Privacy outside of a building is not constitutionally mandated. Walking on the street? Anyone can take pictures of you - media, gov't, private citizens and you have zero privacy claims. There is no expectation of privacy when you leave the protection of a building.
But as soon as an individual points a camera at this aircraft, you can bet that police will be telling them they're not allowed to do it, that they must delete the photos, or arresting them on some terrorism charge (at least, that's what would happen in the UK).
It's as if objects, buildings and so on have more of an expectation of privacy than individuals do...
I think it's hard to generalise from this poor data. Anyhow, I thought that plenty of women played WoW? I'm not sure if there are any actual stats on this.
An obvious point is that there's also the selection bias, in that this only measures teenagers who are sent to this boot camp. For example, it wouldn't surprise me if girls who spend too much time on chat programmes are more likely to be seen as a problem by their parents, than boys who do so (what with all the fear and scaremongering that an adult might be preying on their precious daughter).
Although yes, I don't disagree that it's indicative of our society. At least one gender role is being broken here in that girls are (presumably) treated the same as boys at this "boot camp".
On another note, I love that their so-called "addiction" to playing fictional combat games is going to be "treated" by making them wear military uniforms, learn military drill, and learn how to fight for real. Nice one.
And as for those whose "addiction" was chatting online, forcing them to fight seems entirely inappropriate and unhelpful (and would surely do far more harm to their social skills).
If you treated heroin addiction by sending them to a boot camp, rather than doing what is medically and scientific considered to be most effective, I'd disagree with that too.
And I can't believe you compared spending too much time on the Internet, to heroin addiction. Next time you post, perhaps you'll like to show me the scientific references that show these kids were physically addicted to the Internet? Thanks.
If one of my sons developed an Addiction that I could not help him with I would also seek eternal help.
Unless you are qualified medically, I hope that you wouldn't be diagnosing him with addiction yourself.
The question is - if you suspected your child had a problem, would you seek medical help, or would you cart him off to some "boot camp" where they treat his desire to play combat games by making him learn to fight, and improve his social skills by telling him to shut up and have a drill sergeant shout at him all day?
Yes, Jesus Camps are bad too. Other crap exists isn't an argument.
Indeed - it's like those news stories of people who can't "survive" two weeks without Internet. This ignores that the Internet is fast becoming essential in modern living. How many people before the Internet would survive without TV or phone for two weeks?
Not true, there are all sorts of things that parents cannot do to their children. Just because they're parents, doesn't mean people have to accept abuse.
Just because it's done by an institution, rather than an individual, doesn't make it acceptable.
This notion of comparing teens who use the Internet, to teens who spend their time in gyms, going out in public all day chatting to people, is a false dichotomy. Consider the majority of teens who, before the Internet, simply stayed at home, and rarely socialised outside of schooltime. Did we have boot camps for them?
The fact that WoW is not "useful" is beside the point. It's meant to be a leisure activity.
And how useful is bootcamp, btw, for someone who has no interest in joining the army? How will having "Drill sergeants shout orders" at them improve their social skills for real life? How much opportunity will there be to practice their mathematics, when they're getting woken up at 6.20am to dress up in uniforms and march around, and learn how to fight?
Shooting things in a game is bad, but learning to kill people for real is acceptable?
How useful is posting to Slashdot? Shall we off you to boot camp?
Spending 6 hours a day doing something does not make it an addiction.
Right - and how many of those kids are there after being diagnosed with addiction, and how many are there as result of their parents thinking they are "spending too much time on the Internet"? (Or perhaps also, poor grades at school, even though they may be unrelated to Internet addiction.)
And where is the scientific consensus that these "boot camps" are a good way to treat so-called "Internet addiction"?
Spending time talking to people in Azeroth is not as socially healthy as talking to people face to face. It's healthier than spending time in front of a tv or book.
Exactly - we don't have boot camps for people who "have their head stuck in a book all day".
Kids probably aren't paying for the Internet connection
Read his post. It's not "not having an Internet connection" that takes away their rights, it's being forced to go to boot camp.
and they do not have the rights of an adult
The fact that children do not have rights such as voting etc doesn't mean that this is justified. Indeed, things are very inconsistent - normally when it comes to anything done by an individual that might remotely harm, scare or upset a child, children are held up as being one of society's treasured possessions (and indeed, plenty of YRO stories are about some nonsense being done in the name of "saving the children").
Yet when the abuse is done by the state, whether it's school strip searches or boot camps, suddenly that's seen as okay (and not just China - I recall some worrying stories about teens being sent to places in the US, where they are subject to abuse that if it were done by a parent or family friend, it would be seen as child abuse, but done by an institution, it's perfectly acceptable).
The addiction is hurting their intellectual and social progress.
