I'm about to kick my 15 year old off Viva Pinata (he's been playing it for a couple of hours this morning) and I'm sure that it will provoke an unsightly reaction, and an afternoon of the sulks.
I'm wondering how the study decided a video game was "violent" and whether that is too simplistic. Surely the immersion in the game is just as important? Does a game where "aggressive" (risk-taking? challenging?) behavior is rewarded have greater effect? Is it aggression in the game rather than violence which affects the player more? I would expect that some people are predisposed to be more affected by the gaming experience than others. Is this supported by evidence, and what are the factors involved?
I wish someone would do some serious research in this area.
Did anyone else note the strange reference to "Dell, Lenovo ThinkPad and Gateway laptops"?
Was that Computerworld's attempt to make it computer-related news?
1. Outside of the USA, the iPhone is available from multiple providers, possibly even unlocked.
2. Future speculation. Perhaps Apple will release more "models" of iPhone (though I doubt it). Perhaps Android will be a market failure and there will be limited choice.
3. Speculation. While I would agree with your reasoning (phone OS development costs are spread over multiple phone makers) it remains to be seen if this will make it cheaper.
4. You can't put a non-free (as in beer) app on an Android phone at present. That isn't whatever you want and is bound to reduce overall application numbers.
I have also read that some drivers (particularly with early ABS versions) would be alarmed by the pulsations of the pedal, and not brake as hard as they could as a consequence.
This is another good reason to practice - to know what to expect when it actually happens.
I don't think so - There is a difference between commodity hardware (which you may need to patch the OS to run on) and custom hardware protected by a large number of patents.
This would have interesting ramifications if the countersuit was to succeed, and Apple forced to change the licencing restriction so that anyone could legally run OSX on non-Apple hardware.
I don't belive it would be in Apple's corporate culture to embrace such a change and push OSX as an alternative to Windows - they are making too much money doing what they currently do.
So I assume that means they would try to tie the OS to their hardware with code. Which may be enough to preserve the current situation - while it wouldn't stop hackers, it would discourage the vast majority of people.
Interestingly, last night's (repeated) episode of The Simpsons was "Co-Dependent's Day" in which Bart and Lisa visit Randall Curtis at Cosmic Wars Ranch to tell him where he has gone wrong.
Hi. I'm not from the USA, and am slightly anti-gun, but if you take the purpose of the 2nd amendment to heart, then you *should* have tanks. The other side (govt./invading forces/company stomping on your rights) _will_ have tanks, so you should too. I'm still trying to figure out how this argument applies to nukes, but it probably does, in that with MAD, they won't nuke you, making your investment in tanks worthwhile. I note that you said companies though. This applies to citizens, not companies which should not be recognized as an independent legal entity, but merely a collection of people (shareholders).
Or, you find a new compromise solution, like, say a small efficient gas turbine engine + generator + fuel tank module which can be fitted to the car for long trips; comes on when the battery gets low and recharges the battery as you drive. It would need to be pretty powerful - I assume you need about 75kW to push a car along at highway speeds and charge a battery.
This may not even be practical, but surely there is some solution like this out there...
And let's face it - that trade-off has been entirely successful for your entire life.
While some would scoff and say "it's just a matter of time" that's like saying "if I buy a lottery ticket, I might win $20M, so it's a good deal". Humans are bad at weighing the odds. "$20M is a huge amount and the odds are huge - that sounds even."
So, in this context, is it really worth investing all this money in this threat given (1) the low probability of such an attack, (2) the risk that this countermeasure might not work (3) the alternative counter-terrorism measures forgone and (4) As the parent said, plenty of alternative methods of attack.
Look, I don't normally reply to God-botherers, but I'm so sick of hearing such people saying "Well, science is allowed to be wrong and make mistakes, so I'm allowed to believe whatever I want without any proof." Which would be fine if they kept their stupidity to themselves, but then they have to start posting on the internets with "They should also teach God in science school because God invented science."
I can't believe that people are that stupid.
I just can't.
Well then, simply don't apply the update!
It's not like Apple employ a SWAT team to force their way into your home and hold you at gunpoint until you upgrade.
And neither do they have the phone surreptitiously phone Cupertino and upgrade itself without your knowledge.
It's still your hardware! Just don't expect support and compatibility with future software releases if you hack it.
Slashdot Mirror
Not funny - insightful.
I'm about to kick my 15 year old off Viva Pinata (he's been playing it for a couple of hours this morning) and I'm sure that it will provoke an unsightly reaction, and an afternoon of the sulks.
