Ah, yes, the personal ethics system -- your morals are yours, mine are mine. So you're telling me it's OK to stuff Jews in a gas chamber?
I don't know about that guy, but I say "from a certain point of view." Fact is, though, that a group that will stuff Jews in a gas chamber is dangerous to the world at large, and when it comes down to it, I'll chose my survival over your survival if need be. I don't have to oppose a point of view to eliminate the people that have it, I only have to show how their existence and practices will damage/destroy the rest of the world.
Let's see if I've got this straight, then. You tell us that we need to study animal behavior or some shit-hole science or other, and then when we persist in disagreeing with you (usually as a result of personal experience that seems to contradict your "science"), we are idiots? That doesn't sound you're being very "scientific", and thus your complete argument can be safely dismissed.
Personally I support not selling M-rated games to minors, but not at the point of law. The movie industry hasn't needed laws to enfore R-rated movies. Do kids still see them? Sure. But they can't just walk in. And consider this - kids can't pirate cigarettes, but if you make it to where kids can't buy M-rated games by law they'll just hit up the newsgroups.
Dude, I'd say you hit the nail pretty good with that one. The thing that makes R-ratings a success is that the previews all say "Children not admitted without a parent" or something like that. Parents *know* and are constantly reminded that it's their responsibility. R-rating means "Hey, we've made this movie especially violent, sexual, or whatever, and we think you should watch it before you show it to your kids. It's up to you, but we really think you should."
Generally, I'm not worried about what an R-rated movie might have in it. But I do feel pretty stupid for watching that stupid Tom Cruise movie in front of the kids. I forgot the name already, but it's the one with him and that Nicole Kidman chick where she tells him about her cheating fantasy and he immediately runs out and tries to cheat on her, but keeps getting caught by his own "conscience". Yeah, right, his conscience was strong enough to stop him from cheating, but not strong enough to stop him from looking in the first place? That movie must've been made by a woman. Heh. Anyway, I'm getting sidetracked. That movie played on every stupid freaking sexual taboo that has plagued mankind for the last, i don't know, 10000 years? A long time, in any case. I would've preferred my kids not see it until they were *much* older, but luckily they're young enough now that it couldn't have done much damage at all, if any. It's also not reinforced anywhere else in their lives.
But I'll be thinking twice about games, if they ever manage to make them for Linux (otherwise, my problem is already taken care of!). But just like the DVD collection (which isn't growing, due my boycott of the MPAA), my computers will be carefully kept up anyway. The kids'll have quotas on their home directories big enough that they can do anything they want, but small enough to prevent them from smuggling shit in. I have no intention of spying on their home directories.:) Instead I have every intention of building a good network that is accessible by the whole family, with all the software accessible by the whole family, and everything that goes on there will go on there for all of us or none of us.:) I don't think the kids should ever sit down in front of the computer and think "I'm not allowed to do this." Censorship and computers is going to be the same deal as censorship and books, since they're both information technology. I'd really hate to bring censorship to my kids. I'd rather fight it with them.:)
Because a mess of polygons that looks like a human being is a relatively new thing, people do not yet equate children playing violently with it the same way that they treat a child playing violently with a GI Joe toy or a stuffed doll. They have not yet connected the dots and realized that young children have violently murdered represensations of human beings for as long as there have been toys that look vaguely human and that the sane among those children have come out fine.
I hate to sound like I'm on the other side, but whenever I see my kids "hurting" their toys, I make them apologize to the toy and give them a kiss. Well, I don't make them apologize, I tell them "You really hurt your doll! What do you think you should do about it?". Then if they don't say "apologize", I say "Well I think you should apologize, and be careful." I'll let up when they're a bit older, I think, I'm just trying to avoid a foundation of play violence. There is violence in play, as you've pointed out, and I don't know that you can point to any point in human history and say that most people were "sane" and children that have "come out fine".
That said, I still don't see anything wrong with playing a violent computer game. You know that the computer made this animation of something, and these sound effects, and that if you do this you'll see another animation with other sound effects, etc. There is a world of difference between something that is created as a mathematical construct whose purpose is to figuratively "die" and a person with a real life and so forth. Teach compassion always to your kids (although it may not matter, I don't subscribe to the idea that kids are blank slates that need programming, they're people that need to be taught and set free, like anybody else). Show compassion. If they've got it, they'll respond. If not, they won't. Of course, if you have compassion, and your wife has compassion, odds are, the kids've got it too. Anybody know if compassion is a recessive gene or not?
Have you guys EVER studied behavioral sciences at ALL?
Nope, havne't done so for the same reason I don't look down in a horse pasture.