Well, we're both here sitting on Slashdot. Is our progress hurt? I'd probably count as "addicted" to the Internet if you went by raw hours, but only in the same sense that people were previously "addicted" to watching TV, listening to the radio, reading books, spending time in the pub.
The argument about social progress is dubious, since these kids are playing online games and chatting. Even if you claim it's not as good as real life, that's irrelevant - before the Internet, these kids weren't out socialising in public, they were sitting at home watching TV.
Americans send their fat kids to boot camp.
All part of the same problem. "Other crap exists" is hardly a ringing endorsement.
(Well actually, I've always loved the Amiga - but the point is I'm not expecting to see a story on Slashdot about it these days, and if there was, you can bet there'd be all the "whocares/letitdie/deadhorse" comments. Why should an old OS like MacOS be any different, especially when Apple themselves moved on years ago?)
I see that the mods-who-can't-stand-any-criticism of Apple have already got to you (although I'm not sure why even they would defend MacOS - come on, even Apple themselves ditched it and had to replace it with something that was up to the job).
It's not about who's "gonna be on your back about it" - this isn't about school and the dog eating your homework. It's about people who want to try and do their work.
If I can't do work (either at business, or for pleasure), I'm not annoyed because "someone might be on my back about it", I'm annoyed because I can't do the work.
Given that three astronauts died when Apollo 1 caught fire even on the ground, I'm not sure that more deaths back then would have stopped things.
Challenger and especially Columbia were much later - when the national desire to go into space had already diminished, and I'd argue that the lack of desire was the cause of the reaction to these deaths, not the other way round.
Don't worry - in a year or two, Apple will finally release a netbook, and then we can hear people branding Google OS as being "An Apple nEtbOok [or whatever it'll be called] killer".
Like OS X is just "Next with a custom GUI on the front end"?
Obviously we'll have to wait and see what they release. But I fail to see how starting from an existing OS means that they aren't bringing anything new, or that they're relying on marketing. And even better, they'll be giving their new OS back to the open source community.
Unless this offers any real advantage I won't move to it even it I purchase a netbook with it I would probably format and load Ubuntu on it.
Right, but to be blunt, those of us who do this are such a minority that I doubt Google are worried about that factor. The competition is Windows 7 (and perhaps to a lesser degree, netbooks that are shipping with Linux preinstalled).
Not just Linux - I want one that doesn't suck on Windows!
(As of a recent version, the plug in crashes, taking out my browser. So I have to use IE - and now websites like YouTube have the cheek to tell me I should use a "modern" browser. I would if they used a standard that didn't crash on a modern browser!)
I'd argue that you're comparing fundamentally different things. Consider, clearly graphics aren't important for a story - I can enjoy reading a book. Similarly there are comic books where the graphics clearly aren't realstic. But if I'm watching a story in the form of a film, it detracts from the experience if the props are made of cardboard, and the characters are played by bad actors, who are wearing obviously false beards.
So just as with books and comics, there are plenty of examples of games that can be enjoyable with no or unrealistic graphics, such as puzzle games or rogue-like games. But when you're playing something like an FPS, that is meant to provide a first person viewpoint, I think some level of realism is important in the way that it is with films.
Would an FPS work with either text, or unrealistic iconic graphics? I'm not sure it would work as well.
Of course, then there's the issue of cartoon-style rendering - unrealistic, but to do it well still requires decent 3D engines and good hardware to run it on.
And an obvious point is that whilst books and comics, and I imagine some styles of games with non-realistic graphics (e.g., puzzle games) still sell well, you don't tend to see films or FPS games that sell well with unrealistic years old graphics. So I'd argue that bringing up the example of rogue games is no more relevant than the example of a book - you need to show me an example of modern day FPS games with poor graphics.
Indeed, and once upon a time, IE would actually start up a separate process for every window you open. Funny how things come full circle...
(No doubt someone will claim a difference between "tab" and "window", but the difference is basically a UI thing, affecting whether they take up one task bar window or several.)
A few years ago, people were claiming that it was Firefox that caused Microsoft to start updating IE again - amusing to now see it the other way round...
Slashdot Mirror
Privacy outside of a building is not constitutionally mandated. Walking on the street? Anyone can take pictures of you - media, gov't, private citizens and you have zero privacy claims. There is no expectation of privacy when you leave the protection of a building.
But as soon as an individual points a camera at this aircraft, you can bet that police will be telling them they're not allowed to do it, that they must delete the photos, or arresting them on some terrorism charge (at least, that's what would happen in the UK).
It's as if objects, buildings and so on have more of an expectation of privacy than individuals do...
I think it's hard to generalise from this poor data. Anyhow, I thought that plenty of women played WoW? I'm not sure if there are any actual stats on this.
