "no longer a threat."
Right, and then some moron's firearm accidentally goes off, blows a hole in the floor, depressurizes the plane and kills everyone.
There's a reason firearms aren't typically allowed on planes.
Google's front page now contains links to a few major news sites, along with links to their own mirrors of those sites. If you're trying to access a given news organization's reports on recent events, I suggest checking Google for a mirrored link.
How arrogant to single out Americans as those who shouldn't have to deal with something like this, and even more so is using the country's capacity for retribution as the basis for your argument.
This sort of thing happens all over the world; lives are lost on a massive scale every day. We should all be horrified if something like this happened to anyone; not just Americans. And definitely not just because the country can "give you a new bodily orifice."
That's a cliche already..? :-)
:-)
Still, if there was a Doom port on this, I could see it being a good outlet for frustrations/anger after annoying phone calls from telemarketers and the like.. although could you imagine playing Doom on a numeric keypad?
Pick up any tech publication these days, and you'll see this kind of thing. If you really want to see it, though, you should check out the gaming rags.
GamePro is a good one to check if you want to see the antithesis of reporting. They put out a magazine full of screenshots and one or two paragraph previews and reviews. EGM at least tries for some content. (Even if it is very industry-praising.)
In the PC market, if you want to see some really kiss-ass writing, grab any recent copy of PC Gamer. First, check the advertiser's index, and count the number of reviews for each company. Then check the review scores for said companies. See a correlation?
These online "breaking news" sites aren't much better. Blue's News , for instance, is a good place to go if you want to check out the current state of the gaming industry's PR department. I mean really, how many screenshots and developer's journals do they have to pump out before we finally get the point that oh, hey, they might actually be working on that game.. Anyone remember those Tribes 2 screenshots?
Speaking of screenshots, if I see one more "exclusive," I think I'm gonna puke.
VoodooExtreme 's not much better, but at least they don't have ads all over the place.. and they filter out most of the "we just fixed another bug" crap.
Ah well.. c'est la vie..
Just a little didja notice..
This was the first of his movies that doesn't reference hockey..?
Perhaps, but the essence of the plot of Dogma was based around the concept of general absolution, a practice which is heavily frowned upon by the Catholic church. And the thirteenth apostle was Judas.
Lotsa things wrong here, boys.. still, the new movie was pretty funny.
Btw, you're comparing apples to oranges here; DirectX is a gaming architecture, while OpenGL a graphics one. You should compare Direct3D with OpenGL. :-)
:-)
Simple answer:
Direct3D is now simpler to use, better supported by video card manufacturers, and more OO than OpenGL.
Long answer:
Up until recently, OpenGL was considered more advanced because it was more high-level. You didn't have to write as much OpenGL code to get stuff to work as you did in Direct3D. (Immediate mode, we're talking about here; only a complete moron would write Direct3D retained mode code, what with the overhead it causes.)
However, with the release of DirectX 8.0, this has changed. Direct3D is now a lot cleaner and easier to use. No more does every card have all these annoying mode bits for every single little thing; the market has consolidated in such a way that the major players all support simultaneous use of the most important stuff. (In the olden days, you had to check mode bits to see if you could use alpha blending and bilinear filtering at the same time, for example. Some cards did it, some didn't. You had to have a work-around in case each of these things failed. This is no longer a problem.)
Additionally, Direct3D 8.0 takes OpenGL's way of looking at things, adopts, extends and surpasses. Ever heard of vertex shaders? Pixel shaders? In OpenGL, these are just extensions that are implemented differently by the video card manufacturers. (If they're available at all..) In Direct3D, they're an integral part of the API. And they'll become even more important in years to come. Here's why:
Anyone remember back before video cards could do stuff on their own, when you did everything on the main processor and pumped it to the video card raw? Well, we're in those days right now with video card design. These processors have very specific things they do; if you want to make a dynamic texture, you'll have to ship it back to the main CPU to process it there. Weighted vertices that use in excess of a certain number of matrices (I'm talking about skinned animation systems here) have to be done on the CPU. The message here is that what the video card can do is very limited, and is "hard coded" in the hardware. There isn't much flexibility here.
Enter "shaders." These are little applications (more like scripts, though, since there are no branches in execution) that you can run inside the video card. Instead of going through all the vertices on the CPU and transforming 'em or whatever on the CPU, you can write a little program called a vertex shader which'll do it for you on the video card. And pixel shaders will do the same for your textures; now you can have zoom effects, warp effects.. heck, you could probably implement Photoshop as a set of pixel shaders. (In fact, I don't doubt they're looking into it as I type.)
You see, the graphics API's no longer just a one-processor API with DirectX 8; Direct3D has become an operating system unto itself! Vertex shaders and pixel shaders are like specialized mini-drivers that you load to access the additional functionality. It's really quite neat! I can't wait to see what the demo scene does with these things; the possibilities are endless!
