forget colors, redesign it.
on
Ready, Aim, HACK!
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
For hunters safety class, you're told to carry binoculars. Sure there's a scope on your rifle, but most things (also read: people) that you want to see up close also run the risk of getting shot.
You get a different vibe when someone is "just looking" at you with binoculars than with a rifle scope. Also, the environment you're in (hunting season) means that the person you'd be aiming at ALSO has a decent weapon and would be very interested in observing you in the same manner. The person reacting would also be more likely to want to "feel safer" while looking.
The picture in the article: he looks like he's holding a chainsaw or a seriously bayonetted rifle. Basically, it LOOKS dangerous.
Point that thing at someone's head (it's for cell phones - right?) and you're ASKING for trouble.
As for painting it bright colors: it would be better to just use a less threatening design - an orange weapon is still a weapon.
tepples writes: The products of a uranium or plutonium fission reaction have less mass than the reactant. The reaction converts some of the mass to heat, that is, it destroys matter and creates an equal amount of heat energy, preserving mass-energy according to Einstein's formula E = m*c^2.
Since you're interchanging the two I should point out that there's a difference between matter and mass.
Matter is preserved. Both sides of the equation need the same material components (protons, neutrons, electrons).
Mass is not preserved. Mass is an observable quality in that a piece of matter will have different masses when at rest versus moving.
If you can create a way to convert matter into energy, then that's something entirely different from fusion/fission nuclear reactions. My perspective is that altering a nuclear bond is just a step above altering a chemical bond and not something conceptually different (both have tangible items pushed together or pulled away from each other with only the energy bonds being converted from one form to another).
No, "2001" doesn't fit entirely. Sure, the movie deals with evolution but I was hinting at something else.
In my original comment, the second sentence carries the weight of the entire post: Now picture the common eyewitness description of "extraterrestrial beings".
What I mean by that sentence is that eyewitness descriptions of ETs typically have common features (human form, large eyes, large head, small frame, etc) which are similar in many ways to those that exist in a human infant/fetus.
The drive of my comment is that the description of ETs and the idea that a drastically evolved human may look like that, allows for the argument that those ETs may be timetravelers investigating their ancestors.
I don't honestly think so (I also doubt the witnesses), but it's an interesting sci-fi type of idea.
So I don't think "2001" fits but I expect that someone else has already explored this idea.
... when the Windows 2000 source code leaked, a person made a BITMAP to exploit the core of the OS, tell me, which is worse?
Although I agree that the bitmap exploit is worse, I think your statement is partially incorrect. You make it sound like the exploit was known only after the source was leaked. However, there's documentation to contradict that.
Since the exploit was discovered (outside MS) over three years prior to the leak, your comment about brute force applies to this one as well.
Two quotes from the article: The following is an account of how one US citizen (we have called him DG) recently lost $1,000 to a UK-based 419 outfit...
and two paragraphs later
The illicit funds were courtesy of one Moser Gilmore, who had sadly died intestate and left the booty sitting around in a European bank, just waiting for a willing partner to claim his share of the loot. The 419ers initially contacted DG purporting to be investigators looking for Gilmore's relatives - a classic approach.
I guess the 'G' in DG = "Gilmore". They don't say what the 'D' represents, though.
The update feature is telling those without a version 0.9.1 that an update exists. This includes 0.9 and 0.9.2 (I just made the.2 install and it still complains).
Also, the webpage that comes up says "Firefox 0.9.1 is the award winning preview of Mozilla's next generation browser...." while the file that's linked on the same page is ".../releases/0.9.2/FirefoxSetup-0.9.2.exe".
Looks like whoever setup the notification system read the wrong number.
I was informed about a critical update by the browser a number of days ago. It was Firefox ver 0.9 on a WinME (yes - WinME; and no - I don't have problems with the system, it's worked well for ~4 years).
