Indeed. the B12 advert is probably actionable in the US under the ADA, and in the UK under the DDA... the blink frequency seems tuned to trigger epileptic seizures. Methinks the Slash_editorial people might want to go talk with the slash_advertsing people just this once...
Well I have a little suggestion to make, which is that letting your government rot in hell is not the best way to go about improving it. As with software, so with government: its better when its Open. But it takes effort and action, not dismissal and empty phrases.
No, you're right, you don't know about me. Let me tell you that I've always found anti-government rhetoric a little juvenile, ill-considered and, curiously, American.
Without wishing to get hugely off-topic, I can think of several hundred useful things that government do. And I live and work in hope that I can contribute to enabling them to do worthwhile tasks at lower costs than was formerly the case - especially by encouraging them to adopt open source.
Agreed, it should be sufficient to put virus protection on client, and it would seem to be the best place to put it. Still, the mindset of the people I deal with is, is that they want a cordon sanitaire, and that means protection around the firewall area. Yes, that means they duplicate the protection.
Whether it is at the firewall or on the client, the need remains an Open anti-viral package, if only because the IT managers perceive the need for it.
Because IT managers in the sorts of organisations I work in want anti-virus software (whether they need it or not). And so they buy hundreds or thousands of licences for mimesweeper and websweeper, at very great expense.
They also have a legacy of MS desktops, which they will not switch away from, for some time yet. I guess it might sound curious to someone coming from a hard-core linux background, but the single offering I cannot find is anti-virus.. presumably because of this belief in the Open community that it is unnecessary. At the risk of repeating myself, to me, its the one last thing I need to be able to get my clients to buy into open.
Why bother? Take a couple of my government clients: 14,000 desktops and 2,000 desktops. MS OS & MS Office on each of them. Cost? HUGE? Do the maths.
95% of them use the most basic functions of Office. What stops them taking Linux/Staroffice - to date - has mostly been the relative difficulty of installing & supporting Linux, in comparison with Windows. Probably we are at about the hinge point, where enough of the difficulty of a Linux install is abstracted away, and where an open Office app is credible. Result? Fairly obvious. Need I go on?
I saw the 16/7/00 rumour on/. that star office would be GPL's... but didn't see any confirmation that it was in fact GPL'd. It was, though, on the 19/7/00 - Http://www.sun.com/smi/Press/sunflash/2000-07/sunf lash.20000719.1.html
Now, by my calculation, all we need is a decent open anti-virus package of the mimesweeper/websweeper type and I - at least - will be able to start pushing Open on my central & local government clients, who are still shelling out huge sums to the closed community.
So much hot air rising from this story... so little real information. From the top
The patent in question is titled "THE PRODUCTION METHOD OF AROMA ESSENCE OF REFRESHING GRASS SCENT"
The application number is PL19880272003 19880420
There are hundreds and hundreds of patents for scents and methods of making scents in the patents literature. Try a search for the word Scent at http://gb.espacenet.com/
And you were credulous enough to react to something a Rupert Murdoch paper published.
Guys, Gals. You have the whole net at your disposal. Use it.
Name names; I'd be fascinated to know which council. In truth, I don't dispute your "slow domino" assertion. I track a number of UK Government domino sites, the design & speed of which are amusing.
Okay Shippo, me old mukka, how can we respond to your posting?
1. On the couple of occasions..blah...website...blah...slow to respond - Obviously you don't use the web much - are you qualified to comment on questions of relative speed?
2. further investigations reveal it is running Domino. - Possibly some sort of quantum effect going on here (reality collapsing into the shape of your prejudice)
3. most CPU intensive memory intensive pathetic excuse I've seen for a webserver - Yes, well, it sure ain't apache, but then it sure ain't just a webserver either.
4. Plus you need to know a lot about Lotus Notes to get the thing to work at all - And a requirement for knowledge is nigh on unique in the annals of computing; fie; if only eveything were as intuitive as Linux and SQL and Perl.
Don't get me wrong. There are more things that suck about Domino than one can shake a shitty stick at. Mention of support for XML is one mirthmaking concept... ever seen a Domino site capable of making a DOCTYPE declaration at the head of a page? Ever see Domino HTML comply with 4.01? (I had a major spat with Lotus about this... turns out support for HTML4 is a "feature" which they "might" implement if there is any demand for it.
When are we going to get a Domino topic on/. so we can really gripe about its shortcomings?
