"Probably because most of what you see is pretty much free to us. You get what you pay for.
I'm not sure that's purely a function of "teh interweb," since Gamespot in particular sells premium accounts to turn off the ads. Meanwhile print media is *completely* advertiser funded. The subscription fee you pay only covers a meager portion of the costs for, and is only maintained because, IIRC, giving out the publications for free tends to lower their credibility and, in turn, their readership. When the readership declines, the advertising tends to dry up as well.
There are exceptions -- I couldn't find a subscription to Astronomy magazine for less than $42, a price which certainly compensates them beyond shipping costs, and scientific journals of course are largely subscriber funded -- but in general the credibility that goes along with a subscription fee is worth more than the actual dollars they receive.
I haven't seen a whole lot of slanted reviews. The last issue of CGW I picked up, for example, had only 2 out of 7 games that scored an 8 out of 10. They seem to be fairly straightfoward about the shortcomings of games, and most were rated as 5 out of 10. Likewise, while Gamespot does a LOT of promotional stuff, A) it caters to their viewers, and B) it doesn't seem to affect their reviews. Often their reviews are actually lower than the player reviews, although it's difficult to say why that is. The three obvious possibilities are that the players believe the games to be better than the reviewers, the ballots are stuffed, or people just don't like to admit that they paid for crap. Probably a mixture of all three.
To be sure there are reviews I don't agree with, but I can't even recall the last time I saw a game that got great reviews on average, but actually sucked. I wasn't at all impressed by Half Life 2, which got the highest reviews in recent memory, but a lot of people enjoyed it immensely so I think the reviews accurately reflected most people's perceptions of the game.
At any rate, I mostly judge games for myself, but bad reviews have more of an impact on me than good reviews, and I tend to steer clear of games with a 6 or below rating (or equivelant). I don't expect someone else's opinion of what they like to necessarily match my own, but what they dislike (bugs, poor controls, etc) usually coincides with my own views.
Pfft.. most people know better than to buy the first model or major revision of a car. It may not be as impressive 2-3 years later, but it will almost definately be more reliable. That's generally true of any manufactured product, from TVs to refrigerators. It's simply not cost effective to perform exhaustive testing of products on the scale necessary to achieve 0 defects. You test the important stuff, put the product out, and fix it when problem reports start coming back. Sometimes you get lucky and nothing goes wrong, but it doesn't usually work out that way. That's why the warranty has become a staple of the modern marketplace.
Buildings, on the other hand, are rigorously inspected to find faults before people use them, and yes, there are frequently problems which need to be corrected, and occasionally problems which go undetected. Just search for cracked foundation, for example. And that's why we have home insurance.
Windows will offer you a discount on a fully working version if you tell them where you bought the illegitimate copy. I think the only catch is that they have to be able to contact the merchant, which can be difficult when it was sold out of the back of an old Proton.
Hacks may solve this particular instance for a select group of people temporarily, but it does not solve the overall problem of, nor do anything to dissuade the shift toward, "trusted computing." Only significant rejection by the marketplace will change Microsoft's mind, while hacks will be regarded as thorns in their side and eventually the vulnerabilities will be patched.
When President Clinton was in office, he signed legislation that makes it far easier for highly irresponsible people to permanent lose custody of their children. I wish more people who voted republican were aware of this fact.
Between having a sociopath who has no problem lying, to having a good kid make a mistake once that could ruin the rest of their life...
Well those are really two discinct problems, neither of which are "solved" by permanent monitoring.
1) The child should not have the opportunity to make "that big" of a mistake, depending on age. A 16 year-old will obviously be capable of making bigger mistakes than a 10 year-old, but that's just how it goes. They're also capable of meeting some guy at the mall and sneaking off into his van. Preparing kids for situations in advance is the only real solution. But back to the point: if agreeing to meet someone from online is a mistake (which I would argue is just about the only thing that could be potentially prevented by monitoring), that would be curbed by simply asking about where the kid is going and who they're seeing. If they're honest, then the potential mistake has been averted.
2) If the child is intentionally deceptive, then they *will* find a way around it if they're motivated enough. Taking away the motivation -- through incentives, punishment, and of course explaining why -- is the only real "solution." Monitoring may catch it the *first time*, or maybe even the second or third, but the fact is that some people/kids are determined to find out that the stove is hot, and nothing can you do will prevent it.