Furthermore, I'd like to point out that you are a pretty agressive guy yourself, and that this post was especially violent. Much violence can be expressed in words, and you did a wonderful job of doing so. Thank you.:)
Why do we restrict the purchase of pr0n by minors? I am yet to see a gram of evidence that that watching some pr0n is going to harm the little buggers in any conceivable way.
Sorry, got no evidence, just verbiage.
1. I'm not opposed to keeping porn from teenagers. In fact, I'm all for giving them some porn, a tub of KY-Jelly, locking the bastard up and saying "This is SAFE SEX. THIS IS ALL YOU CAN DO UNTIL YOU'RE 18 YEARS OLD AND LIVING UNDER YOUR OWN ROOF".
2. Kids younger than puberty are a special case in all things, and teaching them how to love is one of those things. The two things you are up against are lack of necessary hormones (and physical response) and lack of consciousness. Now, every kid reaches self-awareness (or consciousness) at a different age, so whatever policies guide you when they're younger might well differ. In this, with multiple kids, you're also up against the whole "Daddy, if my brother can do it, then why can't I?" mentality. Anyway, the lack of a physical response is a serious factor as well. While I clearly remember having a hard-on when I was 8, I also clearly remember seeing my first porn when I was 5. I was very confused about it. Between porn (not much viewed, either) and my parent's refusal to approach the subject with me, I was left with society to teach me about sex. Naturally, I had a very warped view of sex. This isn't to say that I don't still have a warped view, it's just now a much more informed view than it was before.:)
If that made sense, I'm impressed. But I sure don't like the idea of my 4-year-old getting a look at www.shitcity.com (no, I won't make the link, if you want to see it, copyNpaste). She has a hard enough time eating burritos as it is, and that's food that's so cheap and nutritious you'd have to be stupid not to eat it.
Do you have any idea what it does to your brain to associate killing and the sounds of killing with RELAXATION?
I'm gonna take a wild guess, it relaxes you?
Seriously, though, game makers don't make games that try to simulate killing. They make games that try to entertain, which frequently have killing as a plot mechanism. The thing we all seem to be forgetting is that there are very few sources of reliable information on exactly what happens when people are killed in horrible fashions. What you see in games is some programmer's or artist's concept, but unless they've gone out and killed themselves, I'd have to doubt the simulation's authenticity.
Besides that, since it's all about attitude and emotions, let's look at other games kids play that have existed long before violent computer games:
Chess
Cops and Robbers
Cowboys and Indians
ok, it's late, I'm running out of ideas.:( SOmeone else chime in with traditional games that have a violent theme, ok? Preferably games that even predate paper RPGs.
And, of course, we're not saying anything at all about the violence in the traditional fairy tales (like, oh, i don't know, the BIBLE???) and other such stories.
Even if you can buy a gun attachment for a games console you simply have a piece of plastic which dosn't behave like the real thing.
Idiot.:) that's why you get a real gun and take it somewhere where there's PLENTY of targets.
However, I'd like to point out that the guy that climbed the tower at the University of Texas and took potshots until he was taken out most likely did NOT play video games.
Now if they somehow captured the vileness of poor white trash and put it into a video game, then that might be the real test of if these games cause violence, or just provide a harmless outlet for it.
Um, that's called "Windows XP". I guess you haven't heard of it, yet.
you want your kid to stay away from computer games, don't buy them games, or better yet, don't buy them the hardware needed to run most games, that stops them pirating stuff as well.
Or you could just run Linux, since as all of us slashdotters know, there aren't any good games for Linux. Solves the piracy problem too.
It's not as though well-educated, properly-behaving children will impress the neighbours more than that shiny new car will...
Since you bring the subject up, I've got a fun anecdote.:)
I'm a long-haired, hippy-lookin' dude and have been off and on for all of my adult life. (A few periods of temporary insanity resulted in a few haircuts here and there) As a result of this, coupled with the fact that I married a 15-year-old girl when I was 21, my wife's side of the family tends to look upon me with distaste and contempt. (They cite the hair and say I must do drugs and cheat on my wife)
My sister-in-law, or my wife's sister if you prefer, got married a year and a half ago. Her fiancee's family is a well-to-do, well-respected family in some corporate circles. His dad is the CEO or President of some large corporation or other. So my wife's family naturally fell in love with them immediately.
We went to the wedding. Or at least, the reception (the wedding was off-limits to non-mormons because it was held in the temple, and my wife and I are *definitely not* mormon). During the lunch before the wedding, the whole wedding party and whatever reception guests were there all sat and ate (that's what one does at a lunch). While my wife's family was giving me all the looks that say "He's here, they're gonna think bad about us because of him, and he's not even part of the family", we all just ate our lunch. After lunch, the fiancee's dad (the CEO guy) comes over to me, introduces himself, tells us we have beautiful kids, then says "Your kids are very well-behaved. I'm very impressed. You guys are doing a wonderful job, and I'm looking forward to getting to know you better."