An obvious point is that there's also the selection bias, in that this only measures teenagers who are sent to this boot camp. For example, it wouldn't surprise me if girls who spend too much time on chat programmes are more likely to be seen as a problem by their parents, than boys who do so (what with all the fear and scaremongering that an adult might be preying on their precious daughter).
Although yes, I don't disagree that it's indicative of our society. At least one gender role is being broken here in that girls are (presumably) treated the same as boys at this "boot camp".
On another note, I love that their so-called "addiction" to playing fictional combat games is going to be "treated" by making them wear military uniforms, learn military drill, and learn how to fight for real. Nice one.
And as for those whose "addiction" was chatting online, forcing them to fight seems entirely inappropriate and unhelpful (and would surely do far more harm to their social skills).
With your second paragraph, you're skirting the issue.
You're the one skirting the issue, by setting up a false dichotomy.
Do they send kids to boot camp for simply not going to the gym? If not, what's so special about using the Internet when they are at home?
Is it a better social experience to speak
Is it a better social experience to not speak, whilst some stranger yells orders in your face?
If you treated heroin addiction by sending them to a boot camp, rather than doing what is medically and scientific considered to be most effective, I'd disagree with that too.
And I can't believe you compared spending too much time on the Internet, to heroin addiction. Next time you post, perhaps you'll like to show me the scientific references that show these kids were physically addicted to the Internet? Thanks.
If one of my sons developed an Addiction that I could not help him with I would also seek eternal help.
Unless you are qualified medically, I hope that you wouldn't be diagnosing him with addiction yourself.
The question is - if you suspected your child had a problem, would you seek medical help, or would you cart him off to some "boot camp" where they treat his desire to play combat games by making him learn to fight, and improve his social skills by telling him to shut up and have a drill sergeant shout at him all day?
Yes, Jesus Camps are bad too. Other crap exists isn't an argument.
Indeed - it's like those news stories of people who can't "survive" two weeks without Internet. This ignores that the Internet is fast becoming essential in modern living. How many people before the Internet would survive without TV or phone for two weeks?
Not true, there are all sorts of things that parents cannot do to their children. Just because they're parents, doesn't mean people have to accept abuse.
Just because it's done by an institution, rather than an individual, doesn't make it acceptable.
This notion of comparing teens who use the Internet, to teens who spend their time in gyms, going out in public all day chatting to people, is a false dichotomy. Consider the majority of teens who, before the Internet, simply stayed at home, and rarely socialised outside of schooltime. Did we have boot camps for them?
The fact that WoW is not "useful" is beside the point. It's meant to be a leisure activity.
And how useful is bootcamp, btw, for someone who has no interest in joining the army? How will having "Drill sergeants shout orders" at them improve their social skills for real life? How much opportunity will there be to practice their mathematics, when they're getting woken up at 6.20am to dress up in uniforms and march around, and learn how to fight?
Shooting things in a game is bad, but learning to kill people for real is acceptable?
How useful is posting to Slashdot? Shall we off you to boot camp?
Spending 6 hours a day doing something does not make it an addiction.
Right - and how many of those kids are there after being diagnosed with addiction, and how many are there as result of their parents thinking they are "spending too much time on the Internet"? (Or perhaps also, poor grades at school, even though they may be unrelated to Internet addiction.)
And where is the scientific consensus that these "boot camps" are a good way to treat so-called "Internet addiction"?
Spending time talking to people in Azeroth is not as socially healthy as talking to people face to face. It's healthier than spending time in front of a tv or book.
Exactly - we don't have boot camps for people who "have their head stuck in a book all day".
Kids probably aren't paying for the Internet connection
Read his post. It's not "not having an Internet connection" that takes away their rights, it's being forced to go to boot camp.
and they do not have the rights of an adult
The fact that children do not have rights such as voting etc doesn't mean that this is justified. Indeed, things are very inconsistent - normally when it comes to anything done by an individual that might remotely harm, scare or upset a child, children are held up as being one of society's treasured possessions (and indeed, plenty of YRO stories are about some nonsense being done in the name of "saving the children").
Yet when the abuse is done by the state, whether it's school strip searches or boot camps, suddenly that's seen as okay (and not just China - I recall some worrying stories about teens being sent to places in the US, where they are subject to abuse that if it were done by a parent or family friend, it would be seen as child abuse, but done by an institution, it's perfectly acceptable).
The addiction is hurting their intellectual and social progress.
Well, we're both here sitting on Slashdot. Is our progress hurt? I'd probably count as "addicted" to the Internet if you went by raw hours, but only in the same sense that people were previously "addicted" to watching TV, listening to the radio, reading books, spending time in the pub.