I do agree that occasionally verifying that a child is telling the truth is beneficial, but a permanently overbearing arrangement doesn't benefit anyone in the long run.
I'm disinclined to agree with the idea that youth are that susceptible to harm from exposure to "inappropriate" content or behavior, especially when a physical seperation (such as the internet) is present. I see the merit behind the argument, and I empathize with the legitimate desire to protect kids, but it relies on the fallacies that children/teens do not have adequate coping mechanisms and/or are better off in ignorance.
The fact is that children are better able to adapt to new events and information than adults are, provided that they have a stable home environment. That's because everything is new to them. Of course they need guidance and assistance along the way, but the new experiences in and of themselves are not destructive. On the contrary, without exposure to these experiences, kids may have difficulty dealing with things later in life. In regard to alcohol and drugs, for example, most parents realize that their children will be exposed to these things no matter what they do, therefore they preemptively explain the effects, potential consequences, what choice they believe is best, and how to deal with pressure from other kids/peers (which is often significantly higher than any potential pressure that might be exerted online, I might add -- indeed most people have an easier time being confrontational in the pseudoanonymity of the internet than they do in real life).
Likewise with sexual misconduct, both online and in the real world. When I was in first grade, some kid brought a Polaroid to school and convinced some other kids to go in the coat room and take pictures of their privates. While I have no idea what sparked this behavior (although in retrospect it was possibly indicative of serious misconduct at home), I do recall that several children willingly complied in innocence (aka IGNORANCE), until one child finally told the teacher because her parents had told her that it was naughty to take off her clothes in front of strangers. The two key things, I believe, to learn from this experience are that most of the kids were woefully unprepared for the real world by their parents, and that regardless of their behavior, the kids were probably no worse off for the experience. Of course we all got a lecture afterwards, but it shouldn't have been an afterthought. Sexuality is an innate part of our existance, and shamefully pretending that it doesn't exist doesn't benefit our children in any way; rather it merely produces another generation of shameful adults.
The point is that regardless of your views on the morality of ANY issue, if children are ignorant of the basic facts, then that is the sole greatest danger. Protecting them 24/7 is neither possible nor healthy. Of course parents should be involved in their children's activities, and ask questions about what they're doing, who they're talking to, etc., but kids are people too, and they need some amount of privacy (based on age, demonstrated responsibility, past behavior, etc). Yes, people on the internet, as in real life, CAN be dangerous, but the internet has the added safety feature that it's fairly anonymous. Teach kids to maintain their anonymity, to tell you if someone is asking/telling/showing them something inappropriate, and they'll be better off. Of course, if you have no bond or trust with your child (and 24/7 monitoring isn't exactly a great way to generate trust), or if your child has repeatedly demonstrated willful disregard for instruction, then by all means -- monitor them day and night. But really, that should be a last resort, not a primary consideration.
Actually it's facing quite a bit of opposition in the Senate, even from key Republicans such as John Warner and John McCain, and isn't likely to pass before Congress recesses. (Must be nice to have a job that has 3+ months of paid vacation.) Even if it were to pass, there's a good chance the Supreme Court would consider it unconstitutional. Unfortunately that means someone actually has to appeal a case all the way up to the S.C., but I guess that's the necessary cost of maintaining adequate seperation of powers. At any rate, I would be surprised if this law passes -- not that I believe Congress incapable of making such a blunder, but rather due to the current state of affairs in the Senate.
Don't let that discourage you from calling/writing/faxing/e-mailing your Senator though. "The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment." -- Robert Maynard Hutchins
The reader being surreptitiously carried by the American-tourist-targeting mugger/kidnapper/whatever in whatever foreign country you're going to won't be.
I was as shocked as you will probably be when you read this, when I found out that Florida is not, in fact, a foreign country.
I know I tried three times, and failed three times to put Vista (Beta2 and RC1) on VPC and failed three times.
Well look on the bright side: You only tried three times, but you failed six times! That's a 100% net gain in results over effort. If we can find a way to harness your failure, we might be able to use you to power our cities.