Now, yeah, sure, he could've said it trying to be polite, but I checked him on it later, and not only was he sincere, but his wife was excited to meet us at the reception. (yes, I did wear a suit, and tie up the hair, it's not like I was dressed in my normal wardrobe or anything, there is a sense of decorum that goes with these sorts of events)
(And anyone who claims that emotional abuse or neglecting to show affection does not have a serious effect on a child is deluding themself).
The government does care, but its much harder to prove. At least once in my wife's childhood, a state agency started making motions to remove her from her mother's custody, and her mom was able to maneuver her way right out of it. AFAIK, all states have emotional abuse and neglect worded into their abuse laws, but it's very difficult to prove.
These days, parents get away with dumping all of their parental responsibilities onto the kids and then when their kids start acting fucked up, getting them to treatment centers and getting them hyped up on drugs. If *I* were gonna make a law to deal with emotional abuse, I would start by taking these kids away from their parents and putting them somewhere else.:) In my experience, kids that go to treatment centers (sent by their parents) are being emotionally abused, and the treatment is part of the abuse.
Even worse are the schools that now have the power to decide that a kid is fucked up (without an attending psychologist) and forcing the parents to get them prescriptions for lithium and crap. Not that having an attending psychologist is a big deal, it's big money for some psychologists to just rubber-stamp prescriptions for that shit every time a parent asks for one.
IMO, these problems get solved by parents taking 100% responsibility for their kids, and for raising them.
Frankly, if you have a 6 year old who insists on grabbing stuff off the shelves in the store while you shop, a quick pop on the butt is one of the most effective means to teach them that actions have consequences. I don't think a 6 year old has the reasoning power that I have, but he understands he doesn't want to do that anymore.
I think you underrate the reasoning power of a 6-year-old. My 4-year-old understands what "stealing" is, and she doesn't do it.:) I explained to her that stealing is wrong because somebody worked damn hard to make whatever it is she's stealing and to provide it for her in a store. All they ask in return is a little bit of money. She thinks it's a totally reasonably trade.:) I've never yelled at her, and I've never hit her. Same with my 2-year-old boy, and he's damn rambunctious.
I agree that the government's got no right to tell us we can't spank our kids, but that doesn't mean I think spanking is right. There are other ways to teach kids, and pain isn't the only (or best) way. I've seen quite a few kids build up resentment to their parents for spanking and yelling (myself included), resentment that can contribute to serious problems later. (Serioiusly, I *want* my kids to tell me when/if they start having sex, doing drugs, etc. I don't want them to hide it from me for fear of being yelled at, or worse)
Finally, it's pure hypocrisy to tell your kid "Don't hit your sister", and then spank them for it. Furthermore, spanking is usually accompanied with statements like "you made me do this", which teaches irresponsibility. The example you set, as a parent, is the most important tool (and most effective) you have to teach your kids. Spanking sets a poor example of using violence to control a kid. (I looked at it that way when I was a kid, so I have no reason to think that other kids don't see it that way at all)
I didnt fail to point anything out. I was talking about the aftermarket sellers. They are not breaking the law for selling OC equipment or advertised OC'ed systems. The problem is the whole "Throw the baby out with the Bathwater" syndrome thats popular nowadays.
Yes, good, and do you TELL people you're selling an overclocked proc? Or do you tell them they're getting a P4 2.4Ghz and you're packing a P4 2 Ghz that's overclocked? The first case is fine, the second case is the unethical case that Intel has used.
Dont' get me wrong, I'm all over the fact that Intel has an ulterior motive. I was just trying to clarify something, and apparently failed as well.
We don't need anyone protecting us, aftermarket OC products are "Use at your own risk", it's the consumers choice.
The parent failed to point out that the real danger is when a system builder sells you a 2Ghz processor that's only rated for 1.6Ghz or something, and they overclocked it. Then, when the processor burns up and you take it in to have it fixed, they'll tell you you overclocked your processor and voided your warranty, get you to buy ANOTHER system from them, overclock THAT, and keep you chasing your tail. That's an unethical business practice and many consumers aren't smart enough to know that it's happening.
Realistically, I've no idea whether or not it's still going on. You'd think that processors are fast enough that it's no longer an issue, but the determining factor isn't how fast they are compared to 5 years ago, rather it's how much they cost and what the price difference is between the two speeds. If there's a $50 price difference between the actual processor's cost, and the cost of the same processor at a higher clock rate, then the builder can expect to charge $50 more for the system that's pure profit.
