Well, for starters I have no ideea what you're talking about, never having played the game. BUT...
"You get your raw resources (bits) by decompiling items." Ok, I can barely understand that.
"Also, the rarity of the bits is very skewed, with some of the most necessary bits for even low level items and abilities being rare." Now you lost me. Ain't there only TWO types of bits there ? Like... uh... "0" and "1" ? I'd understand if you would have "bytes", "words" or even "floats" (heh) with some of them hard to come by and... uh... some creepy explanation of why you can't do additions, substractions and other operations on them... but... ungh.
Assume sarcasm tags where needed, or where you start to feel offended personally...
First off... Maybe I'm getting something wrong here, but isn't the whole IDEEA behind getting a patent to both ensure the initial inventor (or better said, patent claimer) a fair share of income (out of the actual one) for a LIMITED period of time, so that later on that invention would be freely usable by pretty much anybody ?
Quoting some encyclopedia, "In the U.S.A any process or device may be patented if it is NOVEL and USEFUL and if plans and a working model are supplied, and patents are valid for a limited term (17 years in the U.S.A.) This limit ordinarily secures a profit to the inventor for a reasonable period yet will not permanently deprive the public of the free use of the invention."
So, the first and foremost problem of SOFTWARE PATENTS is not the patenting itself, it's that years-long "active" status of a patent.
A close second on the "problematic" scale would be butchering the meaning of "novel and useful" and "providing plans and a working model" when it comes to software patents. I mean, ok, it could be useful (to some) to have pretty much anything in the software bussiness, yet the "novelty" is a bit arguable.
The last (and final) MAJOR problem lies within the limits of what SHOULD be patentable. I mean, for god's sake, I hope nobody patented the "OK/Cancel" buttons yet... or did Microsoft to that already ? Now, what about bubble sort ? Did anybody patent bubble sort yet ? Heck, let's patent binary code representation !
Heck, you have to draw the line somewhere. My personal oppinion is this: we need to heavily accelerate and cheapen all "software patenting" processes. Streamline it ! Heck, create a new INTERNATIONAL body that would ONLY handle software patents, "put on hold" all current software patents and allow "prioritary" re-filing of all current ones by their previous owners for, let's say, one year. Then (after that transition year), put this whole thing online (read-only) and allow submissions of patents via e-mail only (human sent read receipt). Sure, it's a whole new can of worms with security issues, but, let's dream for a while it's not.
For each and every possible application field of your "patent", you have to file a separate patent claim (or, well, specify all fields you wish it filed under, with clear explanations for each and every field). New "fields" are introduced as soon as there's either sufficient (e.g. 10 or more, arguable number) patent claimers with claims in said (not yet existant) field.
NOW comes the tricky part. Depending on the field, novelty and usability of the application, a TERM OF VALIDITY for your patent gets established - term that could range from just a couple of months (for obvious and straightforward patent claims we would all laugh about) up to maybe 5 to 7 years tops. I mean, heck, there's no point in waiting 17 years for something to be considered "trivial" in the software world - you would try to get as MANY users of your patented technology as soon as possible so you can claim royalties... as opposed to the current practice of "patent everything, think about it later".
I really have to wonder how come Lucas started his first movie (i.e. "A New Hope") with the specific subtitle of "Episode IV". Did he actually plan on making the "prequels" later on, or was it simply that "incomplete" feel that made (ultimately) the OT so fun to watch ?
So, about the "sense of grandeur" - couldn't agree more, with regards to the OT. I couldn't say that the prequels lacked a "grand design", but I could say that it was too "forced". I don't know why... lazyness to come up with not-so-straightforward developements, need to "cram in" as much possible, desire to explain everything that wasn't explained in the OT (when I say "midichloreans", I guess many *will* cringe and cover their ears going "la-la-la-la"). You know, some things SHOULD remain unexplained, or at least not so "thoroughly" explained.
The secondary characters... again a jackpot. I think you can see a clear pattern of "in-depth" to "comic relief" secondary characters emerging from the "episodes 4,5,6,1,2" timeline. I truly hope we see no references to either Jar-Jar nor ewoks in "episode 3". Please. While under a "Republic", one would expect numerous (and pretty powerfull) interest groups to develop and manifest themselves. True, there was almost no political backdrop (except the rebels and isolated passive resistance pockets) in the OT... but at least you weren't spoon-fed a snapshot of a pseudo-political war between "used puppets".