The message was very noticeable and appeared in the lower right corner. And my home page isn't http://mozilla.org
If you're a Firefox user, then maybe they do have a problem with notifying users. I'm just saying that they did notify this user.
You post sounds like someone who only plays single-player games. From that POV your post makes complete sense, but this isn't about single-player games.
"Not everyone has fun in the same way." For example, griefers have fun by ruining the fun of others. And cheaters have fun by changing the rules midway through the game.
I ask you to choose a game you really enjoy, play it with either a griefer or cheater, and then TRY to repeat your assertions.
Unfortunately, I'm a bit late and Tablizer probably won't see this.
It should be obviousness that prevents such patents, not so much prior-art. Most software prior art is in the form of trade secrets, not prior patents.
There is a difference between a common language definition and a legal definition. Obviousness has such a distinction wrt the patent office. This is similar to the following: it is an accepted practice to stalk someone during paintball games, but (even though one engages in the activity) that doesn't make the person a stalker (in the legal sense).
If at least 20% of computer-sci graduates with a B or better could implement the functionality being claimed for a patent, then it should be tossed.
This approach reinforces the biggest problem with the USPTO - that a process can be patented.
Businesses did not have the ability to patent a process 100 hundred years ago. Edison introduced the commercial audio recording industry with cylinder storage and, in response, companies competing with Edison developed the more popular disks. If Edison had a patent on the process of recording audio (which was similar between the cylinder and disk), imagine how different the US economy would be today. Most probably, every minor advancement would occur at 17 year intervals - if you're lucky.
Nowadays you can patent something like "multiplying by 2" whether it is implemented with bit shifting or the longhand method taught in grade school or any other approach unconceived by the patent applicant - yet the author owns the process.
There are other problems with the current USPTO (wrt software), but the biggest (and most cliched) one is with awarding patents for "mousetraps" rather than "a better mousetrap".
If humanity does not want to know about science, let them wallow in ignorance. If people insist - despite all pressure to the contrary - on being sheep, let them be sheep.
Here's the problem: these sheep are your neighbors, family and friends. More importantly, they are your fellow citizens. Supposedly, citizens give a representative government its authority.
Lots of somebodys are running around with their agendas and polluting the waters. Many of the sheep will eat whatever they are fed and this group will help establish who governs _you_.
For those that don't want to learn anything, I agree that it's sometimes pointless to try. But not all the sheep are as stubborn. For those, a retraction on page 35 of the newspaper can be significant - especially if they notice an excessive amount in each issue.
The following cliche isn't really in the spirit of my original reply, but I think it's related: My one vote doesn't make a difference, so why bother?
You seem to have fallen into the "How do I make them pay" mode. Get into the "How do I protect the innocent" mode.
Such matters need to be discussed. If anyone hears about the book in the future and wants to research it even lightly, an internet search would probably rank this (and similar discussions debunking it) very high on the list.
Just like the time I got an email about the jdbmgr.exe virus warning.
But if no one says otherwise, then an observer can assume that no one disagrees, or nobody knows.
First, I admit that I haven't been following this topic for a couple of years.
Just to be safe, let's look at a site you won't doubt instead.
The target date set by Congress for the completion of the transition to DTV is December 31, 2006. However, that date may be extended until most homes (85%) in an area are able to watch the DTV programming. At that point, broadcasting on the analog channels will end and that spectrum will be put to other uses.
That answers the question of when phase-out occurs. The broadcasters must already be transmitting digital before 2006. (The other article linked below has a timeline)
And how do they know when the threshold is met? I don't know, but I noticed this little piece: "A broadcaster can also use DTV to provide interactivity and data services that were not possible with analog technology."
On the topic of new sets: Will I Need a New TV?
Your current television will work as it does now until analog broadcasting stops. Under federal law, analog service will continue until DTV service and equipment are widely available. Even after the transition is over, your current TV will not become obsolete. A converter box can be used to receive DTV signals and change them into the format of your current television. Converters for over-the-air broadcasts are available at retail stores.
