I see other uses for this bandwidth than traditional cell phones. Navigation and search go hand and hand. I see this being more for search and teaming up with the car makers. Forget DVD updates and all that mess. Not only that but it could monitor where you drive at all times. Not for spying "But but it could be used for that" but for routing. By seeing how local people get from point a to point b Google can find the optimum routes. Then you add in real time traffic monitoring based on vehicle speed an location and your all set. Next step is to provide "entertainment" live video and audio feeds to replace XM radio and your DVD system for the kids. What about Google TV? Google is an advertising company so having Google TV is logical.
"Is the fact that dynamic datastructures (lists, hashes) are native, so programmers don't have to worry about mundane memory address and pointer nonsense." I guess you haven't used STL. I have not used Perl for a while but when I did I would have called it a scripting language. It just didn't lend it's self to large programs. Python looks like it is better for large tasks but I haven't had time to get into it. Perl and PHP are what I consider the crescent wrenches of programing. Not the best tool but just too useful to not have.
You are using the slippery slope argument which just isn't valid. We don't let kids own guns, drive cars, sign contracts, buy tobacco, buy alcohol, go to strip clubs, or any number of other activities that adults do. I don't see how enforcing the rating codes we already have is any different or any more of a threat to liberty.
"Seriously... something HAS to be healthy or constructive to be legal now?" No the harm of something should out way the benfit of something for it to be restricted. And what makes me crazy is that no one is talking about making violent media illegal. I simply said that more research should be done and if it is proven to be harmful then it may be wise to impose restrictions to limit children's exposure to it. I never said it should be illegal for adults.
"It wouldn't surprise me the least that people's reaction to violence is measurable precisely in the part of the brain that controls the inhibition of violence. As others have pointed out - it makes perfect sense from an evolutionary perspective. Or would you rather have people not reacting to violence at all?" But that doesn't mean that it is a good thing.
I wonder about the physical as well as they emotional impact of some of the latest and greatest video games. Being put under constant stress is harmful to both physical and emotional health. Simulations can cause the same physical effects that real life does. Talk to any pilot that has flown in a good simulator. So what is the effect of constant simulation of stressful events on children? To not look at these questions because you may not like the answers is not good science or even logical.
"(and no, a slightly higher proclivity toward violent behavior immediately involving exposure to such materials does not constitute "harm"... and certainly not the kind of long-term harm that would warrant government intervention on behalf of public health or safety)." That is called an opinion. Such a discussion should then shift to the benefit to risk values. Just what benefit does unrestricted access to violent media to minors offer? Well profit to the media companies, lower cost of violent media to adults. I do think that if an Adult wants to buy it for their kid that should be legal like it is fine to take a child to an R movie. BTW in the UK and many places in the EU violent video games are illegal.
Okay what about the limitation of minors owning guns? Minors driving? And I am not limiting it to just games but also movies. The current system in theaters is really a bad joke. There are also limits on things like playboys and other adult maqs. What is funny is people seem to say that if it doesn't stop everyone it isn't helpful. Well murder, rape, and breaking and entering are also illegal and they all still happen. As for busting kids for a copy of Quake? No but then I don't think kids should be busted for position of alcohol or tobacco. I think any store caught selling alcohol or tobacco to a minor with out asking for an id should be fined $10,000 for the first offense. For the second offense they loose the right to sell any tobacco or alcohol at that location for one year. Third offense is 10 years. The stores are committing the crime IMHO not the minors. The law should prohibit the supplying not purchase of. Trust me if they made those laws it would be really hard to find a store that would sell to a minor.
You better read more. http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=39871 It does mention the FAILURE of carding for selling tobacco as a major problem. And it shows a drop in tobacco use since stronger restrictions on tobacco advertising kicked in the mid 90s. Of course it would be interesting to see what the tobacco use was when there was unrestricted advertising. "What can I say, I understand my rights. If that makes me predictable, then I'll take it over the fascist you are." No you are being a mindless drone. I am not saying that adults should be restricted from access to violent media so I am not taking away any adults rights. If it is proven scientifically that it is harmful then I don't have problems with stronger controls on violent media. Hardly a fascist stance. No more fascist than requiring that children get there parents permission to go on a field trip, get a tattoo, or surgery. And no different that restrictions on minors buying firearms, ammunition, alcohol, or tobacco.
As far as being a fascist well I would say that you don't know what fascist is.
"Prohibition doesn't work." Funny it seems that it works pretty well for Tobacco. Not perfectly and it took restricting advertising as well as sales as well as education about the dangers of smoking. I think you will find that it isn't perfect but it does help when you are talking about minors.
"It's not the media companies "freedom flag waving", it's FREEDOM, PERIOD. That you aren't smart enough to understand that doesn't change it."
Hook, line, and sinker.. And the drones do exactly as expected...