Also, for an "evil genius" that Sidious/Palpatine is supposed to be, I guess he could have worked out a better plan than "create sympathy for me by placing homeworld under wrongfull siege so I can then use some obedient army I just created to destroy the obedient armies of my probably not so obedient puppets so I can rule the galaxy, while trying to corrupt a young but powerful twerp I just met mid-plan by sacrificing some of my more experienced underlings" scenario. What I mean, the OT was (even if sometimes only barely) PLAUSIBLE. The prequels just take a "stop point" in Ep.4, add into the story some "milestones" set there by years of respectable books and maybe not so respectable fanfics, pour in some "forced enlightenment" and expect us to buy it. Err... sorry, when faced with a "continuity with all SW universe but hair-pulled events" vs. "some very well tied things in slight contradiction with the non-movie OT universe", I'd rather pick the latter.
But I guess I'm part of a minority when it comes to "paying customers", so nobody'll listen to me... right?
Again, there's a "subtle" difference between the education a parent can give and the education a kid receives from the environment. NOT wanting to have a violence-saturated world is different from being lazy and not taking care of your kids.
What you're saying is something to the extent that it doesn't matter if you live in the ghetto or a private tropical island, a parent would (and should, after you) have the same difficulties......excuse me while I call that BS.
Well, let's take the hypothetical example of your 12-year old kid downloading "Manhunt" from some obscure "gamez" site on his own computer in his own room using your home's broadband without your knowledge, and playing it whenever you're out of your house. Why ? Because some other kids tell him in school how "cool" that game is or another equally inane reason. Obviously, you could as well never find out he's playing it.
Is it the cracker's fault for allowing a child to download a copy of that game ? Is it your fault for letting him have his own computer and not limiting his 'net access ? Is it your fault because you failed to teach your child he should not play this sort of games ?
"Modern parents" don't have time to watch their children all the time, especially when they think their kids are old enough. Their children however could even be breaking laws like there's no tommorow.
Kids immitate. That's what everybody does as a child. That's how we learn to speak in the first place. It's human nature to at least try and do something you've just seen. Don't tell me you never tried to break a wooden stick with your bare hands after you saw that in some karate movie ? At worst, you could have broken a few bones in your hand.
Imagine this not-so-fairy-tale world where violence is glorified more and more, where violent games and shows are "in" and "cool". Now, just re-read the above paragraph and imagine the outcome if only one hundredth of those who indeed wounded their own hands would be living "now" and tried to suffocate somebody else with a plastic bag, pierce somebody in an eye with a knife or something like that...
Well, now, you don't expect to get OUT of anything by simply pleading that, now do you ? Because under the provisions of this bill, whoever did anything wrong is still judged the same as he used to.
First time I read the headlines and the article there, my reaction was the same - "what a load of BS". But then...
" video game companies liable for illegal activity that players under 17 are responsible for " All that I understood from that phrase initially, and whatever legalese I got when I read the bill (http://washingtonvotes.org/2005-HB-2178) was that: - there is no CRIMINAL liability for the developer or retailer, there is only financial liability - the state does not file charges, individuals that have been directly or indirectly damaged may file civil suits - the developer/retailer MUST be proven to have knowingly (or by negligence) have sold, rented or distributed the game to a person under the age of 17 that subsequently engaged in a criminal activity
*** Under these conditions, you pretty much force any game developer/retailer *with offices in the USA* that has any "violent games" on their roster to rate them all 17+ (and specify that under no circumstances should these games be sold to anybody under 17 years of age) and also NEVER release any demo/freeware/shareware versions of their game - nothing more, nothing less. ***
Problem is, most developers of such "violent" games heavily rely on the "teen" demographic for purchase, and close their eyes to their own responsability to NOT do that anymore. This way you can finally dangle a threat of great financial losses if they don't cut down on the exploitation of weaker minds. At least, that's my point of view.
On the same logic, you could then bring up bills that (indirectly) force news channels to only broadcast non-violent news during daytime, you could (indirectly) force book publishers to only sell some books to adults, and so on and so forth. The abuses of such a precedence law would be mind-boggling.
An "old gamer" might argue "but I killed thousands of [insert here name of something you killed] in [insert here name of really old game you used to play a lot] and it hasn't made me a criminal". Well, duuh, of course you didn't. There's a big difference between pixelated/cartoonish characters and photo-realstic ones - even a moron can distinguish between the game and reality in the first case, yet it takes a stronger mind to do the same in today's games. Face it, some kids don't have that strength. Some might, but there's always that odd exception.