I'm having a hard time finding these converters through internet searches. If a couple million households will need to buy these, I would assume more interest. The cynic in me is saying that it's probably better business to introduce a customer to a shiny new TV rather than to a small accessory. And from what I've found, the converters are all $100+.
I also noticed this site. The timeline halfway down gives some interesting highlights like: "In November 2001, following the World Trade Center disaster and in consideration of the country's economic downturn, the FCC threw a huge bone to broadcasters with a loosening of the DTV deadlines."
It also mentions some sort of a timetable for when stations needed to comply with transmition, but I don't know what to make of it with statements like: "Financial hardship" may now be an acceptable excuse for missing a deadline.
or will end up HAVING to buy when analog tv goes away. Its just a matter of time for us in America...
From what I've read (example), it's supposed to be within two and half years.
Of course, when the mandate was issued it probably seemed like a feasible idea to those without foresight. But now try getting re-elected when everybody (including the poor) is required to shell out over $1000 as well as dump every single existing analog set in the country just to maintain a previously available service. The waste management costs alone should keep this from ever occurring so suddenly.
This is what was so genius about the introduction of color TV - it worked on top of the then existing B&W signal.
Also consider that TV is a large source of entertainment for the public. Now, what happens when the government suddenly removes it?
I was just trying to use a quick link to a related article so that someone who doesn't have any legal training that happens to be reading this thread may have a clue as to why the court ruled in favor of McDonalds. That's the beauty of providing references. IANAL, but that's something they teach engineers.
I read the case in-depth in lawschool. I'd trust the case (and my memory of it) versus some writer's article about it.
The "I'm right, you're wrong" argument. So, without providing any specifics to the case, that implies (in the context of this conversation) that I should trust your memory. I fear for those who take comments on/. as always being completely trustworthy.
Ugh. I just noticed that your comment (that lacks any information) is now modded "Informative".
from nolo:
For instance, McDonald's was able to prevent the use of the mark McSleep by a motel chain because McSleep traded on the McDonald's reputation for a particular type of service (quick, inexpensive, standardized).
Nothing in the article's paragraph mentions food, just the generalized type of service.
I think the rationalization follows that when a company gets so big, then a customer may think that McDonalds is going into the hotel business - which involves your comment about marketplace confusion. They already use Mc[generic term] quite a bit and few have not heard of the company. At least, that's the way the courts seem to understand it.
E.g., I could legally open an automobile repair facility called McDonalds because consumers would not confuse crappy food with having your car repaired.
You can weaken the strength of a passphrase without the need to train instruments (including your ear) to a specific keyboard.
Portions of passphrases can be easily caught using just the rhythm of key presses.
Try typing "power". Now type "alsowhen".
For an experienced typist (or even someone who uses a specific phrase regularly), when the characters are close together they normally roll their fingers. However, when the characters are on opposite ends of the keyboard, then timing becomes an issue since there's a greater possibility of commiting a typo.
The use of shifted characters can also be distinguished if you can hear a key being depressed without it's immediate release.
Lastly, the space key is generally a dead giveaway due to it's relative size.
This does not work well when the typist is using hunt-and-peck typing, since all the characters would be relatively evenly spaced in time.
If you can narrow down the possible set for just one specific character, you get considerably closer to discovering the entire passphrase. Simply knowing the length of the passphrase reduces the difficulty of the problem.
Timely information during war is priceless. The Allied effort in Africa during WWII was aided considerably with the code-cracking.
True, the English didn't want to expose that they were listening to EVERY conversation - but to not use the info would be foolish.
AFAIK, to hide the fact that they knew everything that was being encrypted, they would establish alibis. Something like sending a surveilance plane during the day to fly near areas where military presence/movement was greatly increasing (just make sure that plane gets NOTICED). That way, the Germans would assume that the English found out because of that damn plane instead of the detailed reports being sent through their cracked channel (which enjoyed continued use).
