Answer me this; when trolls appear on a major message board, is the solution to close the board altogether?
(my personal answer is no)
There isn't an answer to patent trolls or patent warlords other than to deal with them on a case to case basis, IMO. There isn't going to be a reliable fool proof way to prevent it. Even if you rewrite the entire patent system to specify what can and cannot be patented through the system and what can and cannot be used in wording, you're still not going to please them all; there will STILL be trolls and warlords even with a rewrite.
Why bother with a rewrite when making dedicated teams to deal with questionable patents takes care of the problem more directly without interfering with patent holders that already follow the rules and don't have problematic patents.
Oh, and the purpose of an example is just that; it's an example. I have suggested in this thread that a moderation system is exactly what is needed; not a rewrite or a remake of the system, but a moderation system added to it. I think my example stands; closing a board is a terrible solution to trolls (unless there truly are nothing but trolls there); maintaining the law and dealing with the trolls as they come is really the best you can do. Or, remove the system out right. I prefer the former.
I can certainly understand that many frivolous patents are given. But I must reiterate that a dramatic rewrite isn't necessary (obviously IMO), simply because a major rewrite, or even a mass retraction of patents isn't the best answer either. Small steps are the answer; tweaks and such, IMO.
There are a lot of good patents out there, even in relation to the bad. What can simply be edited is the way in which patents must be worded so as to not allow ambiguity. From there, a review of the patents that are in question can be held; it doesn't have to be a court proceeding, it can just be controlled by the patent office. From there, the patents which really are questionable can be reviewed, and continually reviewed. This method allows for a careful examination of the patents to ensure that the patent is not too broad or frivolous, and also gives both large companies and small companies a fair chance to ensure that their voice is heard on the matter.
You mentioned Slashdot's moderation system; I think that is exactly what is needed. Not mass banning of patents or a complete rewrite of it, but moderation, to ensure that the patents are relevant, reasonable, and concise.
First question; what the product that your company(s) produced/worked on truly unique or different, or using genuinely unique technology that was free of patent infringement?
I know the door swings both ways; patent trolls sit right next to patent warlords, blah blah blah. I'm not saying that the patent rules cannot change, and I don't think that is what the Apple lawyers are saying either. However, consider what is being said by Google; they want a complete re-write. Okay, but what will the result be? Hollering that it needs to be fixed without any real solution doesn't really do any good. Also, given that this is a rather embedded system in place, a complete rewrite and replacement would take years, what with the testing and all.
As for the small businesses you worked for, I'm sorry they got squished under the strong arm of bigger companies, but my question still stands; was the patent infringement legitimate? What, do you want to wipe the patent slate clean and have everyone start from scratch? Well that would certainly suck. Should companies with X amount of patents have to give up all their patents and start anew with a one patent per year ruling? Doesn't sound fair to them, now does it.
What if, instead of being dramatic and rewriting the entire system, the parts of the system where it falls apart, the litigation side, is scrutinized and reviewed, with necessary changes taking place. Huh, sounds familiar...oh wait; it was said already.
Seriously, if simply revising what seems to be an alright system for many companies (not just big companies, small ones as well profit from the patent system) is not enough, then what is the answer? How should it work?
So...the solution is a complete re-write of the patent system? Why is Apple's stance so bad? If a patent is challenged, litigation is needed to help settle the claim. Why trash the system just because patent trolls screw things up?
Let's think of it this way; message boards have trolls. They basically do the same thing that patent trolls do -- they exist to annoy, trying to get their little bit of the pie (with message boards, that's the 15 seconds of fame. With patents, it's the $$$) Would you seriously spend hours upon hours rethinking and redoing the entire message board style just because of some annoying trolls, or would you just squash the trolls under your mighty bannination powers? The latter is much easier, and makes a lot more sense.
What better place than a discussion panel to bring up their viewpoint? If only people who believed the system was flawed attended, it would be just like an internet forum, except replace porn and furries with patent office.
RTFA, not the summary, which is a poor one at that.
From TFA:
But he acknowledged that there was a "huge bubble" of patent assertions that needs to be scaled back. "The question with this bubble market, as with any bubble market, is 'Can we solve it without a crisis arising?'" he said.