Also, you can argue that those weak minds would eventually crack anyway. Yeah, sure... that's why they call minors "not responsable", because they'd never grow up ? Get a grip on reality. It's not about who is responsable ultimately for something wrong that has been done, it's about decreasing the odds that something bad WILL happend by forcing some irresponsable and greedy grown-ups to think twice before they ship something out.
Also, you could argue that this is the death of free and/or open-source (arguably) violent games. Sadly, this is also the case. And this specific point is the only one that bothers me about the bill's formulation. But, let's be frank... how many "free" games out there (and I just said GAMES, not GAME MODS) are truly violent in the first place ?
Anyway, the discution is still open, and this bill is not the load of crock it seems to be at the first glimpse. But it's treading on mined terrain between rights and responsabilities.
I suppose I get moderated "insightful" because some people understand there's a difference between a non-terminating decimal number [i.e. 0.(1) which is 0.1111111... forever] and an actual terminating number that just has lots of "ones" in it.
And the difference comes from the quanta treshold used in measuring/calculating said number from some real-world phenomena, as opposed to the theoretical/mathematical representation of such a number.
Oh, and you'd be surprised how well IT-related freelance work can mingle with taking care of children. Just don't forget to feed them. Rule of thumb - if they start fussing more than usually while watching you type while you explain to them what you are doing (even if they can't understand you), then it's about time for food. Or some water/milk. Or (eek) a nappy change - but that's easily detectable in other ways.
The full nappies on babies. That always makes me want to puke. I never understood how such a small thing can "produce" so much stinking stuff with such clockwork precision. Yuck.
Anyway, the main trick is to do whatever you need to do (i.e. work, watch TV, post on Slashdot, wvatever) while you have them involved into it. Working can be a bit tiresome first, but you'll never forget that first time a 4-year-old points out to you a silly little typo in the source code you just wrote (I mean for instance typing "&&&", then hearing "you got too many of those there")... that's just priceless. And no, they won't get easily bored... and strangely, you'll start enjoying their company while you work. In time...
You know what I find strange ? "Housewives" per-se are mostly found either in middle and upper classes of more developed countries and in the lower classes of the least developed ones. Not *that* strange if you come to think about it: in a high-earning environment, one parent is enough to "provide" financial care, while in low-earning environments you can't afford to have somebody looking after your kids while you work. However, there's a big difference: you'll almost never meet a "househusband" in a low-earning environment.
Anyway, I believe educating a small child should not be radically different than (let's say) training a dog. And before you go on ranting about child abuse or careless parenting, let me remind you that discipline is one thing, while abuse is a completely different thing - discipline means being as hard on yourself as on your children, and administrating (if really needed be) even mild physical punishments ; while child abuse... well, that's mainly hate-related, and with no educational value whatsoever.
You can argue that babies can't understand what you're trying to communicate to them - but you are completely wrong. I have occasionally taken care of aquaintance's babies (and I mean less than 1 year old babies up to 3 year old children), and even if they can't understand what you speak all the time (the older ones do), there are different ways to communicate. Also, you don't need to play along with all their whims, but you shouldn't neglect them either.
Well, all things considered, I have managed to teach most of them some things their parents never managed (but wanted to), and most of the time the parents were completely surprised with how much calmer their child had become in a matter of days or sometimes even hours (well, it never lasts long when the parents get back to doing all the wrong things anyway). Until now, I never had to cause any physical pain to any child. And yes, I'm a guy. And I graduated in comp. sciences, not child care or anything like that.
P.S. There is definetely something wrong with women - not only do they (generally speaking, with exceptions usually proving the rule) lack the predisposition for "technical stuff", but also the "pseudo-emphatic" education techniques they usually employ (or whatever it is some call "mother instinct") doesn't necessarily bring up the best results in the children they raise. Personally, I'd rather work at home and take care of my own children (when they appear soon, I think) than let them in the hands of their mother or grandmothers.
It pretty much depends on what you understand under "infinite";) Given the fact that you are in bound by the laws of physics which state that on a certain (very low) level you have a certain uncertainty (sic) when you reach into "quantum level", one could argue that, in fact, 0.1111111...1111[something] for as many times you can until you hit that treshold times 9 does indeed NOT equal 1.
That one was my first thought too as I started reading the question, but then suddendly I read this "[...]able to choose the song that's playing from the remote machine[...]". You CAN'T pick anything from the remote machine in a VLC streaming session - you get to look/listen to what's served.
What this guy is looking for is some form of file sharing rather than media streaming.
Not only that, but it is also the only "basic measuring unit" that's not even a measuring unit, but a multiple of another one that's not considered "basic". At least in name. Kilo-gram. Get it ?