Not entirely.. I'd heard the same thing, so I tried copying a few new US bills and a 10 euro bill on my new HP Photosmart. They scanned fine, printed fine, and straight color-copied perfectly. I even put the printouts under a black light and filtered red/yellow/green lights to look for unusual patterns or spots, but I found nothing out of the ordinary (although it's possible I missed something of course). The copies were very convincing, nonetheless you'd have to be pretty stupid to try to pass off one of those as an actual bill. The surface of the printed image is obviously completely smooth, unlike a real bill, so it doesn't seem like much of a counterfeiting risk. Someone could probably get away with it once or twice by hiding one of the copies in a stack of bills, but if they made it a habit, they'd definately get caught pretty quickly.
Undoubtedly it varies by manufacturer, but it doesn't seem like HP has jumped on the anti-idiot-counterfeiting bandwagon.. yet.
Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of taxing (if for no other reason than roads might clear up for ME as people start carpooling and cutting back on travel), but I think it's foolish to believe that the money will come out of the oil companies' pockets. I mean let's be honest here -- ~20% of the cost of gas is already taxes, and California already has an extra 7.25% gas tax on top of their $.18/gal tax*. The oil companies are not going to accept a smaller profit margin, and the money has to come from somewhere.
Indeed. A small, single die. For perspective, the small gold dot in the corner is actually the top of a construction worker's hat as he proudly admires the finished product.
Except that was one of the two examples given in the article.
"So while driving you can see the GPS navigation your kid at the backseat can enjoy Ace Combat on his PS2 while your wife in the passenger seat checks out tourist sites and restaurants all in full-screen view. Sharp Triple Directional Viewing LCD is also ideal for multipurpose signs in public."
The problem is that the thresholds would be so small -- fractions of a degree -- that you'd have to remain perfectly still and at a specific distance for it to work. (Alternatively, some sort of camera could track your position and adjust the output accordingly, but that doesn't simplify things any from a development standpoint.) The most convenient way to do stereoscopic vision from a technology standpoint is with goggles to present a different image to each eye, however users have shunned such devices, either as filters or displays. It is much, much more difficult to create a flat, stationary display capable of presenting an image to each eye independantly. Additionally, your horizontal resolution would likely be 1/2 of whatever the maximum resolution is currently, so 800 instead of 1600, for example.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, that sounds secure!
"Probably because most of what you see is pretty much free to us. You get what you pay for.
I'm not sure that's purely a function of "teh interweb," since Gamespot in particular sells premium accounts to turn off the ads. Meanwhile print media is *completely* advertiser funded. The subscription fee you pay only covers a meager portion of the costs for, and is only maintained because, IIRC, giving out the publications for free tends to lower their credibility and, in turn, their readership. When the readership declines, the advertising tends to dry up as well.
There are exceptions -- I couldn't find a subscription to Astronomy magazine for less than $42, a price which certainly compensates them beyond shipping costs, and scientific journals of course are largely subscriber funded -- but in general the credibility that goes along with a subscription fee is worth more than the actual dollars they receive.
I haven't seen a whole lot of slanted reviews. The last issue of CGW I picked up, for example, had only 2 out of 7 games that scored an 8 out of 10. They seem to be fairly straightfoward about the shortcomings of games, and most were rated as 5 out of 10. Likewise, while Gamespot does a LOT of promotional stuff, A) it caters to their viewers, and B) it doesn't seem to affect their reviews. Often their reviews are actually lower than the player reviews, although it's difficult to say why that is. The three obvious possibilities are that the players believe the games to be better than the reviewers, the ballots are stuffed, or people just don't like to admit that they paid for crap. Probably a mixture of all three.
To be sure there are reviews I don't agree with, but I can't even recall the last time I saw a game that got great reviews on average, but actually sucked. I wasn't at all impressed by Half Life 2, which got the highest reviews in recent memory, but a lot of people enjoyed it immensely so I think the reviews accurately reflected most people's perceptions of the game.
At any rate, I mostly judge games for myself, but bad reviews have more of an impact on me than good reviews, and I tend to steer clear of games with a 6 or below rating (or equivelant). I don't expect someone else's opinion of what they like to necessarily match my own, but what they dislike (bugs, poor controls, etc) usually coincides with my own views.
Pfft.. most people know better than to buy the first model or major revision of a car. It may not be as impressive 2-3 years later, but it will almost definately be more reliable. That's generally true of any manufactured product, from TVs to refrigerators. It's simply not cost effective to perform exhaustive testing of products on the scale necessary to achieve 0 defects. You test the important stuff, put the product out, and fix it when problem reports start coming back. Sometimes you get lucky and nothing goes wrong, but it doesn't usually work out that way. That's why the warranty has become a staple of the modern marketplace.