As for the OO thing, have you ever considered just how many games are OO? Considering OpenGL's very C-ish nature, C++ programmers are easily going to gravitate towards Direct3D, simply because of it's C++ OO design. (And lets not even get started on what happens whenever you throw more than one monitor into the mix. I mean, with DirectX, all you do is use another pointer; what do you do in OpenGL..?) Add in the fact that you'll need DirectX for input and audio either way, and..
Wrapping things up, until OpenGL catches up to Direct3D in terms of it's integration of vertex and pixel shaders directly into the API, (programmers are lazy; they don't want to have to go searching for a frickin' function pointer to access an extension..) it'll be playing second fiddle to Direct3D in the minds of developers. Especially with the X-Box coming out, and everybody and their cow wanting to port to it.
Anyways, carry on..
James
As a Canadian, I can tell you that most americans definitely do have an accent. (With the exception, of course, of most movie stars, who manage to speak with a common movie-star accent. Except for "about," which I'll get to in a second.)
:)
As a Canadian, here's how you, too, can learn to speak like an American:
1) "About." This is the hardest word to get down, because it's so different and so commonly used. Americans typically pronounce it "Abowwwt," as if someone just punched them in the stomach. If you're having trouble getting this down, ask a friend for assistance. If they're anything like my friends, I'm sure they'll be more than happy to oblige you with a quick jab to your gut.
2) If you currently use the words "sorry," "pardon me," "excuse me," or "thank you" more than twenty times an hour, then I'm sorry but you can stop now; there's no way you'll ever pass for an American. My most sincere apologies.
3) When you're typing something with an "our" on the end, there's a good chance that there is no "u." (Apparently, Webster ever liked "u.")
4) A bag is now a sack. A Joe Louis' replaced by a Twinkie. Washrooms? Not anymore; now you use the bathroom. And you wait on line to use one, not in. A keener's now a brownnoser. Elastics are rubber bands. Runners are sneakers... track pants are sweat pants, a pop's a soda or coke, and brown bread's referred to as whole wheat...
What I'm really saying, of course, is that you'll never be able to do it. The Yanks have us, m'lads. They have us outmatched, outwitted and outnumbered when it comes mashing up the queen's English. I say you just do what I do; give up! Straighten your toque, crack open another two-four, place your arse upon the chesterfield, and watch yourself another Toronto-filmed Hollywood movie on your telly. That's the spirit! Cheers.
James (off to score some timbits..)
Worf-alike? Buddy, just because he's tall, has long hair, doesn't smile a lot, and just happens to have a dark skin-tone doesn't mean he's a Worf-alike. :)
Well, at least they got the "hip" part right. She's definitely big in that respect..
Amen. It's times like this that you remember that ideology's never as important as the individual. My younger brother committed suicide just last December. Bright boy, but was hiding problems with depression. The only commonality I can see between my brother's case and Shinjan's is that they both spent, in their parents' eyes, way too much time on the computer. My condolences to Shinjan's family, and the staff and students of the school this fellow attended. This kind of thing's never easy. We should be offering our support to their community, instead of judging him and his peers. (That having been said, I do believe that his parents have a right to know what the infractions were. The least the school could do is that. His parents need to grasp onto these things in order to heal, and accept.) James
There is a multiuser patch available on BeBits.
Nothing today makes you laugh quite like the old HB stuff did..?
...
Ever heard of The Family Guy?
While I do agree with the idea that people are allowing television to raise their kids to an increasing degree, I can't help but find a bit of a paradox here. We're getting a distinct mixed message from those people who're anti-ratings.
On one hand, they say that parents shouldn't allow their kids to watch certain material. It's the parents' own fault and responsibility, etc. However, on the other hand, you see them talking about how kids should have an increasing world view. How they should be allowed to access the internet unfiltered or unrestricted because of the holes in the ratings software.
Why do I think this is a paradox? Because on one hand, we have people saying that this system is flawed, so we shouldn't use it. And on the other hand, we see people expressing outrage because "soccermoms" are bringing into effect a ratings system that, from looking at the video industry, at least, appears it would work.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but this sounds like a double standard. It sounds to me more like people here just want to protect their own interests, and will embrace any philosophy on a subject that fits their wants.
This is the kind of politics that put George W Bush in power. Do we really want to continue down this road further? Do people not see that personal politics can really screw up a system something good?
Personally, I think that a ratings system for video games is a great idea. Currently, there are video games out there that are twice as violent as any movie I've ever seen. (Granted, I haven't seen many, but still..) As long as the ratings system bases it's ratings upon simple, clear core ideas, (ie; whether the title contains visible violence, sex or nudity, and whether or not swearing is featured--and whether or not it can be toggled) then I think it would be perfectly okay to use.