Umm, nothing at all wrong with ACs; nothing in my mail suggested there was. I did have a problem with the opinion of the AC in question, but ACs in general, I love 'em, each & every one; was one myself, once. Whats your point?
Anytime you got a corporation, any corporation, donating money to organizations for supposedly philanthropic causes, you basically have a situation where money is being used to integrate a potential threat under the corporate umbrella
That is the most bollocks of a sweeping statement I have read in a while.
This should not be seen as a good thing, at most it is simple bribery with a twist of PR believed only by fools.
And that is a bullshit statement.
Granted, sadly, most corporations are narrowly self-interested - in large part because of a narrow conception of the concept of fiducery duty on the part of their directors.
But there are quite some number of companies that donate to good causes, from which they can expect little or no return, and without any PR fanfare. Mine is a case in point; donates more than 1% of pre-tax profit to ActionAid. I doubt we'll get any commissions for websites from sub-saharan villagers not/.ers. It is merely the least we can do.
Companies are run by people, some of whom remember they are part of a community, and grasp the fact that they have the capacity to undertake random acts of kindness. Not all company directors are bitter, twisted, fuckwitted ACs.
Lives at http://www.engage.com/privacy/koptout.htm
However AFAIK, they'll still be collecting your IP and Domain, and generally keeping tabs on your movemements... you have to subscribe to their site in order to opt out of this, which sucks more than a thing which really sucks...presumably Doubleclick does the same.
http://www.doubleclick.net/optout/default.asp looks like a good page to visit, to lose your doubleclick ID, currently found in a cookie file near you...
Slashcoders - why in hell can your code not cope with URLs longer than a very few characters in length. (he said, by way of explaining why the above link is not clickable). If you'd make bugzilla.shashdot.org available to us, we could feed back bugs like this pretty effectively...
If I hold up a glass mirror to my monitor, I can read crappy corporate websites as mirror images. Does that violate their sanctimoneous copyright? Should I seek to stop Pilkington's making glass to prevent such infractions.
I'm staggered that there are people sufficiently pea-brained out there that they'd consider such a site a threat.
Our taxes also fund the local fire department, but that doesn't mean they have to give us rides in their big red trucks for free.
No, they put out fires for free; that is the purpose of funding them. The purpose of funding them is not to provide a taxi service.
I concede some of the points you make, such as that there are free & low cost electronic journals, that cost will never fully be wrung from the system, that you generall have to pay for quality, that there is too much crud around.
If government can fund research and education - as it does in the UK and EU and presumably US - can it not fund whatever costs cannot be wrung out of a system that dispenses with the Elseviers? Yes, you need reviewers and editors and administrators, and the better they do their jobs the better the quality is. But in my experience, reviewing journals provides kudos for the reviewer, which they parley into better & higher paid academic jobs. The better the reputation of the journal they review for, the more the kudos. For me, writing and reviewing papers would seem to be part of the normal fare of the academic, the salary of whom is paid by the state. Editorial and admin tasks are surely not so onorous that their being funded by Universities (The MIT Journal of This, The LSE Journal of That) would cause bankrupcy. A can see a Free Journal business model which appears to be Win (for readers) Win (for academics) Win (for government) Win (for society, development, implementation of that which arises from the research) Win (for quality...or at least, no worse quality than is currently the case.)
Granted, finally, we might have to meet in the middle ground somewhere. Currently the stakes are well against the impoverished - or even the fairly wealthy - would be reader.
And, I would argue, there is value in getting this information out of the University library shelf and into the hands of the masses (or that subset that is interested). Yes, we need better crud filters and less trash published. But we need better access now to the fruit of the research that we fund.
Finally, I recall back in 95-96, in the UK, there was much debate in government as to whether government publications should be sold or given away free on the internet. Thankfully, the decision from central government was "publish for free". And its great. Now, with ease, I can read Hansard, Bills, Acts, Statutory Instruments, Research Papers. Government recognising that citizens should not be charged to read those things they have paid to be written. Let us see if the Academics can be pursuaded to look down from their lofty comfortable subsidised towers into the real world - small town England - where there is the same demand to read that which for which we have already paid.