Finally, if Intel were to partner with a BIOS maker, or show us how to tap into it ourselves, it would be much better if the kernel ran the test and then passed a warning to the user in a BIG way. They might even get MS to do it, too. Then the consumer would take home his shiny new computer, boot it up, and then take it right back and demand that the system builder remove the overclocking from the machine or give him his money back.
In the end, though, this only makes AMDs chips more attractive. If I were a marketing guy at AMD, I'd launch a campaign about how you can still overclock AMD processors.:) "The other guys want to tell you what you can do with their processor. Buy ours instead and do what you like."
Likening SMB spiders to Windows' search is a pretty big jump
It only seems that way since the author left out a single, crucial sentence. "If you point your Windows search at My Network Neighborhood, you will essentially be running a SMB spider." Further explanations would be nice, such as "A SMB spider is just like MS Windows Search functions. It retrieves directory listings and catalogs them." And so forth. All these guys did was add another layer or two on top of software that did the same functionality of Windows search (granted it doesn't use Windows Search itself, but their own spiders).
Lots of hard work putting it together, but the end-product still needs a lot of work.:( I hate to discourage this kind of effort, but I'd really class this as a rough draft, and it definitely needs more pictures still. I found the pictures failed miserably to display the concepts well. I'd be willing to volunteer some time, if the author is interested, to work up some better graphics.
Bah. If you're going to piss off Texans, may as well show them that Quebec is large enough to encompass four Texases with room to spare.:-)
What about number of weapons per capita? If you take that into account, you Canadians might quiet down a bit...:) (not to mention what that hot air in Texas does to a man's brain, there's a reason fundamentalist christian sects are popular in Texas)
If they would include the player without any closed libs or potential copyright conflicting source they could add a huge benefit to their distributions.
Yes and no, actually. Until recently, they couldn't distribute binary versions of MPlayer, and it was due to licensing of one of the libraries mplayer depends on (I think lav, but I could be wrong). Furthermore, now they can distribute binaries, and Mandrake 9.1 has one. The problem is, mplayer's build system automatically compiles and optimizes mplayer for your system. It detects cpu, math coprocessor, graphics card, etc. and optimizes for it. The binary distribution that comes with Mandrake is compiled with run-time CPU detection, which means that MPlayer is not optimized. I wound up uninstalling Mandrake's MPlayer and building it again, since it compiles very easily.
Seriously, how hard would it to be to put an easy to use interface and reporting engine on top of mysql (or postgre or whatever)?
If you want the desktop database that's part of the suite, you have to pay Sun. That's the only component of the suite they didn't open source.
That said, GNU Enterprise does well, even at its low version, for functionality typical of Access. It'll plug into MySQL and Postgres both, as well as a few commercial databases. Also, if you do a little googling, you'll find a php frontend, and some other stuff. There's plenty of free software out there to fit this need, it's just not bundled in with OpenOffice.org, that's all.
Consider how many times Egypt was conquored (Rome, Greece, I think even the Jews conquered it, hell even Hitler had it for awhile!) I'd have to say that their patents would at least have been transferred to our modern western society. Also, many of their contemporaries developed similar technologies within a similar timespan...
Worse yet, imagine if the US government patented everything they came up with!:) Just think what it would've done to international relations if the US government showed up in England and said "Look, we don't give a shit when you had the magna carta, we've got the Constitution, and it's patented. Pony up the royalties or we'll kick your ass a second time." (Or maybe that's the real reason the war of 1812 was fought?)
Hint, in a publically funded system, taking care of the elderly and the general population is in the governments best interest because it is what gets them re-elected.
That would be research motivated by politics. A *bad thing*. Consider NASA... need I say more?
If speaking from a purely ideological point of view, there's plenty of room for a hybrid. If speaking about how the US government would do it, privatize it all the way. Here's how it goes: (and I realize I'm about to offend a lot of people:) )
Those who can't cut it in the private sector work for the government.
Those who can't cut it working for the government work for a contractor.
Those who can't cut it working for a contractor draw a welfare salary (and are still supported by the government).
Everybody else is either working in the private sector or unemployed.
Find your place on the food chain. Also, decide where on the food chain you want your medicine to exist.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, yes, the personal ethics system -- your morals are yours, mine are mine. So you're telling me it's OK to stuff Jews in a gas chamber?
I don't know about that guy, but I say "from a certain point of view." Fact is, though, that a group that will stuff Jews in a gas chamber is dangerous to the world at large, and when it comes down to it, I'll chose my survival over your survival if need be. I don't have to oppose a point of view to eliminate the people that have it, I only have to show how their existence and practices will damage/destroy the rest of the world.
you are a big fucking idiot.. .you know why?