Actually, if they happend to re-define it based on Avogadro's number, they might as well just say the GRAM is the new "basic unit" and the kilogram is just 10^3 grams. Why ? Because Avogadro's number is JUST an artifact of the definition of the (kilo)gram, not a fundamental constant - it's (been originally) defined as the number of atoms in 12 grams (or, whatever, 0.012 kilogram) of Carbon-12. Talk about circular references then...
Now, basing the definition of the kilogram (might I suggest they also change that basic to gram instead of kilogram... please) on Planck's constant somehow would be a MUCH better ideea. However, the value of that constant [i.e. 6.6260693111111 * 10^-34 and so on] makes it pretty wierd to work with unless you multiply it with 9 [to get exactly 5.96346238 * 10^-33 which makes more sense somehow]. And even then it won't satisfy some people, as I'll bet you'll hear that 0.111111 and so on *9 does not equal 1:p Not only that, but Planck's costant was ALSO measured "accurately" using the kilogram unit as reference.
"Hello, police? As required, I am reporting that my service can be used to access child porn. Goodbye."
Quoting from the article almost nobody seems to read : "Under the new laws, an ISP or ICH will face penalties [...] if they are made aware that their service can be used to access material that they have reasonable grounds to believe is child pornography or child abuse material and they do not refer details of that material to the AFP within a reasonable time."
Well, although the above poster might be partially right, he fails to catch the issue: you have to report WHO is using you to access what you may think it's child porn, and you have to report who hosts or who sent it to the other. That's what people call "details"...
Also, the very question posed in the title of the thread is completely misplaced... you're NOT supposed to ban or restrict use or access to child pornography, you're only supposed to forward information you received from your staff or your clients regarding possible uses of child porn. So how are you supposed to enforce it ? Exactly how the above poster has said it, plus all the details you have.
... you want a 16 Gig RAM box and you expect to find it "in the offer" of some company ? Do you want to use it as a desktop or a server ? Why DO you need 16G RAM in a desktop ? Why do you expect to find a "server" at normal retailers ?
That being said, what stops you from buying the components YOU know exist that *can* support such a large memory and build the damn PC YOURSELF ?
He was referring to a voluntary internet connection sharing for the sole purpose of cutting down costs when he said "not really that unethical"... he wasn't talking about piggybacking on an unsecured WAP.
I was talking about a "LAN" between a couple of houses (good old UTP, a cheap mini-switch, that sort of thing) using an "always on" connection (usually 256kbps cable modem now). Heh, you'll have trouble finding any wireless access points even nowadays in Romania... when did you live in Bucharest anyway ?
And what does "personal use" mean ? Only the owner of the contract can use a single PC (and not his spouse, kids, friends) ? That sounds pretty unenforceable to me, from a punitive financial standpoint. What can companies do if you actually "breach" the TOS and share your connection ? Cancel your subscription/service ?
I assume you mean the cable between your homes when you say "illegal"... not the connection sharing... right ?
Hmm, I'm from Romania... people here use this kind of solution not now-and-then, but usually. I doubt more than one half of the people that have internet access at home (but I'd bet less than one tenth of the people that know any differences between IRC and mIRC) have it "only for themselves".
In my particular case, I have a cable modem hooked up to a Fedora Core 2 mini-server for our 4-computer-household. If I can legally do that in my own home (and I guess it would be pretty weird if I couldn't), what's stopping me from sharing the same line with one or two neighbours if I would be living alone (instead of with others) ?
Apparently, LOGS are not illegal, but INSTALLING a software that does make logs of (let's say) IRC chats or typed e-mail is illegal.
All that the wife should have done to "be legit" is make sure she enables logging in all chat programs the husband uses, then provide the regular (possibly "undeleted") logs as evidence.
So instead of going to the gym and/or buying expensive fitness machines, you buy some peripherial and some game(/other nondescript software) that basically does the same. Same thing, only cheaper ?
"Why do I need a U.S. credit card to use the Honor System?
At this time, we are able to offer the Amazon Honor System to those with U.S.-based credit cards only. We hope to be able to expand the Honor System offering in the future."
So nopes, not really... even less versatile (now) as PayPal.
Slashdot Mirror
You forgot the quotes. "Thrilling". Eh ? ;)
Well, for starters I have no ideea what you're talking about, never having played the game.
BUT...
"You get your raw resources (bits) by decompiling items."
Ok, I can barely understand that.
"Also, the rarity of the bits is very skewed, with some of the most necessary bits for even low level items and abilities being rare."
Now you lost me.