(I once had lunch with the chairman of Elsevier; nice bloke - he picked up the bill too.) Hmm. I think
The Council of Europe may well be led by the UK, famous for its Regulation of Investigatory Powers (RIP) Bill, which has such cute measures as:
Two years in prison for failing to reveal your password. That you may have mislaid or forgotten it will not be a defence.
if, having suffered a miscarriage of justice under RIP, you decide to complain in public, you can be imprisoned for a further five years
More details of this scumsucking piece of legislation are available from www.stand.org.uk. The UK has, historically, led Europe in many aspects of the information age (such as telecoms deregulation), and then there is the 'special relationship' we have with you Yanks. So, visit the future, read it & weep.
Something that boils my piss is the huge cost of journals, the majority of which report the results of academic work funded by the public sector. What's the deal here? Our taxes fund [much of] the research, but we don't get access to results since we cannot afford to subscribe to the journals.
Understood, the business model developed in the paper age when someone had to print & distribute academic papers. But I cannot see a good reason why firms lke Elsevier should continue to be as hugely rich as they appear to be.
The web offers an easy way to take most of the cost out of the loop. What cost remain - that of web publishing, and having journals edited & papers reviewed, should (it seems to me) be capable of being funded from academic departmental budgets, in return for the academic judos of being an reviewer/editor/web publisher.
In this enlightened scenario, there would be very much greater dissemination of the knowledge produced, to the benefit of a very much wider set of users.
Nope, not Geosynch. A cut & paste from an About GPS page reveals:
The global positioning system is a satellite-based navigation system consisting of a network of 24 orbiting satellites that are eleven thousand nautical miles in space and in six different orbital paths.
The satellites are constantly moving, making two complete orbits around the Earth in just under 24 hours. If you do the math, that's about 1.8 miles per second
So many things suck about BT, its hard to know where to start.
1. BT is regulated by OFTEL, so in answer to an AC, it is still under government regulation.
2. Oftel have given a generous amount of time to BT before it needs to unbindle the local loop
3. In this time, BT wil seek to tie in as many users to its pitiful services as possible - this (my view) is they ADSL is being lauched now.
4. ISDN in the UK was *not* promoted for about the first ten years of its life. Its only in the last couple of years that BT have pushed it. Why? I guess because there is little or no advantage to BT in users using ISDN.
5. Less than 6 months ago, Iain Vallance, the BT Chairperson, said stuff like "the internet is too immature a technology for UK business... BT is acting as a lollypop man (person who helps schoolkids across the street) trying to save businesses from themselves".
6. ADSL rollout *might* reach 70% of the population by the end of 2002.
7. Why so slow?
8. To protect leased line connection charges - e.g. we pay circa $40,000 for an E-1 (2mbps) line, and are quoted $8,000 for a (wait for it) 64k line. If we can get 512k for $4,000 under ADSL, the scale of potential revenue loss to BT (profits of more than $1.4 billion per annum from a population of 58 million souls) is large.
9. Bottom line; BT is doing the *least* it can to increase offerings, the *most* it can to preserve its monopoly position.
Umm, on topic, I'd like to plug "the New Barbarian Manifesto" by one Ian Angell, a Prof at the London School of Economics, who has written a nicely apocolyptic treatise on the likely economic & social effects of all this networking stuff.
Some strands of the thesis:
Demise of the nation state
Growth of city states & fortress cities
Diminished power for government
Increased power for very talented individuals
Couple of lost generations whilst things sort themselves out
Fairly equal amounts of whiz-bang, and doom& gloom.
In all, very scary and, by his reckoning & telling, fairly unavoidable stuff.
Me. I wish Slashdot posters were capable of understanding the subtle difference betweeen the words THERE and THEIR. But I guess in this 31337 age, spelling matters a bit less than it did (although, try telling that to your compiler)
Other posters have noted two aspects of this study that most concern me:
What looks like gratuitous topping & tailing of the paper with references to Columbine... quite apart from the publication date dovetailing in with the anniversary of that event. This gives rise, in me, to the suspicion that the researchers are seeking publicity more widely than that afforded by peer-reviewed litarature.
The absence of any caution as to the difference between causation and correlation. Obviously, in the Journal of the sort in which this paper is found, readers are expected to undertsand this difference. In the wider world, one is oft times mistaken for the other. (Which is why the sun comes out when I take off my sweater).
I was concerned about a couple of other things I spotted in my first read-through:
The increase in Aggressive Behaviour of the users of 'violent' games over users of 'non-violent' games seems to me to be very slight indeed, and lower than the increased aggressiveness (as measured in this experiment) between Women and Men' and in any event lower than the measured aggresiveness of Women. Scary. (and also probably an ignorant misreading by your's truly... still, thats what it loks like.
