I believe that is the point of copyright and other IP laws: to create scarcity and, thus, value in these sorts of cases. I cannot understand why the/. crowd, working in mostly "intellectual" areas (programmers, scientists, engineers, etc) would think that this is a bad thing.
I will actually be attending the NKS summer school this June (hey...its free) so I'll give you guys a full report when I get back. If I don't drink too much Kool-Aid while I'm there...
Oddly enough, I agree. There is, as far as I know, no evidence to indicate that video games spur killing sprees. Furthermore I think it is very unlikely that there is even a *correlation* between mass murder and video games, when you think of the full spectrum of people who commit these sorts of crimes. This part of the debate seems open and shut.
So, the issue that remains is whether video games have *any* effect. My point is that, contrary to popular Slashdot belief, psychologists do know what they are doing and have indeed executed many experiments that test this hypothesis (without begging the question of the direction of the causation). And it looks like they do. Fankly, I do not understand why people are so resistant to this conclusion. (I'm actually reminded of the willful ignorance in some quarters of the causes of global warming)
But, as I said, that violent video games increase violent behavior simply puts them in the company of many many many other everyday activities that foster violence. Regulating on these grounds would be a travesty.
Unsurprisingly, this has been done. (I say unsurprisingly because psychologists are not stupid and are generally well trained in statistical analysis - something we could all do well to remember). Indeed, had you read the article, you would know that these sorts of studies are mentioned in the very article you are criticizing.
In the study they mention [http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa/abs tracts/2000-2004/00AD.pdf], *random* college students are asked to play a video game. Half play Myst, the other half play Wolf 3D. Guess which group exhibited more violent behavior afterwards? So, yes, "the direction of the link" has been established. You, and other Slashdot readers, are not the first to think of this question.
Now, I'm not saying that this means we should regulate violent video games - lots of things spur violent behavior and we cannot and should not outlaw them all. But, when people claim that violent video games breed violence, they *are* in fact supported by experimental evidence.
OK, now don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of MS bloat, but I think we need a reality check here:
1. I run Vista on a laptop with 512MB and IT IS FINE. That isn't to say that I would encourage home users to do anything else while they use Photoshop on such a set up, but if it is OK for me, then it should be OK for the average Joe.
2. The memory usage indicator in the task manager is misleading in Vista. Vista has a feature called "SuperFetch" that attempts to preemptively load data from the HD into RAM. (Here is a good writeup - just ignore the ReadyBoost stuff - http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/31/windows-vis ta-superfetch-and-readyboostanalyzed/). So, if you have 2GB od RAM and the memory usage when idle is 1.11GB (as it is on mine at the moment) that DOES NOT mean that Vista is using 1.11GB of RAM at idle. In fact, this is easily demonstrates in two ways. First, if I open Photoshop, Mathematica, and , say, Visual Studio (for good measure) my physical memory usage does not change from 1.11GB. Second, my laptop uses a different amount of memory when idle. So it looks like Vista will only use SuperFetch when it would not put your memory consumption over 50% (a guess on my part, but my limited data support it), and will then readily free that memory when you actually need it for something.
Anyway, again, I am not arguing that Vista (et. al.) is not bloated, or that SuperFetch isn't stupid (it might be...I'm not sure what I think), or for good measure that Vista's DRM doesn't make it 'defective by design'. I just think it needs saying that it simply is NOT TRUE that your machine with less than 1GB RAM will write in agony if you install Vista. Mine doesn't, and 'evidence' to the contrary gained by looking at the free memory of an idle Vista system is very misleading.
Perhaps even more interestingly, Visual Studio 2003 is not supported on Vista. Microsoft's advice for those of us who still need to develop for.Net 1.1 on Windows, but would also like to upgrade to Vista is
a. Run VS 2003 in a virtualized XP environment. (!?!?!?) or b. Don't worry...it will *mostly* work - just don't try and 'complex debugging'. (!?!?!?)
Not only that but VS 2005 - yes, the latest version - requires a Vista compatibility service pack, after which it still complains about incompatibility and needing a FICTIONAL *Vista* update. (Though, it does work if you press 'Continue').
So, is it really any suprise that it doesn't officially support major products from other vendors? *Sigh*
I'm trying not to completely miss the point of your post, but I have to ask: Scientific Revolution? American? What about Galileo, Newton, Bacon, the list goes on... I mean, sure, we've been doing a lot of great stuff for the past century or so here in the states, but thats a far cry from saying that the scientific revolution is an American export.
Both you and the article rightly take issue with the fact that fossil fuels are burned to power the ethanol conversion process. Clearly this is a stupid thing to do.
What I wonder is why these plants can't skim a bit of their own ethanol to power the process? The answer, I take it, is that they can, but fossil fuels are still cheaper so, as usual, until CO2 is a controlled emission in the US is will be more cost efficient to burn dirty coal to produce ethanol than to make the process self-sustaining.