Lutton believes that the key to fixing the country's patent problems lies with the courts, not the patent office. "Most patents issued are never litigated and never licensed," he said. "We need to focus on fixing the litigation system. That's most relevant."
The issue that Lutton takes with Google's stance is that it's destructive and costly, and basically calls for something else, without any real indication of what that else is. Apple certainly has had fun with patent whores in the past, but they usually come out on top or take care of the issue. Lutton wasn't saying that the patent system is absolutely perfect, that is, without flaws or error. What they did acknowledge is that given the alternative options in other parts of the world, it's best for them. Why is that so bad?
Also (sorry to double post, but this just came to mind), what happens if it is blockable. Does using the software to prevent CIPAV from calling home constitute a felony for disrupting a Federal investigation?
Or, what happens in the case of a rebuild? Is that also considered to be messing with a Federal Investigation if the target is unaware that they are being monitored?
Yeah, but now we're installing two things via Malware; a browser extension and the CIPAV program. That's two things to sneak in, hide, and have run undetected by the computer, and also an assumption that the CIPAV is compatible with the browser used. On top of that, there is still an IP trail in router logs if data is being sent to an unknown location that you never accessed. After that, it's pretty easy to close up access, should the paranoid and disillusioned be watching their router logs carefully.
Also, While I do understand what you're saying the the method GET, but that's still an outgoing connection that wasn't initiated by the user. (The web access action was, but the CIPAV extension wasn't) Wouldn't the guardian program still pick that up as suspicious activity?
There are many programs out there, such as LittleSnitch for Mac, which are rather adamant about making sure you know everything that is phoning home on your computer. Does the CIPAV have a method of circumventing these road blocks or would the FBI be stumped by the same software that is intended to keep computers safe from malicious software? While I could certainly understand them working with larger developers like Symantec and Microsoft to ensure that their anti-spyware and virus protection software dutifully ignores a product like CIPAV, what about machines running protection applications from smaller developers, or even open source protection, like the ClamAV project?
Better yet, if programs like CIPAV become more common as a tool for Federal Investigations, does it become a requirement that said programs allow CIPAV and its successors to do their work?
For some reason, our software licensing folk installed Vista on all public access terminals this last weekend, contrary to the position taken by our IT people and our College of Business who decided to stay with XP until Vista was a little more office friendly. Won't somebody think of the students!?
But I can't seem to get the Browser Check to pull passwords on Safari 2.0 or Mac/Win Firefox with all three using password manager. Is there a specific way that the password manager/auto-fill needs to be set up in order to pull the data?
IE, is this more FUD-ey stuff that is very situational than practical?
This never was going to happen. Great idea, real chance to get some fun debate, but never would have happened. One way or another, Thompson would have refused because it wasn't a battle on his terms. He knows, this, as did Gabe/Tycho most likely.
Plus, given the amount of literal death threats given to Thompson, I think that the PA guys did the right thing.
For the most part, at least as far as I know, most schools have a policy waiver which needs to be signed to use the computers on the campus/in the school. Kids are getting an opportunity to see these rules; it's a whole nother story whether or not they read them.
And as much as blocking sucks, the fact is that they broke the rules knowingly; they should have realized the possible consequences as soon as they started using those proxies. I don't think that many people are going to argue that censoring is good, but the fact is that the school is liable for the content that is viewed/pulled on their servers. If kids are going online to download games, music, porn, or anything of that matter, the school is liable. If the children see or obtain material using the school's network and the parents catch wind of it, who do you think is going to get in trouble? The school.
I agree that 3 months is a harsh punishment for using a proxy; I'd hate to see what they would have done to me during my high school years. But they broke the rules willingly and knowingly, and they sort of have to be prepared to accept that there will be consequences, even if it isn't fair.
Except that pretty much any physics-made-into-entertainment that you will see in public basically does this as well. I don't know if anyone else would watch a professor of physics speak to a group of children; they almost always bring out the few big tricks they know to explain various concepts, such as laying down on a bed of nails and having someone smash a cinder block which rests upon their chest with a hammer. Isn't this flashy physics as well? Undoubtedly, the physicist performing knows what the actual forces are which make the trick work, but are they going to roll a chalk board out and have the kids start calculating the arc of the swing used to crush the cinder block? No. They just give a general summary of what happened, leaving out non-pertinent facts.