More interestingly, the researchers having dissed other research early in the paper "our literature review revealed that the few published studies to date have not adequately tested the video game hypothesis", are content later in the paper to make statements such as "this particula pair [of studies] adds considerable support to prior work".
The Summary and Conclusions paragraphs seem way overblown, considering what seem to me to be the relatively slight findings of the paper; certainly I came away with the impression of researchers who are anxious about the supposed risks of violent video games, anxious for some fame in this reseach field (hey, you gotta eat) and anxious for further funds for more research.
And none of this says much at all about the Hellmouth and the 1,001 other reasons that people reach for the cudgel, chain or carbine. Not that that is a criticism of this paper, although like other posters, I fear the Daily Mail (and your US reactionary equivilant media) will seize on this to drub games & gameplayers, whilst siting inadaquacies of schools, teachers and systems in their blind-spots.
Slashdot Mirror
Not trusting government != anti-government. Yes, probably...
Indeed. the B12 advert is probably actionable in the US under the ADA, and in the UK under the DDA ... the blink frequency seems tuned to trigger epileptic seizures. Methinks the Slash_editorial people might want to go talk with the slash_advertsing people just this once...
Well I have a little suggestion to make, which is that letting your government rot in hell is not the best way to go about improving it. As with software, so with government: its better when its Open. But it takes effort and action, not dismissal and empty phrases.
Without wishing to get hugely off-topic, I can think of several hundred useful things that government do. And I live and work in hope that I can contribute to enabling them to do worthwhile tasks at lower costs than was formerly the case - especially by encouraging them to adopt open source.
Whether it is at the firewall or on the client, the need remains an Open anti-viral package, if only because the IT managers perceive the need for it.
No. But you would hope that the mail arriving at the client had already been checked by the mailserver.
They also have a legacy of MS desktops, which they will not switch away from, for some time yet. I guess it might sound curious to someone coming from a hard-core linux background, but the single offering I cannot find is anti-virus .. presumably because of this belief in the Open community that it is unnecessary. At the risk of repeating myself, to me, its the one last thing I need to be able to get my clients to buy into open.
95% of them use the most basic functions of Office. What stops them taking Linux/Staroffice - to date - has mostly been the relative difficulty of installing & supporting Linux, in comparison with Windows. Probably we are at about the hinge point, where enough of the difficulty of a Linux install is abstracted away, and where an open Office app is credible. Result? Fairly obvious. Need I go on?
Http://www.sun.com/smi/Press/sunflash/2000-07/sun
Now, by my calculation, all we need is a decent open anti-virus package of the mimesweeper/websweeper type and I - at least - will be able to start pushing Open on my central & local government clients, who are still shelling out huge sums to the closed community.
The patent in question is titled "THE PRODUCTION METHOD OF AROMA ESSENCE OF REFRESHING GRASS SCENT"
The application number is PL19880272003 19880420
There are hundreds and hundreds of patents for scents and methods of making scents in the patents literature. Try a search for the word Scent at http://gb.espacenet.com/
And you were credulous enough to react to something a Rupert Murdoch paper published.
Guys, Gals. You have the whole net at your disposal. Use it.
Name names; I'd be fascinated to know which council. In truth, I don't dispute your "slow domino" assertion. I track a number of UK Government domino sites, the design & speed of which are amusing.
1. On the couple of occasions..blah...website...blah...slow to respond - Obviously you don't use the web much - are you qualified to comment on questions of relative speed?
2. further investigations reveal it is running Domino. - Possibly some sort of quantum effect going on here (reality collapsing into the shape of your prejudice)
3. most CPU intensive memory intensive pathetic excuse I've seen for a webserver - Yes, well, it sure ain't apache, but then it sure ain't just a webserver either.
4. Plus you need to know a lot about Lotus Notes to get the thing to work at all - And a requirement for knowledge is nigh on unique in the annals of computing; fie; if only eveything were as intuitive as Linux and SQL and Perl.
Don't get me wrong. There are more things that suck about Domino than one can shake a shitty stick at. Mention of support for XML is one mirthmaking concept ... ever seen a Domino site capable of making a DOCTYPE declaration at the head of a page? Ever see Domino HTML comply with 4.01? (I had a major spat with Lotus about this ... turns out support for HTML4 is a "feature" which they "might" implement if there is any demand for it.