Let's see if I've got this straight, then. You tell us that we need to study animal behavior or some shit-hole science or other, and then when we persist in disagreeing with you (usually as a result of personal experience that seems to contradict your "science"), we are idiots? That doesn't sound you're being very "scientific", and thus your complete argument can be safely dismissed.
Personally I support not selling M-rated games to minors, but not at the point of law. The movie industry hasn't needed laws to enfore R-rated movies. Do kids still see them? Sure. But they can't just walk in. And consider this - kids can't pirate cigarettes, but if you make it to where kids can't buy M-rated games by law they'll just hit up the newsgroups.
Dude, I'd say you hit the nail pretty good with that one. The thing that makes R-ratings a success is that the previews all say "Children not admitted without a parent" or something like that. Parents *know* and are constantly reminded that it's their responsibility. R-rating means "Hey, we've made this movie especially violent, sexual, or whatever, and we think you should watch it before you show it to your kids. It's up to you, but we really think you should."
Generally, I'm not worried about what an R-rated movie might have in it. But I do feel pretty stupid for watching that stupid Tom Cruise movie in front of the kids. I forgot the name already, but it's the one with him and that Nicole Kidman chick where she tells him about her cheating fantasy and he immediately runs out and tries to cheat on her, but keeps getting caught by his own "conscience". Yeah, right, his conscience was strong enough to stop him from cheating, but not strong enough to stop him from looking in the first place? That movie must've been made by a woman. Heh. Anyway, I'm getting sidetracked. That movie played on every stupid freaking sexual taboo that has plagued mankind for the last, i don't know, 10000 years? A long time, in any case. I would've preferred my kids not see it until they were *much* older, but luckily they're young enough now that it couldn't have done much damage at all, if any. It's also not reinforced anywhere else in their lives.
But I'll be thinking twice about games, if they ever manage to make them for Linux (otherwise, my problem is already taken care of!). But just like the DVD collection (which isn't growing, due my boycott of the MPAA), my computers will be carefully kept up anyway. The kids'll have quotas on their home directories big enough that they can do anything they want, but small enough to prevent them from smuggling shit in. I have no intention of spying on their home directories. :) Instead I have every intention of building a good network that is accessible by the whole family, with all the software accessible by the whole family, and everything that goes on there will go on there for all of us or none of us. :) I don't think the kids should ever sit down in front of the computer and think "I'm not allowed to do this." Censorship and computers is going to be the same deal as censorship and books, since they're both information technology. I'd really hate to bring censorship to my kids. I'd rather fight it with them. :)
Because a mess of polygons that looks like a human being is a relatively new thing, people do not yet equate children playing violently with it the same way that they treat a child playing violently with a GI Joe toy or a stuffed doll. They have not yet connected the dots and realized that young children have violently murdered represensations of human beings for as long as there have been toys that look vaguely human and that the sane among those children have come out fine.
I hate to sound like I'm on the other side, but whenever I see my kids "hurting" their toys, I make them apologize to the toy and give them a kiss. Well, I don't make them apologize, I tell them "You really hurt your doll! What do you think you should do about it?". Then if they don't say "apologize", I say "Well I think you should apologize, and be careful." I'll let up when they're a bit older, I think, I'm just trying to avoid a foundation of play violence. There is violence in play, as you've pointed out, and I don't know that you can point to any point in human history and say that most people were "sane" and children that have "come out fine".
That said, I still don't see anything wrong with playing a violent computer game. You know that the computer made this animation of something, and these sound effects, and that if you do this you'll see another animation with other sound effects, etc. There is a world of difference between something that is created as a mathematical construct whose purpose is to figuratively "die" and a person with a real life and so forth. Teach compassion always to your kids (although it may not matter, I don't subscribe to the idea that kids are blank slates that need programming, they're people that need to be taught and set free, like anybody else). Show compassion. If they've got it, they'll respond. If not, they won't. Of course, if you have compassion, and your wife has compassion, odds are, the kids've got it too. Anybody know if compassion is a recessive gene or not?
Have you guys EVER studied behavioral sciences at ALL?
Nope, havne't done so for the same reason I don't look down in a horse pasture.
Furthermore, I'd like to point out that you are a pretty agressive guy yourself, and that this post was especially violent. Much violence can be expressed in words, and you did a wonderful job of doing so. Thank you. :)
and a proven statistic: the higher the unemployment, the higher the crime rate. does this mean we can make bad economic policy illegal too?