Ain't there only TWO types of bits there ? Like... uh... "0" and "1" ?
I'd understand if you would have "bytes", "words" or even "floats" (heh) with some of them hard to come by and... uh... some creepy explanation of why you can't do additions, substractions and other operations on them... but... ungh.
Assume sarcasm tags where needed, or where you start to feel offended personally...
First off... Maybe I'm getting something wrong here, but isn't the whole IDEEA behind getting a patent to both ensure the initial inventor (or better said, patent claimer) a fair share of income (out of the actual one) for a LIMITED period of time, so that later on that invention would be freely usable by pretty much anybody ?
Quoting some encyclopedia, "In the U.S.A any process or device may be patented if it is NOVEL and USEFUL and if plans and a working model are supplied, and patents are valid for a limited term (17 years in the U.S.A.)
This limit ordinarily secures a profit to the inventor for a reasonable period yet will not permanently deprive the public of the free use of the invention."
So, the first and foremost problem of SOFTWARE PATENTS is not the patenting itself, it's that years-long "active" status of a patent.
A close second on the "problematic" scale would be butchering the meaning of "novel and useful" and "providing plans and a working model" when it comes to software patents. I mean, ok, it could be useful (to some) to have pretty much anything in the software bussiness, yet the "novelty" is a bit arguable.
The last (and final) MAJOR problem lies within the limits of what SHOULD be patentable.
I mean, for god's sake, I hope nobody patented the "OK/Cancel" buttons yet... or did Microsoft to that already ?
Now, what about bubble sort ? Did anybody patent bubble sort yet ?
Heck, let's patent binary code representation !
Heck, you have to draw the line somewhere.
My personal oppinion is this: we need to heavily accelerate and cheapen all "software patenting" processes.
Streamline it !
Heck, create a new INTERNATIONAL body that would ONLY handle software patents, "put on hold" all current software patents and allow "prioritary" re-filing of all current ones by their previous owners for, let's say, one year.
Then (after that transition year), put this whole thing online (read-only) and allow submissions of patents via e-mail only (human sent read receipt). Sure, it's a whole new can of worms with security issues, but, let's dream for a while it's not.
For each and every possible application field of your "patent", you have to file a separate patent claim (or, well, specify all fields you wish it filed under, with clear explanations for each and every field).
New "fields" are introduced as soon as there's either sufficient (e.g. 10 or more, arguable number) patent claimers with claims in said (not yet existant) field.
NOW comes the tricky part. Depending on the field, novelty and usability of the application, a TERM OF VALIDITY for your patent gets established - term that could range from just a couple of months (for obvious and straightforward patent claims we would all laugh about) up to maybe 5 to 7 years tops. I mean, heck, there's no point in waiting 17 years for something to be considered "trivial" in the software world - you would try to get as MANY users of your patented technology as soon as possible so you can claim royalties... as opposed to the current practice of "patent everything, think about it later".
What do you think ?
I really have to wonder how come Lucas started his first movie (i.e. "A New Hope") with the specific subtitle of "Episode IV".
Did he actually plan on making the "prequels" later on, or was it simply that "incomplete" feel that made (ultimately) the OT so fun to watch ?
So, about the "sense of grandeur" - couldn't agree more, with regards to the OT. I couldn't say that the prequels lacked a "grand design", but I could say that it was too "forced".
I don't know why... lazyness to come up with not-so-straightforward developements, need to "cram in" as much possible, desire to explain everything that wasn't explained in the OT (when I say "midichloreans", I guess many *will* cringe and cover their ears going "la-la-la-la").
You know, some things SHOULD remain unexplained, or at least not so "thoroughly" explained.
The secondary characters... again a jackpot. I think you can see a clear pattern of "in-depth" to "comic relief" secondary characters emerging from the "episodes 4,5,6,1,2" timeline. I truly hope we see no references to either Jar-Jar nor ewoks in "episode 3". Please.
While under a "Republic", one would expect numerous (and pretty powerfull) interest groups to develop and manifest themselves. True, there was almost no political backdrop (except the rebels and isolated passive resistance pockets) in the OT... but at least you weren't spoon-fed a snapshot of a pseudo-political war between "used puppets".
Also, for an "evil genius" that Sidious/Palpatine is supposed to be, I guess he could have worked out a better plan than "create sympathy for me by placing homeworld under wrongfull siege so I can then use some obedient army I just created to destroy the obedient armies of my probably not so obedient puppets so I can rule the galaxy, while trying to corrupt a young but powerful twerp I just met mid-plan by sacrificing some of my more experienced underlings" scenario.
