I swear our congress-people need some education. Have they commisioned any study on this yet? They shouldn't be allowed to just abitrarily make up laws. Do they think this will really affect things? What about cartoons? They have MANY violent acts per MINUTE, similar to video games.
I'm sure video games can affect some of the personality (have you seen 5 year olds playing a violent video game? Even with out bloodiness), But I think laws limiting this are rediculous. By the time a kid will purchase this stuff themselves they will be of an age where they know the difference between fantasy and reality.
I'm not sure how I stand on this. Movies are already regulated, though I'm not sure of the mechanics, and if/how it applies to movie rentals. The ratings better be similar though - a PG and PG-13 can have LOTS of murder and death in it, as long as it's now shown with blood, and not in a humanistic manner. (Personally, I think it should be the other way around - by trivializing it, it makes it less important, if it was gorey and dramatically, maybe people would be more sensitive to it, trivializing it should require a higher age).
Anyways, my 2 cents. In a way, it makes this more the parents responsibility, because the parent would have to buy it from the "minor" (and in a day where "minors" can be bumped up to "adult" court so easilly, this makes little sense to me as well)
They want to squash our Fair Use, so as a "comprimise" include a rider bill that requires any producer of physical content that does not allow fair use to require a 100% replacement gaurentee within 7 days of notification for the length of the copyright on the content (100 years now??).
This would be fair since it puts as much burdon on the associations of "content providers" as it does to the whole technology sector. Maybe some will then see how obsurd the whole thing is since they already have a good amount of protection.
Personally, I'd find pornographic email coming from a priest funny even if there was no church coverup. In fact, I didn't even -think- of the whole child molestation until the above post mentioning it.
As far as your analogy goes, comparing it to a bad racial joke is imappropriate. Comparing it to a Democrat sending a "Vote republican!" might be more comparative.
There may come a point where we can remove lots of our own humanity at will (emotionally driven problems, obsessive/compulsive behavior, etc), but when we reach that time it will be no different then Prosac.
The technological side could change society a little however. Technology will help medical conditions a lot (blindness, etc), but imagine the other possibilities! As humans, we make a lot of use of tools, and soon we will beable to patch those tools right into our nervous system.
To some this may sound scarey, but, imagine how much safer driving could be if you had an extra "sense" for your blind spot? Or how much better a Dr could operate if he could "feel" the end of the scalple. Rescue workers (and construction workers!) could have much better control over cranes, digging equipment, etc.
Augmented humans won't be all that amazing when the time comes, no more then skilled labor is now.
Wasn't this a problem with a previous court order? Didn't Judge Jackson order MS to make an IE-less version of windows, and allow OEMs to strip it?
If I remember, they complied with a "broken" windows, but later fixed it, but in the end, no one ordered it.
The big OEMs would never do order a stripped version - It would cause too much problem from there customers when they get it home and realize its not "the real" windows. It wouldn't work with 100% of "windows" applications anymore due to missing things.
I think as far as remedies go, they need to force MS to open up file systems, protocols, and possibly interoperable COM components, to allow (among other things) other browsers (Netscape) to be made to take IE's rendering & embedding place.
A while back there was all these studies and experiments about duplicating light beams. I recall mentions of quantum entanglment and such (stuff that's used in these secure quantum transmision schemes).
Could one of these duplication beams be used w/out being detected? I know normal reception and retransmission IS detectable.
I think Joy missed the point (intentionally?) on this.
C#, while it will be used in place of Java I'm sure, is also intended for typical application programming. Just because the language supports *clearly marked* "unsafe" (as in, the programmer is able to shoot-himself-in-foot) coding practices, does not mean that IE will allow controls that require that feature to run.
Furthermore, From what I read of C#, it is not intended to run purely by VM,and that it is -always- compiled before executing to avoid Java's slowness. Just because SOME features of Java were taken (of which, Java took most from C++!), that does not mean it has the same intention.
Last I knew, Solaris was written in C and assembly, both of which require pointer use to get very far. Is he implying that those are unsafe and insecure?
Better yet, WHAT are you comparing MONO to? Java? Well, there's lots of complains about Java out there..NET's intermediat langauge is intended to be compiled into native code, for one thing. C# has lots of nice development features that Java is sorely lacking. HOW can anyone fix Java when Sun is in official control of it, and is always late in implementing features? (And then does such things 1/2 way?) Yes, Java performs better then C/C++ in some situations, but most of those situations are lacking real-world features, like a fast/native-looking GUI.