When are we going to get a Domino topic on /. so we can really gripe about its shortcomings?
Umm, nothing at all wrong with ACs; nothing in my mail suggested there was. I did have a problem with the opinion of the AC in question, but ACs in general, I love 'em, each & every one; was one myself, once. Whats your point?
That is the most bollocks of a sweeping statement I have read in a while.
This should not be seen as a good thing, at most it is simple bribery with a twist of PR believed only by fools.
And that is a bullshit statement.
Granted, sadly, most corporations are narrowly self-interested - in large part because of a narrow conception of the concept of fiducery duty on the part of their directors.
But there are quite some number of companies that donate to good causes, from which they can expect little or no return, and without any PR fanfare. Mine is a case in point; donates more than 1% of pre-tax profit to ActionAid. I doubt we'll get any commissions for websites from sub-saharan villagers not /.ers. It is merely the least we can do.
Companies are run by people, some of whom remember they are part of a community, and grasp the fact that they have the capacity to undertake random acts of kindness. Not all company directors are bitter, twisted, fuckwitted ACs.
However AFAIK, they'll still be collecting your IP and Domain, and generally keeping tabs on your movemements ... you have to subscribe to their site in order to opt out of this, which sucks more than a thing which really sucks...presumably Doubleclick does the same.
Slashcoders - why in hell can your code not cope with URLs longer than a very few characters in length. (he said, by way of explaining why the above link is not clickable). If you'd make bugzilla.shashdot.org available to us, we could feed back bugs like this pretty effectively...
If I hold up a glass mirror to my monitor, I can read crappy corporate websites as mirror images. Does that violate their sanctimoneous copyright? Should I seek to stop Pilkington's making glass to prevent such infractions.
I'm staggered that there are people sufficiently pea-brained out there that they'd consider such a site a threat.
No, they put out fires for free; that is the purpose of funding them. The purpose of funding them is not to provide a taxi service.
I concede some of the points you make, such as that there are free & low cost electronic journals, that cost will never fully be wrung from the system, that you generall have to pay for quality, that there is too much crud around.
If government can fund research and education - as it does in the UK and EU and presumably US - can it not fund whatever costs cannot be wrung out of a system that dispenses with the Elseviers? Yes, you need reviewers and editors and administrators, and the better they do their jobs the better the quality is. But in my experience, reviewing journals provides kudos for the reviewer, which they parley into better & higher paid academic jobs. The better the reputation of the journal they review for, the more the kudos. For me, writing and reviewing papers would seem to be part of the normal fare of the academic, the salary of whom is paid by the state. Editorial and admin tasks are surely not so onorous that their being funded by Universities (The MIT Journal of This, The LSE Journal of That) would cause bankrupcy. A can see a Free Journal business model which appears to be Win (for readers) Win (for academics) Win (for government) Win (for society, development, implementation of that which arises from the research) Win (for quality...or at least, no worse quality than is currently the case.)
Granted, finally, we might have to meet in the middle ground somewhere. Currently the stakes are well against the impoverished - or even the fairly wealthy - would be reader.
And, I would argue, there is value in getting this information out of the University library shelf and into the hands of the masses (or that subset that is interested). Yes, we need better crud filters and less trash published. But we need better access now to the fruit of the research that we fund.
Finally, I recall back in 95-96, in the UK, there was much debate in government as to whether government publications should be sold or given away free on the internet. Thankfully, the decision from central government was "publish for free". And its great. Now, with ease, I can read Hansard, Bills, Acts, Statutory Instruments, Research Papers. Government recognising that citizens should not be charged to read those things they have paid to be written. Let us see if the Academics can be pursuaded to look down from their lofty comfortable subsidised towers into the real world - small town England - where there is the same demand to read that which for which we have already paid.
(I once had lunch with the chairman of Elsevier; nice bloke - he picked up the bill too.) Hmm. I think
- Two years in prison for failing to reveal your password. That you may have mislaid or forgotten it will not be a defence.
- if, having suffered a miscarriage of justice under RIP, you decide to complain in public, you can be imprisoned for a further five years
More details of this scumsucking piece of legislation are available from www.stand.org.uk. The UK has, historically, led Europe in many aspects of the information age (such as telecoms deregulation), and then there is the 'special relationship' we have with you Yanks. So, visit the future, read it & weep.Understood, the business model developed in the paper age when someone had to print & distribute academic papers. But I cannot see a good reason why firms lke Elsevier should continue to be as hugely rich as they appear to be.