Do you really think the guys that make economic policy would do that? More likely they'd just make unemployment illegal.
Why do we restrict the purchase of pr0n by minors? I am yet to see a gram of evidence that that watching some pr0n is going to harm the little buggers in any conceivable way.
Sorry, got no evidence, just verbiage.
1. I'm not opposed to keeping porn from teenagers. In fact, I'm all for giving them some porn, a tub of KY-Jelly, locking the bastard up and saying "This is SAFE SEX. THIS IS ALL YOU CAN DO UNTIL YOU'RE 18 YEARS OLD AND LIVING UNDER YOUR OWN ROOF".
2. Kids younger than puberty are a special case in all things, and teaching them how to love is one of those things. The two things you are up against are lack of necessary hormones (and physical response) and lack of consciousness. Now, every kid reaches self-awareness (or consciousness) at a different age, so whatever policies guide you when they're younger might well differ. In this, with multiple kids, you're also up against the whole "Daddy, if my brother can do it, then why can't I?" mentality. Anyway, the lack of a physical response is a serious factor as well. While I clearly remember having a hard-on when I was 8, I also clearly remember seeing my first porn when I was 5. I was very confused about it. Between porn (not much viewed, either) and my parent's refusal to approach the subject with me, I was left with society to teach me about sex. Naturally, I had a very warped view of sex. This isn't to say that I don't still have a warped view, it's just now a much more informed view than it was before. :)
If that made sense, I'm impressed. But I sure don't like the idea of my 4-year-old getting a look at www.shitcity.com (no, I won't make the link, if you want to see it, copyNpaste). She has a hard enough time eating burritos as it is, and that's food that's so cheap and nutritious you'd have to be stupid not to eat it.
Do you have any idea what it does to your brain to associate killing and the sounds of killing with RELAXATION?
I'm gonna take a wild guess, it relaxes you?
Seriously, though, game makers don't make games that try to simulate killing. They make games that try to entertain, which frequently have killing as a plot mechanism. The thing we all seem to be forgetting is that there are very few sources of reliable information on exactly what happens when people are killed in horrible fashions. What you see in games is some programmer's or artist's concept, but unless they've gone out and killed themselves, I'd have to doubt the simulation's authenticity.
Besides that, since it's all about attitude and emotions, let's look at other games kids play that have existed long before violent computer games:
Chess
Cops and Robbers
Cowboys and Indians
ok, it's late, I'm running out of ideas. :( SOmeone else chime in with traditional games that have a violent theme, ok? Preferably games that even predate paper RPGs.
And, of course, we're not saying anything at all about the violence in the traditional fairy tales (like, oh, i don't know, the BIBLE???) and other such stories.
Even if you can buy a gun attachment for a games console you simply have a piece of plastic which dosn't behave like the real thing.
Idiot. :) that's why you get a real gun and take it somewhere where there's PLENTY of targets.
However, I'd like to point out that the guy that climbed the tower at the University of Texas and took potshots until he was taken out most likely did NOT play video games.
That's like "I've got a lot of gay friends" after you've been accused of being homophobic... Get a clue...
Hm, I've got a lot of geek friends...
Now if they somehow captured the vileness of poor white trash and put it into a video game, then that might be the real test of if these games cause violence, or just provide a harmless outlet for it.
Um, that's called "Windows XP". I guess you haven't heard of it, yet.
you want your kid to stay away from computer games, don't buy them games, or better yet, don't buy them the hardware needed to run most games, that stops them pirating stuff as well.
Or you could just run Linux, since as all of us slashdotters know, there aren't any good games for Linux. Solves the piracy problem too.
It's not as though well-educated, properly-behaving children will impress the neighbours more than that shiny new car will...
Since you bring the subject up, I've got a fun anecdote. :)
I'm a long-haired, hippy-lookin' dude and have been off and on for all of my adult life. (A few periods of temporary insanity resulted in a few haircuts here and there) As a result of this, coupled with the fact that I married a 15-year-old girl when I was 21, my wife's side of the family tends to look upon me with distaste and contempt. (They cite the hair and say I must do drugs and cheat on my wife)
My sister-in-law, or my wife's sister if you prefer, got married a year and a half ago. Her fiancee's family is a well-to-do, well-respected family in some corporate circles. His dad is the CEO or President of some large corporation or other. So my wife's family naturally fell in love with them immediately.