Mono does Not need to be compatable with Windows in order to be a success. This was mentioned in the reply. The concepts, and the basic language of C# can't be bastardized by MS since it's already been submitted for standardization. They can add things to future versions, but how is that different then the HUNDREDS of C/C++ compiler problems out there?
Mono and the CLI will offer an easier development envirionment, allowing developers to use the best tool for the job w/out worrying about cross-language bindings. It will allow developers to easilly change from Window's C# to Mono's C# (Even if they can't use some specific language feature!). It will be a success when completed in it's own right, no matter what happens w/the MS implementation because it is good technology.
(just conjecture, I'm not suggesting this is the way it -is-, just a slim chance that it is the way it may-be)
I know that may sound crazy, but look at the.NET stuff. The have submitted it for standardization, and must even supply a working implementation in something other then Windows.
I know that part probably just includes things for server-side.NET services (And "hello world" programs), but I'm sure the runtime libararies will eventually be copied. Once those are done developers will soon be using that exclusively anyway, and getting (more) portability 'for free' since it's standardized.
In fact, the company working on a Linux.NET (name escapes me) is planning on building the windowing framework too.
After a time, MS will still be there, but only to collect monthly/yearly fees for MS Office (which will be DLed and installed over the net), MSN, email, and other net-based services. It may not matter whether you run MS Windows, or a *nix, since to interoperate with others you'll need.NET subscription.
Of course, it may not turn out anyway like that.. I just don't see the motive in standardizing something that will only benifit themselves.
I think there are some good points in the 'review'. Rarely does someone make enough noise when a company does wrong like this.
In a sense there is some poetic justice - bad publicity, and decreased sales from installation problems, because they were too concerned about losing money over piracy.
Also, I find it in very bad taste to release a game, saying it supports specific hardware, and then including in the Readme, that a patch will be available to make it work with said-card. Very poor.
Can't blame the review companies though - they get prerelease, and are only concerned with the -game-, not the requirements, or problems.
Slashdot Mirror
I swear our congress-people need some education. Have they commisioned any study on this yet? They shouldn't be allowed to just abitrarily make up laws. Do they think this will really affect things? What about cartoons? They have MANY violent acts per MINUTE, similar to video games.
I'm sure video games can affect some of the personality (have you seen 5 year olds playing a violent video game? Even with out bloodiness), But I think laws limiting this are rediculous. By the time a kid will purchase this stuff themselves they will be of an age where they know the difference between fantasy and reality.
I'm not sure how I stand on this. Movies are already regulated, though I'm not sure of the mechanics, and if/how it applies to movie rentals. The ratings better be similar though - a PG and PG-13 can have LOTS of murder and death in it, as long as it's now shown with blood, and not in a humanistic manner. (Personally, I think it should be the other way around - by trivializing it, it makes it less important, if it was gorey and dramatically, maybe people would be more sensitive to it, trivializing it should require a higher age).
Anyways, my 2 cents. In a way, it makes this more the parents responsibility, because the parent would have to buy it from the "minor" (and in a day where "minors" can be bumped up to "adult" court so easilly, this makes little sense to me as well)
They want to squash our Fair Use, so as a "comprimise" include a rider bill that requires any producer of physical content that does not allow fair use to require a 100% replacement gaurentee within 7 days of notification for the length of the copyright on the content (100 years now??).
This would be fair since it puts as much burdon on the associations of "content providers" as it does to the whole technology sector. Maybe some will then see how obsurd the whole thing is since they already have a good amount of protection.
Personally, I'd find pornographic email coming from a priest funny even if there was no church coverup. In fact, I didn't even -think- of the whole child molestation until the above post mentioning it.
As far as your analogy goes, comparing it to a bad racial joke is imappropriate. Comparing it to a Democrat sending a "Vote republican!" might be more comparative.
Actually, isn't is Hasbro now?
I agree totally w/the parent post.
There may come a point where we can remove lots of our own humanity at will (emotionally driven problems, obsessive/compulsive behavior, etc), but when we reach that time it will be no different then Prosac.
The technological side could change society a little however. Technology will help medical conditions a lot (blindness, etc), but imagine the other possibilities! As humans, we make a lot of use of tools, and soon we will beable to patch those tools right into our nervous system.