Well, because back then, there were, in turn, fossil fuel deposits from *previous* 'generations' of plants and animals, meaning that there was a good deal of carbon sequestered in the crust when the current batch of fossil fuels was being created. The modern era represents the first time in the history of life on our planet when fossil fuels have been dug up and burned, returning an unprecedented fraction of carbon to the atmosphere at one (geological) time.
If you don't believe this line of reasoning, try this one: be examining bubbles in core samples taken from antarctic ice, we can measure empirically how much carbon was in the atmosphere millions of years ago...and guess what: we win!
This is in contrast with the MS situation. Software vendors do not normally pay MS to provide software for windows. Thus, when MS adds 'features' that break other software, they are not directly depriving themselves of anything. And they do not have the 'normal' market-based checks on their business practices because they are a monopoly.
So, in short, when Google screws others to promote itself, it pays. When MS screws RealMedia (among many many others), they lose nothing but a little bit of goodwill in the market - which doesn't matter because they're a monopoly. Hence: regulation.
Consider: When Google grants itself the top ad slot for a search term, it denies itself the revenue of a third-party advertiser who might have paid for that slot. Thus, in a very real sense, Google pays exactly the same rate as everyone else.
I go to UVA (in philosophy, so I doubt I've met the guy) and this baffles me for (at least) two reasons:
If he is not in the engineering school (and with degrees in physics and math it sounds like he wasn't) then his credits per semester should have been capped at 17 to prevent people from doing exactly this sort of thing. I've tried to take more (this semester, in fact) without success.
They do not normally allow that many AP credits to transfer, let alone count towards a major. Normally, only 60 credits of any sort may be transferred and NONE of them may count towards a major without super extra special permission.
So, David, if you read this site: How did you get them to let you do that?
Slashdot Mirror
I believe that is the point of copyright and other IP laws: to create scarcity and, thus, value in these sorts of cases. I cannot understand why the /. crowd, working in mostly "intellectual" areas (programmers, scientists, engineers, etc) would think that this is a bad thing.
I will actually be attending the NKS summer school this June (hey...its free) so I'll give you guys a full report when I get back. If I don't drink too much Kool-Aid while I'm there...
Oddly enough, I agree. There is, as far as I know, no evidence to indicate that video games spur killing sprees. Furthermore I think it is very unlikely that there is even a *correlation* between mass murder and video games, when you think of the full spectrum of people who commit these sorts of crimes. This part of the debate seems open and shut.
So, the issue that remains is whether video games have *any* effect. My point is that, contrary to popular Slashdot belief, psychologists do know what they are doing and have indeed executed many experiments that test this hypothesis (without begging the question of the direction of the causation). And it looks like they do. Fankly, I do not understand why people are so resistant to this conclusion. (I'm actually reminded of the willful ignorance in some quarters of the causes of global warming)
But, as I said, that violent video games increase violent behavior simply puts them in the company of many many many other everyday activities that foster violence. Regulating on these grounds would be a travesty.
Unsurprisingly, this has been done. (I say unsurprisingly because psychologists are not stupid and are generally well trained in statistical analysis - something we could all do well to remember). Indeed, had you read the article, you would know that these sorts of studies are mentioned in the very article you are criticizing.
s tracts/2000-2004/00AD.pdf], *random* college students are asked to play a video game. Half play Myst, the other half play Wolf 3D. Guess which group exhibited more violent behavior afterwards? So, yes, "the direction of the link" has been established. You, and other Slashdot readers, are not the first to think of this question.
In the study they mention [http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa/ab
Now, I'm not saying that this means we should regulate violent video games - lots of things spur violent behavior and we cannot and should not outlaw them all. But, when people claim that violent video games breed violence, they *are* in fact supported by experimental evidence.
OK, now don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of MS bloat, but I think we need a reality check here:
s ta-superfetch-and-readyboostanalyzed/). So, if you have 2GB od RAM and the memory usage when idle is 1.11GB (as it is on mine at the moment) that DOES NOT mean that Vista is using 1.11GB of RAM at idle. In fact, this is easily demonstrates in two ways. First, if I open Photoshop, Mathematica, and , say, Visual Studio (for good measure) my physical memory usage does not change from 1.11GB. Second, my laptop uses a different amount of memory when idle. So it looks like Vista will only use SuperFetch when it would not put your memory consumption over 50% (a guess on my part, but my limited data support it), and will then readily free that memory when you actually need it for something.
1. I run Vista on a laptop with 512MB and IT IS FINE. That isn't to say that I would encourage home users to do anything else while they use Photoshop on such a set up, but if it is OK for me, then it should be OK for the average Joe.