Buildings, on the other hand, are rigorously inspected to find faults before people use them, and yes, there are frequently problems which need to be corrected, and occasionally problems which go undetected. Just search for cracked foundation, for example. And that's why we have home insurance.
Here.
ackthpt's Latest of 8060 Comments: "Even I do a little surfing"
He said it was work, not play, as anyone who's ever verbed a MMORPG can verify.
Windows will offer you a discount on a fully working version if you tell them where you bought the illegitimate copy. I think the only catch is that they have to be able to contact the merchant, which can be difficult when it was sold out of the back of an old Proton.
What's a train?
Nuclear waste: Maybe it's not magically dangerous, but it sure as hell is magically delicious.
Yes and no.
Hacks may solve this particular instance for a select group of people temporarily, but it does not solve the overall problem of, nor do anything to dissuade the shift toward, "trusted computing." Only significant rejection by the marketplace will change Microsoft's mind, while hacks will be regarded as thorns in their side and eventually the vulnerabilities will be patched.
When I was a kid, the only video game episodes we had were photosensitive episodes.
And we LIKED IT.
We are.
- Highly irresponsible Republicans
Between having a sociopath who has no problem lying, to having a good kid make a mistake once that could ruin the rest of their life...
Well those are really two discinct problems, neither of which are "solved" by permanent monitoring.
1) The child should not have the opportunity to make "that big" of a mistake, depending on age. A 16 year-old will obviously be capable of making bigger mistakes than a 10 year-old, but that's just how it goes. They're also capable of meeting some guy at the mall and sneaking off into his van. Preparing kids for situations in advance is the only real solution. But back to the point: if agreeing to meet someone from online is a mistake (which I would argue is just about the only thing that could be potentially prevented by monitoring), that would be curbed by simply asking about where the kid is going and who they're seeing. If they're honest, then the potential mistake has been averted.
2) If the child is intentionally deceptive, then they *will* find a way around it if they're motivated enough. Taking away the motivation -- through incentives, punishment, and of course explaining why -- is the only real "solution." Monitoring may catch it the *first time*, or maybe even the second or third, but the fact is that some people/kids are determined to find out that the stove is hot, and nothing can you do will prevent it.
I do agree that occasionally verifying that a child is telling the truth is beneficial, but a permanently overbearing arrangement doesn't benefit anyone in the long run.
I'm disinclined to agree with the idea that youth are that susceptible to harm from exposure to "inappropriate" content or behavior, especially when a physical seperation (such as the internet) is present. I see the merit behind the argument, and I empathize with the legitimate desire to protect kids, but it relies on the fallacies that children/teens do not have adequate coping mechanisms and/or are better off in ignorance.
The fact is that children are better able to adapt to new events and information than adults are, provided that they have a stable home environment. That's because everything is new to them. Of course they need guidance and assistance along the way, but the new experiences in and of themselves are not destructive. On the contrary, without exposure to these experiences, kids may have difficulty dealing with things later in life. In regard to alcohol and drugs, for example, most parents realize that their children will be exposed to these things no matter what they do, therefore they preemptively explain the effects, potential consequences, what choice they believe is best, and how to deal with pressure from other kids/peers (which is often significantly higher than any potential pressure that might be exerted online, I might add -- indeed most people have an easier time being confrontational in the pseudoanonymity of the internet than they do in real life).
Likewise with sexual misconduct, both online and in the real world. When I was in first grade, some kid brought a Polaroid to school and convinced some other kids to go in the coat room and take pictures of their privates. While I have no idea what sparked this behavior (although in retrospect it was possibly indicative of serious misconduct at home), I do recall that several children willingly complied in innocence (aka IGNORANCE), until one child finally told the teacher because her parents had told her that it was naughty to take off her clothes in front of strangers. The two key things, I believe, to learn from this experience are that most of the kids were woefully unprepared for the real world by their parents, and that regardless of their behavior, the kids were probably no worse off for the experience. Of course we all got a lecture afterwards, but it shouldn't have been an afterthought. Sexuality is an innate part of our existance, and shamefully pretending that it doesn't exist doesn't benefit our children in any way; rather it merely produces another generation of shameful adults.