The web offers an easy way to take most of the cost out of the loop. What cost remain - that of web publishing, and having journals edited & papers reviewed, should (it seems to me) be capable of being funded from academic departmental budgets, in return for the academic judos of being an reviewer/editor/web publisher.
In this enlightened scenario, there would be very much greater dissemination of the knowledge produced, to the benefit of a very much wider set of users.
The global positioning system is a satellite-based navigation system consisting of a network of 24 orbiting satellites that are eleven thousand nautical miles in space and in six different orbital paths.
The satellites are constantly moving, making two complete orbits around the Earth in just under 24 hours. If you do the math, that's about 1.8 miles per second
1. BT is regulated by OFTEL, so in answer to an AC, it is still under government regulation.
2. Oftel have given a generous amount of time to BT before it needs to unbindle the local loop
3. In this time, BT wil seek to tie in as many users to its pitiful services as possible - this (my view) is they ADSL is being lauched now.
4. ISDN in the UK was *not* promoted for about the first ten years of its life. Its only in the last couple of years that BT have pushed it. Why? I guess because there is little or no advantage to BT in users using ISDN.
5. Less than 6 months ago, Iain Vallance, the BT Chairperson, said stuff like "the internet is too immature a technology for UK business ... BT is acting as a lollypop man (person who helps schoolkids across the street) trying to save businesses from themselves".
6. ADSL rollout *might* reach 70% of the population by the end of 2002.
7. Why so slow?
8. To protect leased line connection charges - e.g. we pay circa $40,000 for an E-1 (2mbps) line, and are quoted $8,000 for a (wait for it) 64k line. If we can get 512k for $4,000 under ADSL, the scale of potential revenue loss to BT (profits of more than $1.4 billion per annum from a population of 58 million souls) is large.
9. Bottom line; BT is doing the *least* it can to increase offerings, the *most* it can to preserve its monopoly position.
Some strands of the thesis:
- Demise of the nation state
- Growth of city states & fortress cities
- Diminished power for government
- Increased power for very talented individuals
- Couple of lost generations whilst things sort themselves out
- Fairly equal amounts of whiz-bang, and doom& gloom.
In all, very scary and, by his reckoning & telling, fairly unavoidable stuff.Me. I wish Slashdot posters were capable of understanding the subtle difference betweeen the words THERE and THEIR. But I guess in this 31337 age, spelling matters a bit less than it did (although, try telling that to your compiler)
- What looks like gratuitous topping & tailing of the paper with references to Columbine
... quite apart from the publication date dovetailing in with the anniversary of that event. This gives rise, in me, to the suspicion that the researchers are seeking publicity more widely than that afforded by peer-reviewed litarature. - The absence of any caution as to the difference between causation and correlation. Obviously, in the Journal of the sort in which this paper is found, readers are expected to undertsand this difference. In the wider world, one is oft times mistaken for the other. (Which is why the sun comes out when I take off my sweater).
I was concerned about a couple of other things I spotted in my first read-through:- The increase in Aggressive Behaviour of the users of 'violent' games over users of 'non-violent' games seems to me to be very slight indeed, and lower than the increased aggressiveness (as measured in this experiment) between Women and Men' and in any event lower than the measured aggresiveness of Women. Scary. (and also probably an ignorant misreading by your's truly
... still, thats what it loks like. - More interestingly, the researchers having dissed other research early in the paper "our literature review revealed that the few published studies to date have not adequately tested the video game hypothesis", are content later in the paper to make statements such as "this particula pair [of studies] adds considerable support to prior work".
The Summary and Conclusions paragraphs seem way overblown, considering what seem to me to be the relatively slight findings of the paper; certainly I came away with the impression of researchers who are anxious about the supposed risks of violent video games, anxious for some fame in this reseach field (hey, you gotta eat) and anxious for further funds for more research.And none of this says much at all about the Hellmouth and the 1,001 other reasons that people reach for the cudgel, chain or carbine. Not that that is a criticism of this paper, although like other posters, I fear the Daily Mail (and your US reactionary equivilant media) will seize on this to drub games & gameplayers, whilst siting inadaquacies of schools, teachers and systems in their blind-spots.