What I mean, the OT was (even if sometimes only barely) PLAUSIBLE. The prequels just take a "stop point" in Ep.4, add into the story some "milestones" set there by years of respectable books and maybe not so respectable fanfics, pour in some "forced enlightenment" and expect us to buy it.
Err... sorry, when faced with a "continuity with all SW universe but hair-pulled events" vs. "some very well tied things in slight contradiction with the non-movie OT universe", I'd rather pick the latter.
But I guess I'm part of a minority when it comes to "paying customers", so nobody'll listen to me... right?
I guess... void ? ;)
Hello ? Did I say anything to that extent ?
...excuse me while I call that BS.
Again, there's a "subtle" difference between the education a parent can give and the education a kid receives from the environment.
NOT wanting to have a violence-saturated world is different from being lazy and not taking care of your kids.
What you're saying is something to the extent that it doesn't matter if you live in the ghetto or a private tropical island, a parent would (and should, after you) have the same difficulties...
Well, let's take the hypothetical example of your 12-year old kid downloading "Manhunt" from some obscure "gamez" site on his own computer in his own room using your home's broadband without your knowledge, and playing it whenever you're out of your house.
Why ? Because some other kids tell him in school how "cool" that game is or another equally inane reason. Obviously, you could as well never find out he's playing it.
Is it the cracker's fault for allowing a child to download a copy of that game ?
Is it your fault for letting him have his own computer and not limiting his 'net access ?
Is it your fault because you failed to teach your child he should not play this sort of games ?
"Modern parents" don't have time to watch their children all the time, especially when they think their kids are old enough. Their children however could even be breaking laws like there's no tommorow.
Kids immitate. That's what everybody does as a child.
That's how we learn to speak in the first place.
It's human nature to at least try and do something you've just seen.
Don't tell me you never tried to break a wooden stick with your bare hands after you saw that in some karate movie ? At worst, you could have broken a few bones in your hand.
Imagine this not-so-fairy-tale world where violence is glorified more and more, where violent games and shows are "in" and "cool". Now, just re-read the above paragraph and imagine the outcome if only one hundredth of those who indeed wounded their own hands would be living "now" and tried to suffocate somebody else with a plastic bag, pierce somebody in an eye with a knife or something like that...
Well, now, you don't expect to get OUT of anything by simply pleading that, now do you ?
Because under the provisions of this bill, whoever did anything wrong is still judged the same as he used to.
First time I read the headlines and the article there, my reaction was the same - "what a load of BS". But then...
" video game companies liable for illegal activity that players under 17 are responsible for "
All that I understood from that phrase initially, and whatever legalese I got when I read the bill (http://washingtonvotes.org/2005-HB-2178) was that:
- there is no CRIMINAL liability for the developer or retailer, there is only financial liability
- the state does not file charges, individuals that have been directly or indirectly damaged may file civil suits
- the developer/retailer MUST be proven to have knowingly (or by negligence) have sold, rented or distributed the game to a person under the age of 17 that subsequently engaged in a criminal activity
***
Under these conditions, you pretty much force any game developer/retailer *with offices in the USA* that has any "violent games" on their roster to rate them all 17+ (and specify that under no circumstances should these games be sold to anybody under 17 years of age) and also NEVER release any demo/freeware/shareware versions of their game - nothing more, nothing less.
***
Problem is, most developers of such "violent" games heavily rely on the "teen" demographic for purchase, and close their eyes to their own responsability to NOT do that anymore. This way you can finally dangle a threat of great financial losses if they don't cut down on the exploitation of weaker minds. At least, that's my point of view.
On the same logic, you could then bring up bills that (indirectly) force news channels to only broadcast non-violent news during daytime, you could (indirectly) force book publishers to only sell some books to adults, and so on and so forth. The abuses of such a precedence law would be mind-boggling.
An "old gamer" might argue "but I killed thousands of [insert here name of something you killed] in [insert here name of really old game you used to play a lot] and it hasn't made me a criminal". Well, duuh, of course you didn't.
There's a big difference between pixelated/cartoonish characters and photo-realstic ones - even a moron can distinguish between the game and reality in the first case, yet it takes a stronger mind to do the same in today's games.
Face it, some kids don't have that strength. Some might, but there's always that odd exception.
Also, you can argue that those weak minds would eventually crack anyway.
Yeah, sure... that's why they call minors "not responsable", because they'd never grow up ? Get a grip on reality.
It's not about who is responsable ultimately for something wrong that has been done, it's about decreasing the odds that something bad WILL happend by forcing some irresponsable and greedy grown-ups to think twice before they ship something out.
