"Officials also said they feared that although Childs is in jail, he may have enabled a third party to access the system by telephone or other electronic device and order the destruction of hundreds of thousands of sensitive documents."
Or maybe he hasn't. He might have done a lot of other things as well. A few of them are worth investigating but speculating publicly makes them sound a little hysterical.
It's not like using multiple chips represents a substantial saving, even when you're looking at military spec.
And these things are not immune from crashes. They just rely on extremely low downtime so it doesn't matter. Would have thought that resetting every system could still be an inconvenience.
The most recent "wouldn't it be nice if..." I wanted was a proper version of remote desktop. Something a little more like X where the architecture was actually designed to allow windows to be drawn efficiently on another machine, but some of the basic IO (such as rendering the text you've just typed in a dialog) to be handled locally.
Lots of factors here. Power stations are a lot more efficient than internal combustion engines but you lose a lot through recharging a battery. Roughly 70% of US power is generated by fossil fuels (20% by gas which produces less CO2 than coal). Electric cars do have the advantage of losing practically no energy when stopped, and have regenerative braking which helps a lot. The net result is emissions are lower but probably somewhere around 50% rather than zero emission.
There is another benefit that the pollution is generated a lot further away from residential areas.
Maybe I was a bit irritable. But really I wasn't trying to suggest that the attempt to ban games was reasonable. Just that thinking it's bad for children to be playing these games is a fair enough position, even if the only reason to consider it bad is that their parents don't like it. You don't really need a study for that.
Now, it's true that this is ultimately up to the parents. But it's also beneficial to everyone to educate the parents and to give them the tools to help make their decisions. Without a few people telling us how disgusting and depraved the games we love are it's possible that the industry wouldn't have added ratings.
Please cite the study that comes to that conclusion. Be specific as to the age range the studies includes.
I did a straw poll around my office. People agreed that GTA 4 is great fun but not a kid's game. Ages typically 23-40. A couple of fathers. All involved in game development.
Even if there is no long term harm, some people think it's bad for children to be playing violent games in and of itself.
Children are probably not going to be harmed by most media images, especially if they have enough exposure, but I'm not going to encourage a very young child to watch The Exorcist, or hard core porn, or even the news.
So, unless you have a study that says it's harmful to keep violent games away from children, I think that it's entirely up to the parents, and if they don't like their kids playing violent games, they're entitled to their opinion.
It's really a shame that the anti-violent game lobby has someone like JT as a de-facto spokesman.
Ultimately - even if you disagree - they have a reasonable position. i.e. it's generally bad for kids to play violent games. and all reasonable positions should be considered. Having someone who goes off at wild tangents, blames everything on games whether there's any evidence or not and pisses off the entire legal system is not really a good person to have on your side.
If so, is making the materials that the weapons are made from murder?
Is so, is mining the ore that makes the materials that makes the weapons murder?
If so, does it mean that you're a murderer if you recycle a coke can and that ends up in a weapon that kills women and children?
Weapons do have legitimate uses. Only a small minority end up killing the innocent. The 18 year old kids who are "just following orders" are following orders that say "kill people".
The court awarded $480000 in punitive damages. Not millions.
This was to a company that served coffee at a dangerously high temperature. Coffee should be hot, but not so hot that it causes third degree burns. Damages were reduced because it was her fault she spilled it. So in fact, she was charged $40000 for her clumsiness.
The concept of justice requires - at worst - that he be killed.
Any more than that and you're committing an unprovoked crime.
And what makes revenge so morally acceptable anyway? It doesn't benefit anyone. His wife is still dead. Nobody gains from it. Lock him away as a deterrent to other people who might do the same.
There were some nice ideas in that book, many of them fanciful for storytelling reasons. Robert Harris's Enigma is also a rather enjoyable novel, and much stronger on historical accuracy.
This is probably just the providers wanting to prevent people from running a business using a cheap domestic connection. Even then it's generous enough to cover a site serving millions of pages a day.
How about the websites that exist for the common good rather than profit? You're wasting their bandwidth fopr your own benefit. Kinda antisocial don't you think?
Hours, minutes and seconds? Why go for a confusing reuse of names? Swatch Internet time has 1000.beats in a day. Just use a decimal point for more precision.
Okay. As far as obfuscating the concept of who's actually doing the infringing goes, I can see this working. I just got the impression from reading this that they thought this would be entirely legal rather than generally legal in concept, and making it hard to enforce copyright laws.
Binary data can only represent discrete values. As such, a digital recording of a record, or a digitised photograph is only a representation. One of many possible representations of the information. The computer processes a binary representation. The fact that we can represent it in this way does not mean that this representation is what we have copyrighted.
In legal circles, there isn't any concept of "divinely defined". Typically they use the "reasonable person" test. Even though mathematically, an mp3 and an analogue recording of the same song are very different, a reasonable person, when it is explained how these recordings are typically used, would conclude that they are the same tune.
As a rule, you don't copyright the exact data (i.e. the sequence of numbers representing a digital file). You copyright the actual tangible information. Attempting to abstract the law into mathematics is pointless. They are not compatible.
Slashdot Mirror
"Officials also said they feared that although Childs is in jail, he may have enabled a third party to access the system by telephone or other electronic device and order the destruction of hundreds of thousands of sensitive documents."
Or maybe he hasn't. He might have done a lot of other things as well. A few of them are worth investigating but speculating publicly makes them sound a little hysterical.
The other factor is that if a Pentium is fast enough, then there's no need for a faster processor. Real planes don't suffer from frame rate issues.
It's not like using multiple chips represents a substantial saving, even when you're looking at military spec.