The argument about social progress is dubious, since these kids are playing online games and chatting. Even if you claim it's not as good as real life, that's irrelevant - before the Internet, these kids weren't out socialising in public, they were sitting at home watching TV.
Americans send their fat kids to boot camp.
All part of the same problem. "Other crap exists" is hardly a ringing endorsement.
I'm not sure that "robust" is a word I'd use for an OS lacking memory protection.
As for only running a single app, the rest of the computing world moved away from that model in the 80s.
Indeed. Maybe next there'll be an Amiga port.
(Well actually, I've always loved the Amiga - but the point is I'm not expecting to see a story on Slashdot about it these days, and if there was, you can bet there'd be all the "whocares/letitdie/deadhorse" comments. Why should an old OS like MacOS be any different, especially when Apple themselves moved on years ago?)
I see that the mods-who-can't-stand-any-criticism of Apple have already got to you (although I'm not sure why even they would defend MacOS - come on, even Apple themselves ditched it and had to replace it with something that was up to the job).
Yeah right, and Apple didn't make an OS, it was just a "windowing environment for Next".
It's not about who's "gonna be on your back about it" - this isn't about school and the dog eating your homework. It's about people who want to try and do their work.
If I can't do work (either at business, or for pleasure), I'm not annoyed because "someone might be on my back about it", I'm annoyed because I can't do the work.
Given that three astronauts died when Apollo 1 caught fire even on the ground, I'm not sure that more deaths back then would have stopped things.
Challenger and especially Columbia were much later - when the national desire to go into space had already diminished, and I'd argue that the lack of desire was the cause of the reaction to these deaths, not the other way round.
(And therefore demonstrating the stereotype that people buy Macs for the looks...)
Fifteen seconds spent in the preferences makes XP look perfectly fine for me.
Don't worry - in a year or two, Apple will finally release a netbook, and then we can hear people branding Google OS as being "An Apple nEtbOok [or whatever it'll be called] killer".
I read that as "Giggle".
Like OS X is just "Next with a custom GUI on the front end"?
Obviously we'll have to wait and see what they release. But I fail to see how starting from an existing OS means that they aren't bringing anything new, or that they're relying on marketing. And even better, they'll be giving their new OS back to the open source community.
Unless this offers any real advantage I won't move to it even it I purchase a netbook with it I would probably format and load Ubuntu on it.
Right, but to be blunt, those of us who do this are such a minority that I doubt Google are worried about that factor. The competition is Windows 7 (and perhaps to a lesser degree, netbooks that are shipping with Linux preinstalled).
Not just Linux - I want one that doesn't suck on Windows!
(As of a recent version, the plug in crashes, taking out my browser. So I have to use IE - and now websites like YouTube have the cheek to tell me I should use a "modern" browser. I would if they used a standard that didn't crash on a modern browser!)
$25,000 per year.
Just think - at the going rate of $1.92 million for 24 mp3s, this will entitle the radio station to play approximately 0.3 of an mp3 per year.
I'd argue that you're comparing fundamentally different things. Consider, clearly graphics aren't important for a story - I can enjoy reading a book. Similarly there are comic books where the graphics clearly aren't realstic. But if I'm watching a story in the form of a film, it detracts from the experience if the props are made of cardboard, and the characters are played by bad actors, who are wearing obviously false beards.
So just as with books and comics, there are plenty of examples of games that can be enjoyable with no or unrealistic graphics, such as puzzle games or rogue-like games. But when you're playing something like an FPS, that is meant to provide a first person viewpoint, I think some level of realism is important in the way that it is with films.
Would an FPS work with either text, or unrealistic iconic graphics? I'm not sure it would work as well.
Of course, then there's the issue of cartoon-style rendering - unrealistic, but to do it well still requires decent 3D engines and good hardware to run it on.
And an obvious point is that whilst books and comics, and I imagine some styles of games with non-realistic graphics (e.g., puzzle games) still sell well, you don't tend to see films or FPS games that sell well with unrealistic years old graphics. So I'd argue that bringing up the example of rogue games is no more relevant than the example of a book - you need to show me an example of modern day FPS games with poor graphics.
Indeed, and once upon a time, IE would actually start up a separate process for every window you open. Funny how things come full circle...
(No doubt someone will claim a difference between "tab" and "window", but the difference is basically a UI thing, affecting whether they take up one task bar window or several.)
Competition is good, I guess.
A few years ago, people were claiming that it was Firefox that caused Microsoft to start updating IE again - amusing to now see it the other way round...
Gamedev might be a better place to find people to work with - either advertising yourself, or looking for a project to join.
(Just beware of the "I've got a great idea for a MMORPG, it's gonna make millions, who wants to write it for me?" posts.)