Also, you could argue that this is the death of free and/or open-source (arguably) violent games.
Sadly, this is also the case.
And this specific point is the only one that bothers me about the bill's formulation.
But, let's be frank... how many "free" games out there (and I just said GAMES, not GAME MODS) are truly violent in the first place ?
Anyway, the discution is still open, and this bill is not the load of crock it seems to be at the first glimpse. But it's treading on mined terrain between rights and responsabilities.
I suppose I get moderated "insightful" because some people understand there's a difference between a non-terminating decimal number [i.e. 0.(1) which is 0.1111111... forever] and an actual terminating number that just has lots of "ones" in it.
And the difference comes from the quanta treshold used in measuring/calculating said number from some real-world phenomena, as opposed to the theoretical/mathematical representation of such a number.
Oh, and you'd be surprised how well IT-related freelance work can mingle with taking care of children. Just don't forget to feed them. Rule of thumb - if they start fussing more than usually while watching you type while you explain to them what you are doing (even if they can't understand you), then it's about time for food. Or some water/milk. Or (eek) a nappy change - but that's easily detectable in other ways.
The full nappies on babies. That always makes me want to puke. I never understood how such a small thing can "produce" so much stinking stuff with such clockwork precision. Yuck.
Anyway, the main trick is to do whatever you need to do (i.e. work, watch TV, post on Slashdot, wvatever) while you have them involved into it. Working can be a bit tiresome first, but you'll never forget that first time a 4-year-old points out to you a silly little typo in the source code you just wrote (I mean for instance typing "&&&", then hearing "you got too many of those there")... that's just priceless. And no, they won't get easily bored... and strangely, you'll start enjoying their company while you work. In time...
You know what I find strange ?
"Housewives" per-se are mostly found either in middle and upper classes of more developed countries and in the lower classes of the least developed ones.
Not *that* strange if you come to think about it: in a high-earning environment, one parent is enough to "provide" financial care, while in low-earning environments you can't afford to have somebody looking after your kids while you work.
However, there's a big difference: you'll almost never meet a "househusband" in a low-earning environment.
Anyway, I believe educating a small child should not be radically different than (let's say) training a dog. And before you go on ranting about child abuse or careless parenting, let me remind you that discipline is one thing, while abuse is a completely different thing - discipline means being as hard on yourself as on your children, and administrating (if really needed be) even mild physical punishments ; while child abuse... well, that's mainly hate-related, and with no educational value whatsoever.
You can argue that babies can't understand what you're trying to communicate to them - but you are completely wrong. I have occasionally taken care of aquaintance's babies (and I mean less than 1 year old babies up to 3 year old children), and even if they can't understand what you speak all the time (the older ones do), there are different ways to communicate.
Also, you don't need to play along with all their whims, but you shouldn't neglect them either.
Well, all things considered, I have managed to teach most of them some things their parents never managed (but wanted to), and most of the time the parents were completely surprised with how much calmer their child had become in a matter of days or sometimes even hours (well, it never lasts long when the parents get back to doing all the wrong things anyway). Until now, I never had to cause any physical pain to any child. And yes, I'm a guy. And I graduated in comp. sciences, not child care or anything like that.
P.S. There is definetely something wrong with women - not only do they (generally speaking, with exceptions usually proving the rule) lack the predisposition for "technical stuff", but also the "pseudo-emphatic" education techniques they usually employ (or whatever it is some call "mother instinct") doesn't necessarily bring up the best results in the children they raise. Personally, I'd rather work at home and take care of my own children (when they appear soon, I think) than let them in the hands of their mother or grandmothers.
It does support P4 HT. I'm running XP Home right now (:shock:) and it's showing 2 ("fake") CPUs that actually (both) "work".
It pretty much depends on what you understand under "infinite" ;)
Given the fact that you are in bound by the laws of physics which state that on a certain (very low) level you have a certain uncertainty (sic) when you reach into "quantum level", one could argue that, in fact, 0.1111111...1111[something] for as many times you can until you hit that treshold times 9 does indeed NOT equal 1.
That one was my first thought too as I started reading the question, but then suddendly I read this "[...]able to choose the song that's playing from the remote machine[...]".
You CAN'T pick anything from the remote machine in a VLC streaming session - you get to look/listen to what's served.
What this guy is looking for is some form of file sharing rather than media streaming.
Not only that, but it is also the only "basic measuring unit" that's not even a measuring unit, but a multiple of another one that's not considered "basic". At least in name. Kilo-gram. Get it ?