And these things are not immune from crashes. They just rely on extremely low downtime so it doesn't matter. Would have thought that resetting every system could still be an inconvenience.
The most recent "wouldn't it be nice if..." I wanted was a proper version of remote desktop. Something a little more like X where the architecture was actually designed to allow windows to be drawn efficiently on another machine, but some of the basic IO (such as rendering the text you've just typed in a dialog) to be handled locally.
Lots of factors here. Power stations are a lot more efficient than internal combustion engines but you lose a lot through recharging a battery. Roughly 70% of US power is generated by fossil fuels (20% by gas which produces less CO2 than coal). Electric cars do have the advantage of losing practically no energy when stopped, and have regenerative braking which helps a lot. The net result is emissions are lower but probably somewhere around 50% rather than zero emission.
There is another benefit that the pollution is generated a lot further away from residential areas.
Maybe I was a bit irritable. But really I wasn't trying to suggest that the attempt to ban games was reasonable. Just that thinking it's bad for children to be playing these games is a fair enough position, even if the only reason to consider it bad is that their parents don't like it. You don't really need a study for that.
Now, it's true that this is ultimately up to the parents. But it's also beneficial to everyone to educate the parents and to give them the tools to help make their decisions. Without a few people telling us how disgusting and depraved the games we love are it's possible that the industry wouldn't have added ratings.
So you think that it's fine to give Manhunt 2 to a 5 year old?
Do you also consider it unreasonable that some parents don't want their children playing such a game?
Or that we have ratings telling parents what ages games are suitable for?
I'm not defending laws that mandate how parents should raise kids here. Just that some people don't like their own kids playing violent games.
Would there have been any studies into the effect of video game violence without people saying they're bad.
As it turns out, the evidence suggests that the harm is minimal to non-existent, but it's nice to know.
Please cite the study that comes to that conclusion. Be specific as to the age range the studies includes.
I did a straw poll around my office. People agreed that GTA 4 is great fun but not a kid's game. Ages typically 23-40. A couple of fathers. All involved in game development.
Even if there is no long term harm, some people think it's bad for children to be playing violent games in and of itself. Children are probably not going to be harmed by most media images, especially if they have enough exposure, but I'm not going to encourage a very young child to watch The Exorcist, or hard core porn, or even the news.
So, unless you have a study that says it's harmful to keep violent games away from children, I think that it's entirely up to the parents, and if they don't like their kids playing violent games, they're entitled to their opinion.
It's really a shame that the anti-violent game lobby has someone like JT as a de-facto spokesman.
Ultimately - even if you disagree - they have a reasonable position. i.e. it's generally bad for kids to play violent games. and all reasonable positions should be considered. Having someone who goes off at wild tangents, blames everything on games whether there's any evidence or not and pisses off the entire legal system is not really a good person to have on your side.
Interesting. Jupiter's gravity is only about 2.5x Earth's. so a 2lb Laptop would only be about 5lb there.
Is making weapons murder?
If so, is making the materials that the weapons are made from murder?
Is so, is mining the ore that makes the materials that makes the weapons murder?
If so, does it mean that you're a murderer if you recycle a coke can and that ends up in a weapon that kills women and children?
Weapons do have legitimate uses. Only a small minority end up killing the innocent. The 18 year old kids who are "just following orders" are following orders that say "kill people".
The court awarded $480000 in punitive damages. Not millions.
This was to a company that served coffee at a dangerously high temperature. Coffee should be hot, but not so hot that it causes third degree burns. Damages were reduced because it was her fault she spilled it. So in fact, she was charged $40000 for her clumsiness.
The concept of justice requires - at worst - that he be killed.
Any more than that and you're committing an unprovoked crime.
And what makes revenge so morally acceptable anyway? It doesn't benefit anyone. His wife is still dead. Nobody gains from it. Lock him away as a deterrent to other people who might do the same.
I agree.
In addition, I really don't think it's a good idea to hand over the punishment system to criminals.
There were some nice ideas in that book, many of them fanciful for storytelling reasons. Robert Harris's Enigma is also a rather enjoyable novel, and much stronger on historical accuracy.
This is probably just the providers wanting to prevent people from running a business using a cheap domestic connection. Even then it's generous enough to cover a site serving millions of pages a day.
How about the websites that exist for the common good rather than profit? You're wasting their bandwidth fopr your own benefit. Kinda antisocial don't you think?
Well, of course! You need silver strings and a bow made from unicorn hair.
The judge is a moron.
All they need is a count of views of each video. Something that is already available directly from the site!
Hours, minutes and seconds? Why go for a confusing reuse of names? Swatch Internet time has 1000 .beats in a day. Just use a decimal point for more precision.
Perhaps, but it's rather hard to feel that he was that hard done by when he didn't really have much of a concept of personal property rights.
Okay. As far as obfuscating the concept of who's actually doing the infringing goes, I can see this working. I just got the impression from reading this that they thought this would be entirely legal rather than generally legal in concept, and making it hard to enforce copyright laws.
Binary data can only represent discrete values. As such, a digital recording of a record, or a digitised photograph is only a representation. One of many possible representations of the information. The computer processes a binary representation. The fact that we can represent it in this way does not mean that this representation is what we have copyrighted.
In legal circles, there isn't any concept of "divinely defined". Typically they use the "reasonable person" test. Even though mathematically, an mp3 and an analogue recording of the same song are very different, a reasonable person, when it is explained how these recordings are typically used, would conclude that they are the same tune.
As a rule, you don't copyright the exact data (i.e. the sequence of numbers representing a digital file). You copyright the actual tangible information. Attempting to abstract the law into mathematics is pointless. They are not compatible.