The German navy was better at security, but it was still based on a mostly broken system. They could have at least randomized the sequence of characters used on the wheels.
I've been trying to do GTA3 with the minimum "people wasted by you" stat which means that I try not to kill innocents OR criminals. You're right, it's VERY HARD.
Whatever anyone says, it's IMPOSSIBLE to finish the game with 0 kills in that stat. The first completely unavoidable one is Mike Lips Last Lunch and there are some missions that require a minimum (like 25 in Trials of Fire). So far, I'm currently at Grand Theft Aero with 52.
Mind you, these are kills credited to you so you could get someone to follow you while you shoot at nearby vehicles that run over the pursuer. That type of kill completes missions, while only affecting the "people wasted by others" stat. There are a number of other ways of avoiding a kill "by you" credit: not causing an explosion, guiding other drivers into water, etc.
I've managed to complete the Taxi, Firetruck and Ambulance missions without any kills, but the Police one is the hardest (though not impossible) since you're required to "eliminate the threat".
Also, there are a few Rampage missions that can be done without killing anyone. The grenade and rocket launcher are easy to pull off since you're only targeting vehicles and can prepare for it in a safe area.
By the way, I just noticed this page which relates to the above and immediately disagree with a couple issues: (1) Taking Out The Laundry can be done by carjacking the trucks and nobody needs to get killed, (2) in game, gang members count as people, so the site's "people wasted" and "wasted by others" counts are incomplete. That is, unless the stat counts are different on console versions.
Slashdot Mirror
For hunters safety class, you're told to carry binoculars. Sure there's a scope on your rifle, but most things (also read: people) that you want to see up close also run the risk of getting shot.
You get a different vibe when someone is "just looking" at you with binoculars than with a rifle scope. Also, the environment you're in (hunting season) means that the person you'd be aiming at ALSO has a decent weapon and would be very interested in observing you in the same manner. The person reacting would also be more likely to want to "feel safer" while looking.
The picture in the article: he looks like he's holding a chainsaw or a seriously bayonetted rifle. Basically, it LOOKS dangerous.
Point that thing at someone's head (it's for cell phones - right?) and you're ASKING for trouble.
As for painting it bright colors: it would be better to just use a less threatening design - an orange weapon is still a weapon.
Since you're interchanging the two I should point out that there's a difference between matter and mass.
-
Matter is preserved. Both sides of the equation need the same material components (protons, neutrons, electrons).
-
Mass is not preserved. Mass is an observable quality in that a piece of matter will have different masses when at rest versus moving.
If you can create a way to convert matter into energy, then that's something entirely different from fusion/fission nuclear reactions. My perspective is that altering a nuclear bond is just a step above altering a chemical bond and not something conceptually different (both have tangible items pushed together or pulled away from each other with only the energy bonds being converted from one form to another).Of course, IANANuclear Physicist.
No, "2001" doesn't fit entirely. Sure, the movie deals with evolution but I was hinting at something else.
In my original comment, the second sentence carries the weight of the entire post: Now picture the common eyewitness description of "extraterrestrial beings".
What I mean by that sentence is that eyewitness descriptions of ETs typically have common features (human form, large eyes, large head, small frame, etc) which are similar in many ways to those that exist in a human infant/fetus.
The drive of my comment is that the description of ETs and the idea that a drastically evolved human may look like that, allows for the argument that those ETs may be timetravelers investigating their ancestors.
I don't honestly think so (I also doubt the witnesses), but it's an interesting sci-fi type of idea.
So I don't think "2001" fits but I expect that someone else has already explored this idea.
If humans look like infant apes, wouldn't a more sophisticated version of humans look like human infants?
Now picture the common eyewitness description of "extraterrestrial beings".
Just an idea I considered a long time ago.
Could you verify this story about Tijuana's accidental zoo?
If true, then your rock is defective.