You need to develop a sense of humor. or to put it simply DUH!!!!! "And it doesn't make me violet and well beat the crap out of the anyone that says different." I was making a joke. I made the statement that I played video games and that they didn't make me violent... Then I say that if you disagree with me I will take a violent action... It was a joke and a comment that many people will say that because they play Doom or Quake that they can dismiss this study. Which is as you stated simply not true.
I have no idea what your beliefs are so no it isn't an attack on your beliefs. I attack creation science based the fact that it is really bad science and full of lies. I find them really disturbing because I am a Christian and go to church every Sunday. One of my deepest beliefs is only the truth serves the Lord and all lies are evil. Except if your wife asks if that dress makes her look fat. Then LIE if needed. Of course I never need to.
And if the results of the study are that violent media is harmful then why not restrict young people's access to it just like alcohol and tobacco? People say that parents should control what there kids watch and play but then why restrict tobacco and alcohol? Shouldn't parents control what kids drink and smoke? The media companies don't want any real restrictions because just like the Tobacco companies all they care about is money. Any pretense that they care about freedom is just spin. Hey I like to play Quake just as much as the next person but how the fanboys on Slashdot fall for media compaines freedom flag waving for profit just makes me nuts.
I am saying that you are stating a result of an experiment that hasn't been done. And that you are selecting that result based on your desire. In other words anti-science. I am interested in what the results would be. Is a very realistic simulation of violence going to have a greater impact than abstract violence? So maybe Daffy Duck getting his bill blown off by a shotgun blast has less of an effect than watching Saving Private Ryan. Or does watching Saving Private Ryan have less of an effect than playing Call of Duty? Or does Call of Duty have less of an effect than playing Doom3? And are teenagers which have been shown to have a more impulsive nature than adults more affected?
To say that you already know what the result is as I said anti-science.
If you read the article you will see that the change was in the part of the brain that controls the inhibition of violence. It is also not the first study that has show a connection between violent media and aggressive behavior. So you feel that study is flawed because you don't like the results.
"At some point the video game violence issue is the same as whether we as a country should have laws banning homosexual activity, and whether we should ban alcohol consumption. Do we want freedom or an authoritarian state?"
Umm... We restrict the sale of alcohol to minors don't we? That Freedom or an authoritarian state line is just over the top. So you DON"T want the research done because you may not like the answer... How open minded and scientific.
Hummm so you are perfectly willing to state the result of an experiment before that experiment is conducted. Do you work for the Creation Science Institute?
Try this experiment. Got to your local bookstore. Check the size of the New Age, alternative medicine, and astrology sections to the science section. Look at your local newspaper. Does it have an astrology section? Does it have an astronomy section? Even on Slashdot how many people will dismiss the story on violent media having a measurable effect on the human brain? Scientists are not believable because they tell the truth. People don't want to truth. They want firm answers. The truth is full of things like "unlikley" and "probably".
"Making the laws:"We must ban these images...Think of the Children"" Yea looked what happened with tobacco... A bunch of nut jobs decided it was harmful now a 12 year old can't legally buy a pack of smokes. And if studies show that excessively violent media is harmful to children should it just be ignored?
And I thought that I was the only one that read that... I liked how the "Green Revolution" was a plan of the CIA's to drive the people from the countryside in to that shanty towns to provide a cheap labor source for the muli-nationals.
Actually a few use sunbeams and hand cranks. Look up QRP. Some QRP operators use rigs that use less than 1 watt of power. Simple hand crank gensets and or solar panels will provide more than enough power for a QRP operator to get out.
"Minix was just a tool he used to write the "first" Linux 0.1 and yes Linus wrote ALL of the first "release" of Linux(tm)(the kernel). He used many other peoples programs on top of the OS to make the "distro", which did not exist for a long time." Yes but that was a LONG time before the SCO lawsuit. The current Linux Kernel has code from many different people. The huh was more about the "Didn't Linus Torvalds build Linux from scratch, based upon Minix?" the from scratch based on Minix line just makes my head hurt.
"Didn't Linus Torvalds build Linux from scratch, based upon Minix?" Huhh??? Linus Torvalds didn't write Linux at least he didn't write Linux as we all know it. Many people have contributed code including Caldera which is now known as SCO! SCO claimed that IBM put Code that SCO owned into Linux. SCO also claimed that they owned any work that IBM did on the Monterey project and they claimed that IBM had no right to with draw from the Monterey project. BTW Linus didn't build Linux. I did at least the Linux on my PC:)
Slashdot Mirror
I see other uses for this bandwidth than traditional cell phones.
Navigation and search go hand and hand.
I see this being more for search and teaming up with the car makers. Forget DVD updates and all that mess. Not only that but it could monitor where you drive at all times. Not for spying "But but it could be used for that" but for routing.