2. The memory usage indicator in the task manager is misleading in Vista. Vista has a feature called "SuperFetch" that attempts to preemptively load data from the HD into RAM. (Here is a good writeup - just ignore the ReadyBoost stuff - http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/31/windows-vi
Anyway, again, I am not arguing that Vista (et. al.) is not bloated, or that SuperFetch isn't stupid (it might be...I'm not sure what I think), or for good measure that Vista's DRM doesn't make it 'defective by design'. I just think it needs saying that it simply is NOT TRUE that your machine with less than 1GB RAM will write in agony if you install Vista. Mine doesn't, and 'evidence' to the contrary gained by looking at the free memory of an idle Vista system is very misleading.
For some reason, I feel like I just discovered engineering in Civ 4...
Perhaps even more interestingly, Visual Studio 2003 is not supported on Vista. Microsoft's advice for those of us who still need to develop for .Net 1.1 on Windows, but would also like to upgrade to Vista is
. aspx http://blogs.msdn.com/somasegar/archive/2006/09/26 /772250.aspx
a. Run VS 2003 in a virtualized XP environment. (!?!?!?) or
b. Don't worry...it will *mostly* work - just don't try and 'complex debugging'. (!?!?!?)
Behold: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/vstudio/bb188244
Not only that but VS 2005 - yes, the latest version - requires a Vista compatibility service pack, after which it still complains about incompatibility and needing a FICTIONAL *Vista* update. (Though, it does work if you press 'Continue').
So, is it really any suprise that it doesn't officially support major products from other vendors? *Sigh*
Yeah...as far as I know, Tom Cruise still has his citizenship :(
Yeah. We're called "Laptop Users". :)
Fair enough. I'm with ya.
Yes.
I'm trying not to completely miss the point of your post, but I have to ask: Scientific Revolution? American? What about Galileo, Newton, Bacon, the list goes on... I mean, sure, we've been doing a lot of great stuff for the past century or so here in the states, but thats a far cry from saying that the scientific revolution is an American export.
Both you and the article rightly take issue with the fact that fossil fuels are burned to power the ethanol conversion process. Clearly this is a stupid thing to do.
What I wonder is why these plants can't skim a bit of their own ethanol to power the process? The answer, I take it, is that they can, but fossil fuels are still cheaper so, as usual, until CO2 is a controlled emission in the US is will be more cost efficient to burn dirty coal to produce ethanol than to make the process self-sustaining.
Weak.
Well, because back then, there were, in turn, fossil fuel deposits from *previous* 'generations' of plants and animals, meaning that there was a good deal of carbon sequestered in the crust when the current batch of fossil fuels was being created. The modern era represents the first time in the history of life on our planet when fossil fuels have been dug up and burned, returning an unprecedented fraction of carbon to the atmosphere at one (geological) time.
If you don't believe this line of reasoning, try this one: be examining bubbles in core samples taken from antarctic ice, we can measure empirically how much carbon was in the atmosphere millions of years ago...and guess what: we win!
Agreed. NIN, anyone?
But first, my good sir, you will need letterhead and business cards. Then we will write news articles.
naw. Then it would be a "nextgen freedom machine" [queue rousing patriotic music]...
To go a little further:
This is in contrast with the MS situation. Software vendors do not normally pay MS to provide software for windows. Thus, when MS adds 'features' that break other software, they are not directly depriving themselves of anything. And they do not have the 'normal' market-based checks on their business practices because they are a monopoly.
So, in short, when Google screws others to promote itself, it pays. When MS screws RealMedia (among many many others), they lose nothing but a little bit of goodwill in the market - which doesn't matter because they're a monopoly. Hence: regulation.
That sounds ridiculous, but its true, really. Opportunity cost. Bet you didn't know that about your wife. :)
Consider: When Google grants itself the top ad slot for a search term, it denies itself the revenue of a third-party advertiser who might have paid for that slot. Thus, in a very real sense, Google pays exactly the same rate as everyone else.
I don't recall ever actually trying to ferry a nuke to a city...
As a former Russian bomber pilot, please forgive me if I don't feel all warm and fuzzy about the F14.
I go to UVA (in philosophy, so I doubt I've met the guy) and this baffles me for (at least) two reasons: If he is not in the engineering school (and with degrees in physics and math it sounds like he wasn't) then his credits per semester should have been capped at 17 to prevent people from doing exactly this sort of thing. I've tried to take more (this semester, in fact) without success. They do not normally allow that many AP credits to transfer, let alone count towards a major. Normally, only 60 credits of any sort may be transferred and NONE of them may count towards a major without super extra special permission. So, David, if you read this site: How did you get them to let you do that?
Walcome to SAAB ownership; population: me.
I went to the dealership recently for some misc. issues and they told me that they needed to patch the software that controlls my gearbox.
I find that they usually don't :)