The point is that regardless of your views on the morality of ANY issue, if children are ignorant of the basic facts, then that is the sole greatest danger. Protecting them 24/7 is neither possible nor healthy. Of course parents should be involved in their children's activities, and ask questions about what they're doing, who they're talking to, etc., but kids are people too, and they need some amount of privacy (based on age, demonstrated responsibility, past behavior, etc). Yes, people on the internet, as in real life, CAN be dangerous, but the internet has the added safety feature that it's fairly anonymous. Teach kids to maintain their anonymity, to tell you if someone is asking/telling/showing them something inappropriate, and they'll be better off. Of course, if you have no bond or trust with your child (and 24/7 monitoring isn't exactly a great way to generate trust), or if your child has repeatedly demonstrated willful disregard for instruction, then by all means -- monitor them day and night. But really, that should be a last resort, not a primary consideration.
Actually it's facing quite a bit of opposition in the Senate, even from key Republicans such as John Warner and John McCain, and isn't likely to pass before Congress recesses. (Must be nice to have a job that has 3+ months of paid vacation.) Even if it were to pass, there's a good chance the Supreme Court would consider it unconstitutional. Unfortunately that means someone actually has to appeal a case all the way up to the S.C., but I guess that's the necessary cost of maintaining adequate seperation of powers. At any rate, I would be surprised if this law passes -- not that I believe Congress incapable of making such a blunder, but rather due to the current state of affairs in the Senate.
Don't let that discourage you from calling/writing/faxing/e-mailing your Senator though. "The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment." -- Robert Maynard Hutchins
The reader being surreptitiously carried by the American-tourist-targeting mugger/kidnapper/whatever in whatever foreign country you're going to won't be.
I was as shocked as you will probably be when you read this, when I found out that Florida is not, in fact, a foreign country.
I know I tried three times, and failed three times to put Vista (Beta2 and RC1) on VPC and failed three times.
Well look on the bright side: You only tried three times, but you failed six times! That's a 100% net gain in results over effort. If we can find a way to harness your failure, we might be able to use you to power our cities.
Gotta love the high octane humor.
Not entirely.. I'd heard the same thing, so I tried copying a few new US bills and a 10 euro bill on my new HP Photosmart. They scanned fine, printed fine, and straight color-copied perfectly. I even put the printouts under a black light and filtered red/yellow/green lights to look for unusual patterns or spots, but I found nothing out of the ordinary (although it's possible I missed something of course). The copies were very convincing, nonetheless you'd have to be pretty stupid to try to pass off one of those as an actual bill. The surface of the printed image is obviously completely smooth, unlike a real bill, so it doesn't seem like much of a counterfeiting risk. Someone could probably get away with it once or twice by hiding one of the copies in a stack of bills, but if they made it a habit, they'd definately get caught pretty quickly.
Undoubtedly it varies by manufacturer, but it doesn't seem like HP has jumped on the anti-idiot-counterfeiting bandwagon.. yet.
Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of taxing (if for no other reason than roads might clear up for ME as people start carpooling and cutting back on travel), but I think it's foolish to believe that the money will come out of the oil companies' pockets. I mean let's be honest here -- ~20% of the cost of gas is already taxes, and California already has an extra 7.25% gas tax on top of their $.18/gal tax*. The oil companies are not going to accept a smaller profit margin, and the money has to come from somewhere.
y sis_publications/primer_on_gasoline_prices/html/pe tbro.html
* http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/anal
Indeed. A small, single die. For perspective, the small gold dot in the corner is actually the top of a construction worker's hat as he proudly admires the finished product.
See above.
Except that was one of the two examples given in the article.
"So while driving you can see the GPS navigation your kid at the backseat can enjoy Ace Combat on his PS2 while your wife in the passenger seat checks out tourist sites and restaurants all in full-screen view. Sharp Triple Directional Viewing LCD is also ideal for multipurpose signs in public."
The problem is that the thresholds would be so small -- fractions of a degree -- that you'd have to remain perfectly still and at a specific distance for it to work. (Alternatively, some sort of camera could track your position and adjust the output accordingly, but that doesn't simplify things any from a development standpoint.) The most convenient way to do stereoscopic vision from a technology standpoint is with goggles to present a different image to each eye, however users have shunned such devices, either as filters or displays. It is much, much more difficult to create a flat, stationary display capable of presenting an image to each eye independantly. Additionally, your horizontal resolution would likely be 1/2 of whatever the maximum resolution is currently, so 800 instead of 1600, for example.