By seeing how local people get from point a to point b Google can find the optimum routes. Then you add in real time traffic monitoring based on vehicle speed an location and your all set. Next step is to provide "entertainment" live video and audio feeds to replace XM radio and your DVD system for the kids.
What about Google TV?
Google is an advertising company so having Google TV is logical.
True but I don't think most people would really enjoy a ballistic arc.
Now for next day or same day ship cargo this could be useful.
"Is the fact that dynamic datastructures (lists, hashes) are native, so programmers don't have to worry about mundane memory address and pointer nonsense."
I guess you haven't used STL.
I have not used Perl for a while but when I did I would have called it a scripting language. It just didn't lend it's self to large programs. Python looks like it is better for large tasks but I haven't had time to get into it.
Perl and PHP are what I consider the crescent wrenches of programing.
Not the best tool but just too useful to not have.
You are using the slippery slope argument which just isn't valid. We don't let kids own guns, drive cars, sign contracts, buy tobacco, buy alcohol, go to strip clubs, or any number of other activities that adults do.
I don't see how enforcing the rating codes we already have is any different or any more of a threat to liberty.
"Seriously... something HAS to be healthy or constructive to be legal now?"
No the harm of something should out way the benfit of something for it to be restricted.
And what makes me crazy is that no one is talking about making violent media illegal. I simply said that more research should be done and if it is proven to be harmful then it may be wise to impose restrictions to limit children's exposure to it.
I never said it should be illegal for adults.
"It wouldn't surprise me the least that people's reaction to violence is measurable precisely in the part of the brain that controls the inhibition of violence. As others have pointed out - it makes perfect sense from an evolutionary perspective. Or would you rather have people not reacting to violence at all?"
But that doesn't mean that it is a good thing.
I wonder about the physical as well as they emotional impact of some of the latest and greatest video games.
Being put under constant stress is harmful to both physical and emotional health. Simulations can cause the same physical effects that real life does. Talk to any pilot that has flown in a good simulator.
So what is the effect of constant simulation of stressful events on children?
To not look at these questions because you may not like the answers is not good science or even logical.
"(and no, a slightly higher proclivity toward violent behavior immediately involving exposure to such materials does not constitute "harm"... and certainly not the kind of long-term harm that would warrant government intervention on behalf of public health or safety)."
That is called an opinion.
Such a discussion should then shift to the benefit to risk values.
Just what benefit does unrestricted access to violent media to minors offer? Well profit to the media companies, lower cost of violent media to adults. I do think that if an Adult wants to buy it for their kid that should be legal like it is fine to take a child to an R movie.
BTW in the UK and many places in the EU violent video games are illegal.
Well that is useful.
Okay what about the limitation of minors owning guns? Minors driving? And I am not limiting it to just games but also movies. The current system in theaters is really a bad joke. There are also limits on things like playboys and other adult maqs.
What is funny is people seem to say that if it doesn't stop everyone it isn't helpful.
Well murder, rape, and breaking and entering are also illegal and they all still happen.
As for busting kids for a copy of Quake? No but then I don't think kids should be busted for position of alcohol or tobacco.
I think any store caught selling alcohol or tobacco to a minor with out asking for an id should be fined $10,000 for the first offense. For the second offense they loose the right to sell any tobacco or alcohol at that location for one year. Third offense is 10 years.
The stores are committing the crime IMHO not the minors. The law should prohibit the supplying not purchase of.
Trust me if they made those laws it would be really hard to find a store that would sell to a minor.
You better read more.
http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=39871
It does mention the FAILURE of carding for selling tobacco as a major problem. And it shows a drop in tobacco use since stronger restrictions on tobacco advertising kicked in the mid 90s. Of course it would be interesting to see what the tobacco use was when there was unrestricted advertising.
"What can I say, I understand my rights. If that makes me predictable, then I'll take it over the fascist you are."
No you are being a mindless drone.
I am not saying that adults should be restricted from access to violent media so I am not taking away any adults rights. If it is proven scientifically that it is harmful then I don't have problems with stronger controls on violent media. Hardly a fascist stance. No more fascist than requiring that children get there parents permission to go on a field trip, get a tattoo, or surgery. And no different that restrictions on minors buying firearms, ammunition, alcohol, or tobacco.
As far as being a fascist well I would say that you don't know what fascist is.
"Prohibition doesn't work."
Funny it seems that it works pretty well for Tobacco. Not perfectly and it took restricting advertising as well as sales as well as education about the dangers of smoking.
I think you will find that it isn't perfect but it does help when you are talking about minors.
"It's not the media companies "freedom flag waving", it's FREEDOM, PERIOD. That you aren't smart enough to understand that doesn't change it."
Hook, line, and sinker.. And the drones do exactly as expected...
You need to develop a sense of humor.
or to put it simply DUH!!!!!