We went to the wedding. Or at least, the reception (the wedding was off-limits to non-mormons because it was held in the temple, and my wife and I are *definitely not* mormon). During the lunch before the wedding, the whole wedding party and whatever reception guests were there all sat and ate (that's what one does at a lunch). While my wife's family was giving me all the looks that say "He's here, they're gonna think bad about us because of him, and he's not even part of the family", we all just ate our lunch. After lunch, the fiancee's dad (the CEO guy) comes over to me, introduces himself, tells us we have beautiful kids, then says "Your kids are very well-behaved. I'm very impressed. You guys are doing a wonderful job, and I'm looking forward to getting to know you better."
Now, yeah, sure, he could've said it trying to be polite, but I checked him on it later, and not only was he sincere, but his wife was excited to meet us at the reception. (yes, I did wear a suit, and tie up the hair, it's not like I was dressed in my normal wardrobe or anything, there is a sense of decorum that goes with these sorts of events)
(And anyone who claims that emotional abuse or neglecting to show affection does not have a serious effect on a child is deluding themself).
The government does care, but its much harder to prove. At least once in my wife's childhood, a state agency started making motions to remove her from her mother's custody, and her mom was able to maneuver her way right out of it. AFAIK, all states have emotional abuse and neglect worded into their abuse laws, but it's very difficult to prove.
These days, parents get away with dumping all of their parental responsibilities onto the kids and then when their kids start acting fucked up, getting them to treatment centers and getting them hyped up on drugs. If *I* were gonna make a law to deal with emotional abuse, I would start by taking these kids away from their parents and putting them somewhere else. :) In my experience, kids that go to treatment centers (sent by their parents) are being emotionally abused, and the treatment is part of the abuse.
Even worse are the schools that now have the power to decide that a kid is fucked up (without an attending psychologist) and forcing the parents to get them prescriptions for lithium and crap. Not that having an attending psychologist is a big deal, it's big money for some psychologists to just rubber-stamp prescriptions for that shit every time a parent asks for one.
IMO, these problems get solved by parents taking 100% responsibility for their kids, and for raising them.
Frankly, if you have a 6 year old who insists on grabbing stuff off the shelves in the store while you shop, a quick pop on the butt is one of the most effective means to teach them that actions have consequences. I don't think a 6 year old has the reasoning power that I have, but he understands he doesn't want to do that anymore.
I think you underrate the reasoning power of a 6-year-old. My 4-year-old understands what "stealing" is, and she doesn't do it. :) I explained to her that stealing is wrong because somebody worked damn hard to make whatever it is she's stealing and to provide it for her in a store. All they ask in return is a little bit of money. She thinks it's a totally reasonably trade. :) I've never yelled at her, and I've never hit her. Same with my 2-year-old boy, and he's damn rambunctious.
I agree that the government's got no right to tell us we can't spank our kids, but that doesn't mean I think spanking is right. There are other ways to teach kids, and pain isn't the only (or best) way. I've seen quite a few kids build up resentment to their parents for spanking and yelling (myself included), resentment that can contribute to serious problems later. (Serioiusly, I *want* my kids to tell me when/if they start having sex, doing drugs, etc. I don't want them to hide it from me for fear of being yelled at, or worse)
Finally, it's pure hypocrisy to tell your kid "Don't hit your sister", and then spank them for it. Furthermore, spanking is usually accompanied with statements like "you made me do this", which teaches irresponsibility. The example you set, as a parent, is the most important tool (and most effective) you have to teach your kids. Spanking sets a poor example of using violence to control a kid. (I looked at it that way when I was a kid, so I have no reason to think that other kids don't see it that way at all)
I didnt fail to point anything out. I was talking about the aftermarket sellers. They are not breaking the law for selling OC equipment or advertised OC'ed systems. The problem is the whole "Throw the baby out with the Bathwater" syndrome thats popular nowadays.
Yes, good, and do you TELL people you're selling an overclocked proc? Or do you tell them they're getting a P4 2.4Ghz and you're packing a P4 2 Ghz that's overclocked? The first case is fine, the second case is the unethical case that Intel has used.
Dont' get me wrong, I'm all over the fact that Intel has an ulterior motive. I was just trying to clarify something, and apparently failed as well.
We don't need anyone protecting us, aftermarket OC products are "Use at your own risk", it's the consumers choice.
The parent failed to point out that the real danger is when a system builder sells you a 2Ghz processor that's only rated for 1.6Ghz or something, and they overclocked it. Then, when the processor burns up and you take it in to have it fixed, they'll tell you you overclocked your processor and voided your warranty, get you to buy ANOTHER system from them, overclock THAT, and keep you chasing your tail. That's an unethical business practice and many consumers aren't smart enough to know that it's happening.
Realistically, I've no idea whether or not it's still going on. You'd think that processors are fast enough that it's no longer an issue, but the determining factor isn't how fast they are compared to 5 years ago, rather it's how much they cost and what the price difference is between the two speeds. If there's a $50 price difference between the actual processor's cost, and the cost of the same processor at a higher clock rate, then the builder can expect to charge $50 more for the system that's pure profit.