However, this probably won't help things one iota in the area where it's probably needed most, which is the warez industry. If a kid can download a game off the net, then he can easily circumvent the system. I personally don't see any way around this, other than to maybe put the rating on the load-up graphic, so parents can recognize the ratings if they happen to be passing by..?
The problem is that movies are controlled from a central location--theatres--whilest video games are decentralized as soon as they become warezed. So while it won't help the soccermom whose kid is sitting online dl/ding warez, it will help the family who's trying to pick out a good Christmas present for their kid and don't want to accidentally end up with the gore game of the year.
And how, exactly, is this harming the rights of adults? I mean, if my right to see someone brutally decapitated and someone crap down their neck is infringed upon, I probably won't be too disturbed. Idunno, maybe it's just because I'm now approaching 21, and all of this adultish material's not as interesting any more. Maybe I even childish. Maybe I'm finally growing up? I dunno.
Personally, I think that if games spent as much time extolling the downsides of violence as they did the virtues of it (ie; through funeral sequences or cutscenes of regret or maybe even someone watching in horror as someone dies) then maybe we wouldn't need this kind of thing. The reason for this type of legislation shouldn't be to ban violence or hide it from children, it should be an attempt to make sure that the audience is presented with the consequences of theirs and others violent actions in the game.
See Half-Life for some good examples of this. (Medics, people running away in horror from monsters, etc.)
I don't see this legislation as stepping on many toes, therefor, except maybe a few select memebers of the gaming industry that tend to gloralize violence; there'll probably be an increase in warezing of violent video games.
Rather than answer your question directly, I think I'll answer it with a joke I heard a long time ago. May it's punchline bring enlightenment. :)
e sljokes/radio.html)
A chief from a small village deep in the jungle flew to the United States to visit the President.
When he arrived at the airport, there was a large group of reporters and people with television cameras. One of the reporters asked the chief if he had a comfortable flight. The chief made a series of weird noises...."screech, scratch, honk, buzz, whistle, z-z-z-z-"...and then he added in perfect English, "Yes, I had a very nice flight."
Another reporter asked, "Chief, do you plan to visit the Statue of Liberty while you're in the United States?"
The chief made the same noises..."screech, scratch, honk, buzz, whistle, z-z-z-z"...and then said, "Yes, and I also plan to visit the White House and the Grand Canyon."
"Where did you learn to speak English so well, Chief?" asked the next reporter. The chief replied, "Screech, scratch, honk, buzz, whistle, z-z-z-z...from the shortwave radio."
(Stolen from http://bennyhills.fortunecity.com/billmurray/532/
I don't think that PCs are the real target for these drives. I suspect that the real target are devices like TIVO et al, and video toaster-like devices (Amiga Toaster). This sounds like an attempt to keep people from being able to pull out their older TIVO hard drive, and stuff in a new one easily. Or to transfer files from a TIVOesque drive to a regular computer for uploading on the internet.
The fact that they'll try and use these in home computers too is just part of the ploy. There's an old saying in business; never ask for what you want; ask for more first, so that when you do ask for what you really want, you sound generous. Whenever they give up the home computing copy protection, people will relax--but it'll already be too late for TIVOesque devices.
Them businesspeople... they are a sneaky lot, they are..
The problem is that, while universities and colleges have the resources to shop around and look at different security packages, budgets are so much lower for high schools that they really have to make do with the crap that they get from their school boards.
This, of course, leads to a tighter security-though-obscurity focus. (Plus, realistically, what are the chances of a high school student being hired by a school board for such activity? The school boards are supposed to have people to handle these things. Those people are going to be right pissed that some upstart's taking over their job. Likewise, the amount of additional money that it'd cost in support costs, etc., to switch to a better security model typically eclipses what your average school board can afford. And yes, I realize there are quite a few that can afford them, but they prove to be more the exception than the rule.)
This is done in Canada too. And since Trudeau was our prime minister, we've tended to have just one person in charge of everything; namely, the prime minister. We don't have the same checks and balances in our system that Americans do.
However, because we have so few checks and balances, people tend to be more interested in what actually goes on, because it's up to the people to respond if their politicians do something they don't like.
Additionally, our bills are required to be read three times in the house of commons before they can be passed. From some of the comments I've been reading, I'm assuming that this doesn't happen in the US..?
I don't really know. Most addictive sorta implies that you can't stop playing 'em even thought they kinda suck graphically or whatever, so I'll just list my childhood favorites instead:
- Star Control II (my first RPG!)
- Wing Commander Privateer
- the original Duke Nukem
- Commander Keen 4-6
- Monkey Island
I also remember playing Wing Commander 1 a lot. I remember the first time I saw a dralthi, and just going "whoa.." : )