I'm wondering how the study decided a video game was "violent" and whether that is too simplistic. Surely the immersion in the game is just as important? Does a game where "aggressive" (risk-taking? challenging?) behavior is rewarded have greater effect? Is it aggression in the game rather than violence which affects the player more? I would expect that some people are predisposed to be more affected by the gaming experience than others. Is this supported by evidence, and what are the factors involved?
I wish someone would do some serious research in this area.
Did anyone else note the strange reference to "Dell, Lenovo ThinkPad and Gateway laptops"?
Was that Computerworld's attempt to make it computer-related news?
1. Outside of the USA, the iPhone is available from multiple providers, possibly even unlocked.
2. Future speculation. Perhaps Apple will release more "models" of iPhone (though I doubt it). Perhaps Android will be a market failure and there will be limited choice.
3. Speculation. While I would agree with your reasoning (phone OS development costs are spread over multiple phone makers) it remains to be seen if this will make it cheaper.
4. You can't put a non-free (as in beer) app on an Android phone at present. That isn't whatever you want and is bound to reduce overall application numbers.
I have also read that some drivers (particularly with early ABS versions) would be alarmed by the pulsations of the pedal, and not brake as hard as they could as a consequence.
This is another good reason to practice - to know what to expect when it actually happens.
I think you meant precedent.
I don't think so - There is a difference between commodity hardware (which you may need to patch the OS to run on) and custom hardware protected by a large number of patents.
This would have interesting ramifications if the countersuit was to succeed, and Apple forced to change the licencing restriction so that anyone could legally run OSX on non-Apple hardware.
I don't belive it would be in Apple's corporate culture to embrace such a change and push OSX as an alternative to Windows - they are making too much money doing what they currently do.
So I assume that means they would try to tie the OS to their hardware with code. Which may be enough to preserve the current situation - while it wouldn't stop hackers, it would discourage the vast majority of people.
Which I wouldn't really mind.... if it wasn't for the pointing and laughing.
Interestingly, last night's (repeated) episode of The Simpsons was "Co-Dependent's Day" in which Bart and Lisa visit Randall Curtis at Cosmic Wars Ranch to tell him where he has gone wrong.
That episode was way too close to the truth...
Like this one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_Magna
Oh, you said Magma...
Dude, if your site has SMS, you probably don't need the UNIT, SPACE or DCB parameters, as SMS will default them for you.
That's a lot like the Drobo (http://www.drobo.com/) but it only holds 4 drives and connects via USB. A step in the right direction though.
Hi. I'm not from the USA, and am slightly anti-gun, but if you take the purpose of the 2nd amendment to heart, then you *should* have tanks. The other side (govt./invading forces/company stomping on your rights) _will_ have tanks, so you should too. I'm still trying to figure out how this argument applies to nukes, but it probably does, in that with MAD, they won't nuke you, making your investment in tanks worthwhile.
I note that you said companies though. This applies to citizens, not companies which should not be recognized as an independent legal entity, but merely a collection of people (shareholders).
Hailstorm? or Blue Sky Of Death?
When corruption benefits those in power, why would they make any effort to stop it?
Here's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hicks the modern parallel (but with the opposite outcome), in case you weren't aware of David Hick's story.
This may not even be practical, but surely there is some solution like this out there...
It was the intent of the founding fathers that no-one would go hungry. And, as bear meat was popular at the time, they wrote (or intended to write):
The right of the people to eat bear arms shall not be infringed.
I hope that clears it up for you.
While some would scoff and say "it's just a matter of time" that's like saying "if I buy a lottery ticket, I might win $20M, so it's a good deal". Humans are bad at weighing the odds. "$20M is a huge amount and the odds are huge - that sounds even."
So, in this context, is it really worth investing all this money in this threat given (1) the low probability of such an attack, (2) the risk that this countermeasure might not work (3) the alternative counter-terrorism measures forgone and (4) As the parent said, plenty of alternative methods of attack.
I can't believe that people are that stupid.
I just can't.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
George Santayana
And also the new demonstration event, the 10,000km rendition.
Well then, simply don't apply the update!
It's not like Apple employ a SWAT team to force their way into your home and hold you at gunpoint until you upgrade.
And neither do they have the phone surreptitiously phone Cupertino and upgrade itself without your knowledge.
It's still your hardware! Just don't expect support and compatibility with future software releases if you hack it.
it does its chemical thing
I didn't think that radioactive decay was classed as "chemical."
Let's hope this spokewoman is PR and not Engineering.