Finally, if Intel were to partner with a BIOS maker, or show us how to tap into it ourselves, it would be much better if the kernel ran the test and then passed a warning to the user in a BIG way. They might even get MS to do it, too. Then the consumer would take home his shiny new computer, boot it up, and then take it right back and demand that the system builder remove the overclocking from the machine or give him his money back.
In the end, though, this only makes AMDs chips more attractive. If I were a marketing guy at AMD, I'd launch a campaign about how you can still overclock AMD processors. :) "The other guys want to tell you what you can do with their processor. Buy ours instead and do what you like."
Likening SMB spiders to Windows' search is a pretty big jump
It only seems that way since the author left out a single, crucial sentence. "If you point your Windows search at My Network Neighborhood, you will essentially be running a SMB spider." Further explanations would be nice, such as "A SMB spider is just like MS Windows Search functions. It retrieves directory listings and catalogs them." And so forth. All these guys did was add another layer or two on top of software that did the same functionality of Windows search (granted it doesn't use Windows Search itself, but their own spiders).
Lots of hard work putting it together, but the end-product still needs a lot of work. :( I hate to discourage this kind of effort, but I'd really class this as a rough draft, and it definitely needs more pictures still. I found the pictures failed miserably to display the concepts well. I'd be willing to volunteer some time, if the author is interested, to work up some better graphics.
Bah. If you're going to piss off Texans, may as well show them that Quebec is large enough to encompass four Texases with room to spare. :-)
What about number of weapons per capita? If you take that into account, you Canadians might quiet down a bit... :) (not to mention what that hot air in Texas does to a man's brain, there's a reason fundamentalist christian sects are popular in Texas)
Not the least of that accomplishment is that our pm is french (ok ok, quebecois), which puts him pretty low on the hard-ass scale.
Not to mention the evolutionary scale...
If they would include the player without any closed libs or potential copyright conflicting source they could add a huge benefit to their distributions.
Yes and no, actually. Until recently, they couldn't distribute binary versions of MPlayer, and it was due to licensing of one of the libraries mplayer depends on (I think lav, but I could be wrong). Furthermore, now they can distribute binaries, and Mandrake 9.1 has one. The problem is, mplayer's build system automatically compiles and optimizes mplayer for your system. It detects cpu, math coprocessor, graphics card, etc. and optimizes for it. The binary distribution that comes with Mandrake is compiled with run-time CPU detection, which means that MPlayer is not optimized. I wound up uninstalling Mandrake's MPlayer and building it again, since it compiles very easily.
Seriously, how hard would it to be to put an easy to use interface and reporting engine on top of mysql (or postgre or whatever)?
If you want the desktop database that's part of the suite, you have to pay Sun. That's the only component of the suite they didn't open source.
That said, GNU Enterprise does well, even at its low version, for functionality typical of Access. It'll plug into MySQL and Postgres both, as well as a few commercial databases. Also, if you do a little googling, you'll find a php frontend, and some other stuff. There's plenty of free software out there to fit this need, it's just not bundled in with OpenOffice.org, that's all.
Imagine if Egyptians patented math?
Consider how many times Egypt was conquored (Rome, Greece, I think even the Jews conquered it, hell even Hitler had it for awhile!) I'd have to say that their patents would at least have been transferred to our modern western society. Also, many of their contemporaries developed similar technologies within a similar timespan...
Worse yet, imagine if the US government patented everything they came up with! :) Just think what it would've done to international relations if the US government showed up in England and said "Look, we don't give a shit when you had the magna carta, we've got the Constitution, and it's patented. Pony up the royalties or we'll kick your ass a second time." (Or maybe that's the real reason the war of 1812 was fought?)
Hint, in a publically funded system, taking care of the elderly and the general population is in the governments best interest because it is what gets them re-elected.
That would be research motivated by politics. A *bad thing*. Consider NASA... need I say more?
If speaking from a purely ideological point of view, there's plenty of room for a hybrid. If speaking about how the US government would do it, privatize it all the way. Here's how it goes: (and I realize I'm about to offend a lot of people :) )
Those who can't cut it in the private sector work for the government.
Those who can't cut it working for the government work for a contractor.
Those who can't cut it working for a contractor draw a welfare salary (and are still supported by the government).
Everybody else is either working in the private sector or unemployed.
Find your place on the food chain. Also, decide where on the food chain you want your medicine to exist.
Just to let you know. You mispelled speech.
Just to let you know, you misspelled misspelled.