But that implies that people would have inducement to copy the recordings in the first place.
:)
A lack of content worth copying implies significantly reduced motivation to copy any content - so the RIAA is quite safe here.
... when the Windows 2000 source code leaked, a person made a BITMAP to exploit the core of the OS, tell me, which is worse?
Although I agree that the bitmap exploit is worse, I think your statement is partially incorrect. You make it sound like the exploit was known only after the source was leaked. However, there's documentation to contradict that.
Since the exploit was discovered (outside MS) over three years prior to the leak, your comment about brute force applies to this one as well.
Two quotes from the article:
The following is an account of how one US citizen (we have called him DG) recently lost $1,000 to a UK-based 419 outfit...
and two paragraphs later
The illicit funds were courtesy of one Moser Gilmore, who had sadly died intestate and left the booty sitting around in a European bank, just waiting for a willing partner to claim his share of the loot. The 419ers initially contacted DG purporting to be investigators looking for Gilmore's relatives - a classic approach.
I guess the 'G' in DG = "Gilmore". They don't say what the 'D' represents, though.
The update feature is telling those without a version 0.9.1 that an update exists. This includes 0.9 and 0.9.2 (I just made the .2 install and it still complains).
..." while the file that's linked on the same page is ".../releases/0.9.2/FirefoxSetup-0.9.2.exe".
Also, the webpage that comes up says "Firefox 0.9.1 is the award winning preview of Mozilla's next generation browser.
Looks like whoever setup the notification system read the wrong number.
I was informed about a critical update by the browser a number of days ago. It was Firefox ver 0.9 on a WinME (yes - WinME; and no - I don't have problems with the system, it's worked well for ~4 years).
The message was very noticeable and appeared in the lower right corner. And my home page isn't http://mozilla.org
If you're a Firefox user, then maybe they do have a problem with notifying users. I'm just saying that they did notify this user.
You post sounds like someone who only plays single-player games. From that POV your post makes complete sense, but this isn't about single-player games.
"Not everyone has fun in the same way."
For example, griefers have fun by ruining the fun of others. And cheaters have fun by changing the rules midway through the game.
I ask you to choose a game you really enjoy, play it with either a griefer or cheater, and then TRY to repeat your assertions.
I see a NY Times link without the standard apologies and it doesn't redirect me to a subscription page.
What the hell is going on? Is this really slashdot?
Unfortunately, I'm a bit late and Tablizer probably won't see this.
It should be obviousness that prevents such patents, not so much prior-art. Most software prior art is in the form of trade secrets, not prior patents.
There is a difference between a common language definition and a legal definition. Obviousness has such a distinction wrt the patent office. This is similar to the following: it is an accepted practice to stalk someone during paintball games, but (even though one engages in the activity) that doesn't make the person a stalker (in the legal sense).
If at least 20% of computer-sci graduates with a B or better could implement the functionality being claimed for a patent, then it should be tossed.
This approach reinforces the biggest problem with the USPTO - that a process can be patented.
Businesses did not have the ability to patent a process 100 hundred years ago. Edison introduced the commercial audio recording industry with cylinder storage and, in response, companies competing with Edison developed the more popular disks. If Edison had a patent on the process of recording audio (which was similar between the cylinder and disk), imagine how different the US economy would be today. Most probably, every minor advancement would occur at 17 year intervals - if you're lucky.
Nowadays you can patent something like "multiplying by 2" whether it is implemented with bit shifting or the longhand method taught in grade school or any other approach unconceived by the patent applicant - yet the author owns the process.
There are other problems with the current USPTO (wrt software), but the biggest (and most cliched) one is with awarding patents for "mousetraps" rather than "a better mousetrap".
If humanity does not want to know about science, let them wallow in ignorance. If people insist - despite all pressure to the contrary - on being sheep, let them be sheep.