"And it doesn't make me violet and well beat the crap out of the anyone that says different."
I was making a joke. I made the statement that I played video games and that they didn't make me violent... Then I say that if you disagree with me I will take a violent action...
It was a joke and a comment that many people will say that because they play Doom or Quake that they can dismiss this study. Which is as you stated simply not true.
I have no idea what your beliefs are so no it isn't an attack on your beliefs.
I attack creation science based the fact that it is really bad science and full of lies.
I find them really disturbing because I am a Christian and go to church every Sunday. One of my deepest beliefs is only the truth serves the Lord and all lies are evil.
Except if your wife asks if that dress makes her look fat. Then LIE if needed. Of course I never need to.
And if the results of the study are that violent media is harmful then why not restrict young people's access to it just like alcohol and tobacco?
People say that parents should control what there kids watch and play but then why restrict tobacco and alcohol? Shouldn't parents control what kids drink and smoke?
The media companies don't want any real restrictions because just like the Tobacco companies all they care about is money. Any pretense that they care about freedom is just spin.
Hey I like to play Quake just as much as the next person but how the fanboys on Slashdot fall for media compaines freedom flag waving for profit just makes me nuts.
I am saying that you are stating a result of an experiment that hasn't been done. And that you are selecting that result based on your desire. In other words anti-science.
I am interested in what the results would be. Is a very realistic simulation of violence going to have a greater impact than abstract violence?
So maybe Daffy Duck getting his bill blown off by a shotgun blast has less of an effect than watching Saving Private Ryan.
Or does watching Saving Private Ryan have less of an effect than playing Call of Duty?
Or does Call of Duty have less of an effect than playing Doom3?
And are teenagers which have been shown to have a more impulsive nature than adults more affected?
To say that you already know what the result is as I said anti-science.
If you read the article you will see that the change was in the part of the brain that controls the inhibition of violence. It is also not the first study that has show a connection between violent media and aggressive behavior.
So you feel that study is flawed because you don't like the results.
"At some point the video game violence issue is the same as whether we as a country should have laws banning homosexual activity, and whether we should ban alcohol consumption. Do we want freedom or an authoritarian state?"
Umm... We restrict the sale of alcohol to minors don't we?
That Freedom or an authoritarian state line is just over the top. So you DON"T want the research done because you may not like the answer...
How open minded and scientific.
Hummm so you are perfectly willing to state the result of an experiment before that experiment is conducted. Do you work for the Creation Science Institute?
Try this experiment.
Got to your local bookstore. Check the size of the New Age, alternative medicine, and astrology sections to the science section.
Look at your local newspaper. Does it have an astrology section? Does it have an astronomy section?
Even on Slashdot how many people will dismiss the story on violent media having a measurable effect on the human brain?
Scientists are not believable because they tell the truth.
People don't want to truth. They want firm answers.
The truth is full of things like "unlikley" and "probably".
"Making the laws:"We must ban these images...Think of the Children""
Yea looked what happened with tobacco...
A bunch of nut jobs decided it was harmful now a 12 year old can't legally buy a pack of smokes.
And if studies show that excessively violent media is harmful to children should it just be ignored?
And it doesn't make me violet and well beat the crap out of the anyone that says different.
So here is a question. How does it effect younger people?
Or what is the effect if the media is interactive in nature?
I am just waiting to see what excuese the "Video games don't contribute to violence" lobby will have to say about this.
And I thought that I was the only one that read that...
I liked how the "Green Revolution" was a plan of the CIA's to drive the people from the countryside in to that shanty towns to provide a cheap labor source for the muli-nationals.
Actually a few use sunbeams and hand cranks.
Look up QRP. Some QRP operators use rigs that use less than 1 watt of power. Simple hand crank gensets and or solar panels will provide more than enough power for a QRP operator to get out.
"Minix was just a tool he used to write the "first" Linux 0.1 and yes Linus wrote ALL of the first "release" of Linux(tm)(the kernel). He used many other peoples programs on top of the OS to make the "distro", which did not exist for a long time."
Yes but that was a LONG time before the SCO lawsuit.
The current Linux Kernel has code from many different people.
The huh was more about the "Didn't Linus Torvalds build Linux from scratch, based upon Minix?"
the from scratch based on Minix line just makes my head hurt.
"Didn't Linus Torvalds build Linux from scratch, based upon Minix?" :)
Huhh???
Linus Torvalds didn't write Linux at least he didn't write Linux as we all know it.
Many people have contributed code including Caldera which is now known as SCO!
SCO claimed that IBM put Code that SCO owned into Linux. SCO also claimed that they owned any work that IBM did on the Monterey project and they claimed that IBM had no right to with draw from the Monterey project.
BTW Linus didn't build Linux. I did at least the Linux on my PC