:p
Actually, if they happend to re-define it based on Avogadro's number, they might as well just say the GRAM is the new "basic unit" and the kilogram is just 10^3 grams.
Why ?
Because Avogadro's number is JUST an artifact of the definition of the (kilo)gram, not a fundamental constant - it's (been originally) defined as the number of atoms in 12 grams (or, whatever, 0.012 kilogram) of Carbon-12.
Talk about circular references then...
Now, basing the definition of the kilogram (might I suggest they also change that basic to gram instead of kilogram... please) on Planck's constant somehow would be a MUCH better ideea. However, the value of that constant [i.e. 6.6260693111111 * 10^-34 and so on] makes it pretty wierd to work with unless you multiply it with 9 [to get exactly 5.96346238 * 10^-33 which makes more sense somehow]. And even then it won't satisfy some people, as I'll bet you'll hear that 0.111111 and so on *9 does not equal 1
Not only that, but Planck's costant was ALSO measured "accurately" using the kilogram unit as reference.
Ok, this actually does give me a headache.
"Hello, police? As required, I am reporting that my service can be used to access child porn. Goodbye."
Quoting from the article almost nobody seems to read : "Under the new laws, an ISP or ICH will face penalties [...] if they are made aware that their service can be used to access material that they have reasonable grounds to believe is child pornography or child abuse material and they do not refer details of that material to the AFP within a reasonable time."
Well, although the above poster might be partially right, he fails to catch the issue: you have to report WHO is using you to access what you may think it's child porn, and you have to report who hosts or who sent it to the other. That's what people call "details"...
Also, the very question posed in the title of the thread is completely misplaced... you're NOT supposed to ban or restrict use or access to child pornography, you're only supposed to forward information you received from your staff or your clients regarding possible uses of child porn.
So how are you supposed to enforce it ?
Exactly how the above poster has said it, plus all the details you have.
... you want a 16 Gig RAM box and you expect to find it "in the offer" of some company ? Do you want to use it as a desktop or a server ? Why DO you need 16G RAM in a desktop ? Why do you expect to find a "server" at normal retailers ?
That being said, what stops you from buying the components YOU know exist that *can* support such a large memory and build the damn PC YOURSELF ?
50,000 $ to launch almost anything into space, curtesy of old "Mother Russia" and former (nearly bankrupt) space program.
He was referring to a voluntary internet connection sharing for the sole purpose of cutting down costs when he said "not really that unethical"... he wasn't talking about piggybacking on an unsecured WAP.
I was talking about a "LAN" between a couple of houses (good old UTP, a cheap mini-switch, that sort of thing) using an "always on" connection (usually 256kbps cable modem now).
Heh, you'll have trouble finding any wireless access points even nowadays in Romania... when did you live in Bucharest anyway ?
And what does "personal use" mean ? Only the owner of the contract can use a single PC (and not his spouse, kids, friends) ? That sounds pretty unenforceable to me, from a punitive financial standpoint.
What can companies do if you actually "breach" the TOS and share your connection ? Cancel your subscription/service ?
I assume you mean the cable between your homes when you say "illegal"... not the connection sharing... right ?
Hmm, I'm from Romania... people here use this kind of solution not now-and-then, but usually. I doubt more than one half of the people that have internet access at home (but I'd bet less than one tenth of the people that know any differences between IRC and mIRC) have it "only for themselves".
In my particular case, I have a cable modem hooked up to a Fedora Core 2 mini-server for our 4-computer-household. If I can legally do that in my own home (and I guess it would be pretty weird if I couldn't), what's stopping me from sharing the same line with one or two neighbours if I would be living alone (instead of with others) ?
Nah, it's just the "Answer to Life, The Universe and Every Existing Mersene Prime Number".
;)
Wait, I mean just the 42th Mersene prime
Apparently, LOGS are not illegal, but INSTALLING a software that does make logs of (let's say) IRC chats or typed e-mail is illegal.
All that the wife should have done to "be legit" is make sure she enables logging in all chat programs the husband uses, then provide the regular (possibly "undeleted") logs as evidence.
So instead of going to the gym and/or buying expensive fitness machines, you buy some peripherial and some game(/other nondescript software) that basically does the same.
Same thing, only cheaper ?
From their FAQ:
"Why do I need a U.S. credit card to use the Honor System?
At this time, we are able to offer the Amazon Honor System to those with U.S.-based credit cards only. We hope to be able to expand the Honor System offering in the future."
So nopes, not really... even less versatile (now) as PayPal.