Here's the problem: these sheep are your neighbors, family and friends. More importantly, they are your fellow citizens. Supposedly, citizens give a representative government its authority.
Lots of somebodys are running around with their agendas and polluting the waters. Many of the sheep will eat whatever they are fed and this group will help establish who governs _you_.
For those that don't want to learn anything, I agree that it's sometimes pointless to try. But not all the sheep are as stubborn. For those, a retraction on page 35 of the newspaper can be significant - especially if they notice an excessive amount in each issue.
The following cliche isn't really in the spirit of my original reply, but I think it's related:
My one vote doesn't make a difference, so why bother?
I seem to understand your post as "Why bother?"
You seem to have fallen into the "How do I make them pay" mode. Get into the "How do I protect the innocent" mode.
Such matters need to be discussed. If anyone hears about the book in the future and wants to research it even lightly, an internet search would probably rank this (and similar discussions debunking it) very high on the list.
Just like the time I got an email about the jdbmgr.exe virus warning.
But if no one says otherwise, then an observer can assume that no one disagrees, or nobody knows.
First, I admit that I haven't been following this topic for a couple of years.
Just to be safe, let's look at a site you won't doubt instead.
The target date set by Congress for the completion of the transition to DTV is December 31, 2006. However, that date may be extended until most homes (85%) in an area are able to watch the DTV programming. At that point, broadcasting on the analog channels will end and that spectrum will be put to other uses.
That answers the question of when phase-out occurs. The broadcasters must already be transmitting digital before 2006. (The other article linked below has a timeline)
And how do they know when the threshold is met? I don't know, but I noticed this little piece:
"A broadcaster can also use DTV to provide interactivity and data services that were not possible with analog technology."
On the topic of new sets:
Will I Need a New TV?
Your current television will work as it does now until analog broadcasting stops. Under federal law, analog service will continue until DTV service and equipment are widely available. Even after the transition is over, your current TV will not become obsolete. A converter box can be used to receive DTV signals and change them into the format of your current television. Converters for over-the-air broadcasts are available at retail stores.
I'm having a hard time finding these converters through internet searches. If a couple million households will need to buy these, I would assume more interest. The cynic in me is saying that it's probably better business to introduce a customer to a shiny new TV rather than to a small accessory. And from what I've found, the converters are all $100+.
I also noticed this site. The timeline halfway down gives some interesting highlights like:
"In November 2001, following the World Trade Center disaster and in consideration of the country's economic downturn, the FCC threw a huge bone to broadcasters with a loosening of the DTV deadlines."
It also mentions some sort of a timetable for when stations needed to comply with transmition, but I don't know what to make of it with statements like:
"Financial hardship" may now be an acceptable excuse for missing a deadline.
However, all dates listed there are before 2006.
or will end up HAVING to buy when analog tv goes away. Its just a matter of time for us in America...
From what I've read (example), it's supposed to be within two and half years.
Of course, when the mandate was issued it probably seemed like a feasible idea to those without foresight. But now try getting re-elected when everybody (including the poor) is required to shell out over $1000 as well as dump every single existing analog set in the country just to maintain a previously available service. The waste management costs alone should keep this from ever occurring so suddenly.
This is what was so genius about the introduction of color TV - it worked on top of the then existing B&W signal.
Also consider that TV is a large source of entertainment for the public. Now, what happens when the government suddenly removes it?
You should ask for this instead.
It just seems more appropriate.
I was just trying to use a quick link to a related article so that someone who doesn't have any legal training that happens to be reading this thread may have a clue as to why the court ruled in favor of McDonalds. That's the beauty of providing references. IANAL, but that's something they teach engineers.
/. as always being completely trustworthy.
I read the case in-depth in lawschool. I'd trust the case (and my memory of it) versus some writer's article about it.
The "I'm right, you're wrong" argument. So, without providing any specifics to the case, that implies (in the context of this conversation) that I should trust your memory. I fear for those who take comments on
Ugh. I just noticed that your comment (that lacks any information) is now modded "Informative".