To some this may sound scarey, but, imagine how much safer driving could be if you had an extra "sense" for your blind spot? Or how much better a Dr could operate if he could "feel" the end of the scalple. Rescue workers (and construction workers!) could have much better control over cranes, digging equipment, etc.
Augmented humans won't be all that amazing when the time comes, no more then skilled labor is now.
Wasn't this a problem with a previous court order?
Didn't Judge Jackson order MS to make an IE-less version of windows, and allow OEMs to strip it?
If I remember, they complied with a "broken" windows, but later fixed it, but in the end, no one ordered it.
The big OEMs would never do order a stripped version - It would cause too much problem from there customers when they get it home and realize its not "the real" windows. It wouldn't work with 100% of "windows" applications anymore due to missing things.
I think as far as remedies go, they need to force MS to open up file systems, protocols, and possibly interoperable COM components, to allow (among other things) other browsers (Netscape) to be made to take IE's rendering & embedding place.
A while back there was all these studies and experiments about duplicating light beams. I recall mentions of quantum entanglment and such (stuff that's used in these secure quantum transmision schemes).
Could one of these duplication beams be used w/out being detected? I know normal reception and retransmission IS detectable.
I think Joy missed the point (intentionally?) on this.
C#, while it will be used in place of Java I'm sure, is also intended for typical application programming. Just because the language supports *clearly marked* "unsafe" (as in, the programmer is able to shoot-himself-in-foot) coding practices, does not mean that IE will allow controls that require that feature to run.
Furthermore, From what I read of C#, it is not intended to run purely by VM,and that it is -always- compiled before executing to avoid Java's slowness. Just because SOME features of Java were taken (of which, Java took most from C++!), that does not mean it has the same intention.
Last I knew, Solaris was written in C and assembly, both of which require pointer use to get very far. Is he implying that those are unsafe and insecure?
WHAT are you talking about??
.NET's intermediat langauge is intended to be compiled into native code, for one thing. C# has lots of nice development features that Java is sorely lacking. HOW can anyone fix Java when Sun is in official control of it, and is always late in implementing features? (And then does such things 1/2 way?) Yes, Java performs better then C/C++ in some situations, but most of those situations are lacking real-world features, like a fast/native-looking GUI.
Better yet, WHAT are you comparing MONO to? Java? Well, there's lots of complains about Java out there.
Mono does Not need to be compatable with Windows in order to be a success. This was mentioned in the reply. The concepts, and the basic language of C# can't be bastardized by MS since it's already been submitted for standardization. They can add things to future versions, but how is that different then the HUNDREDS of C/C++ compiler problems out there?
Mono and the CLI will offer an easier development envirionment, allowing developers to use the best tool for the job w/out worrying about cross-language bindings. It will allow developers to easilly change from Window's C# to Mono's C# (Even if they can't use some specific language feature!). It will be a success when completed in it's own right, no matter what happens w/the MS implementation because it is good technology.
The article mentions the miniture turbines being much more efficient - could this help in making better hydroelectric or wind-based power generators?
A massive array of these on a windmill, or next to a dam would not have heat issues.
(just conjecture, I'm not suggesting this is the way it -is-, just a slim chance that it is the way it may-be)
.NET stuff. The have submitted it for standardization, and must even supply a working implementation in something other then Windows.
.NET services (And "hello world" programs), but I'm sure the runtime libararies will eventually be copied. Once those are done developers will soon be using that exclusively anyway, and getting (more) portability 'for free' since it's standardized.
.NET (name escapes me) is planning on building the windowing framework too.
.NET subscription.
I know that may sound crazy, but look at the
I know that part probably just includes things for server-side
In fact, the company working on a Linux
After a time, MS will still be there, but only to collect monthly/yearly fees for MS Office (which will be DLed and installed over the net), MSN, email, and other net-based services. It may not matter whether you run MS Windows, or a *nix, since to interoperate with others you'll need
Of course, it may not turn out anyway like that.. I just don't see the motive in standardizing something that will only benifit themselves.
I don't think that would go over well. Can anyone explain a difference to me? Or would the U.S. accept this arrest without problem?
In a sense there is some poetic justice - bad publicity, and decreased sales from installation problems, because they were too concerned about losing money over piracy.
Also, I find it in very bad taste to release a game, saying it supports specific hardware, and then including in the Readme, that a patch will be available to make it work with said-card. Very poor. Can't blame the review companies though - they get prerelease, and are only concerned with the -game-, not the requirements, or problems.