Thanks for trolling. I'm done with this thread.
from nolo:
For instance, McDonald's was able to prevent the use of the mark McSleep by a motel chain because McSleep traded on the McDonald's reputation for a particular type of service (quick, inexpensive, standardized).
Nothing in the article's paragraph mentions food, just the generalized type of service.
I think the rationalization follows that when a company gets so big, then a customer may think that McDonalds is going into the hotel business - which involves your comment about marketplace confusion. They already use Mc[generic term] quite a bit and few have not heard of the company. At least, that's the way the courts seem to understand it.
E.g., I could legally open an automobile repair facility called McDonalds because consumers would not confuse crappy food with having your car repaired.
VERY bad example.
Please research "McSleep Inn".
You can weaken the strength of a passphrase without the need to train instruments (including your ear) to a specific keyboard.
Portions of passphrases can be easily caught using just the rhythm of key presses.
Try typing "power".
Now type "alsowhen".
For an experienced typist (or even someone who uses a specific phrase regularly), when the characters are close together they normally roll their fingers. However, when the characters are on opposite ends of the keyboard, then timing becomes an issue since there's a greater possibility of commiting a typo.
The use of shifted characters can also be distinguished if you can hear a key being depressed without it's immediate release.
Lastly, the space key is generally a dead giveaway due to it's relative size.
This does not work well when the typist is using hunt-and-peck typing, since all the characters would be relatively evenly spaced in time.
If you can narrow down the possible set for just one specific character, you get considerably closer to discovering the entire passphrase. Simply knowing the length of the passphrase reduces the difficulty of the problem.
Timely information during war is priceless. The Allied effort in Africa during WWII was aided considerably with the code-cracking.
True, the English didn't want to expose that they were listening to EVERY conversation - but to not use the info would be foolish.
AFAIK, to hide the fact that they knew everything that was being encrypted, they would establish alibis. Something like sending a surveilance plane during the day to fly near areas where military presence/movement was greatly increasing (just make sure that plane gets NOTICED). That way, the Germans would assume that the English found out because of that damn plane instead of the detailed reports being sent through their cracked channel (which enjoyed continued use).
The German navy was better at security, but it was still based on a mostly broken system. They could have at least randomized the sequence of characters used on the wheels.
I'll NEVER go to the library again.
:)
It took me FOREVER to find a single book on "extraterrestrial worlds" when searching through the stacks.
note: extraterrestrial worlds = 999 in the Dewey Decimal classification system.
I've been trying to do GTA3 with the minimum "people wasted by you" stat which means that I try not to kill innocents OR criminals. You're right, it's VERY HARD.
Whatever anyone says, it's IMPOSSIBLE to finish the game with 0 kills in that stat. The first completely unavoidable one is Mike Lips Last Lunch and there are some missions that require a minimum (like 25 in Trials of Fire). So far, I'm currently at Grand Theft Aero with 52.
Mind you, these are kills credited to you so you could get someone to follow you while you shoot at nearby vehicles that run over the pursuer. That type of kill completes missions, while only affecting the "people wasted by others" stat. There are a number of other ways of avoiding a kill "by you" credit: not causing an explosion, guiding other drivers into water, etc.
I've managed to complete the Taxi, Firetruck and Ambulance missions without any kills, but the Police one is the hardest (though not impossible) since you're required to "eliminate the threat".
Also, there are a few Rampage missions that can be done without killing anyone. The grenade and rocket launcher are easy to pull off since you're only targeting vehicles and can prepare for it in a safe area.
By the way, I just noticed this page which relates to the above and immediately disagree with a couple issues: (1) Taking Out The Laundry can be done by carjacking the trucks and nobody needs to get killed, (2) in game, gang members count as people, so the site's "people wasted" and "wasted by others" counts are incomplete. That is, unless the stat counts are different on console versions.