Same with Mythbusters. Granted they don't always do the most intelligent things, but if they were to sit down and explain each and every method they use verbatim, including the formulas and calculations performed, the amount of people who would understand what is actually going on drastically drops. Disturbing, yes, but it's true. The more of the science they explain, the smaller and smaller their audience gets, and probably the smaller and smaller their understanding gets.
They are undoubtedly some talented builders, entertaining presenters, but they are first and foremost a TV show, which has to consider ratings; when faced with the option of appeasing the scientific community and appeasing the general masses, they have little choice, really.
First off, how exactly would it be possible to enforce this other than through willing submissions from universities? Short of a bunch of Men in Black (mibs) physically checking the server to ensure that these funds are going to implement the said packet filtration system, is there really a way to remotely check and/or enforce this? Would there have to be only one unified method used to perform the filtering, and if so, what about colleges with a system that is incompatible with that unified method?
I'm not really too keen on student money being sent towards incriminating students and limiting bandwidth, but I'm really wondering about the realism behind this bill; how the hell would it be enforced with private colleges and universities?
Exactly; granted, you can kill a DVD, a HD, or a CD relatively easily; however, at the same time, you can archive to all three in a few minutes, whereas making carbon copies of film strips and audio reels takes considerably longer and also is not as easily stored as digital content. On top of that, access becomes an issue; watching 8mm films requires a projector to display them, meaning you have to keep a projector in good working condition while parts and service-workers for the projector vanish as new technology comes. For the time being, CDs, DVDs, and HDs will still have people able to service them and literally millions of machines to access the content with. As technology progresses, if there is a change in the way that data is stored, content will still be fairly easy to transfer over, since the technology will be more readily available than computers were during their advent. (Meaning more people will have access to it to work on converting the data quickly)
Basically, Digital storage is a fine solution, assuming you play to its strong points.
But there is a caveat that often happens with games that are CPU based at the core and fun based as a secondary feature. It's wonderful that developers are always trying to push the limits of games, but often times what happens is that a game falls into repetitiveness. A simple example is Oblivion; wonderful game, great while it lasted, but most people have moved beyond it. Is that what art is supposed to be? Momentarily glorified, but quickly overlooked?
People love to rant on the Wii being underpowered, but there is absolutely no reason that a game has to be pumping out the highest end graphics possible when it comes at the cost of game play and replay value. I don't begrudge PC gamers or Xbox 360 gamers for the "high end" games that they get to monkey around with, but truthfully, how many of these really give a lasting gaming experience? Halo 2 got it right (to a degree) in the sense that it took the content that people wanted (the multiplayer of Halo) and put it online with a small visual/gameplay update. Huge success which people still play. Since you really can't upgrade a console once it's been purchased (storage aside), what good does it do to keep pushing how far the console will go, sacrificing gameplay until you're basically watching a movie and hitting a button to go to the next scene? Might as well just watch a DVD at that point.
Instead of looking at the Wii as underpowered, I've personally felt that what Nintendo did with the Wii was to set a cap for the games; when deciding the architecture of the Wii, they obviously had two choices; try to compete in terms of power and put yet another extremely expensive next gen system on the market, or, put out a system which was more affordable and focused on "fun" games. (I realize that fun is really subjective, but that does seem to be their intent) The result is as you see; they went for an affordable machine which people could purchase. (Let's ignore the fact that it's sold out pretty much everywhere) IIRC, Nintendo had Dev kits out for the Wii pretty early on, so developers knew what they had to work with a long time ago, and presumably are still working on games as such with these restrictions in mind. Thus far, every single game that I have played on the Wii has been a seamless experience; no slow down, no extremely long loading times; I pop in the game, and for the most part, I'm playing right away. This isn't something that the 360 and the PS3 can claim for all of their games. I realize that there is less going on behind the scenes on the Wii which allows for this seamless loading, but consider the more average gamer or consumer; do you think they care about the numbers behind the scenes? No, they want to be able to play a game on their system without having to wait for the system to load everything. It could be a beautiful game for the system, but if it takes too long to load and all the user ends up with is a pretty picture, what's the point?
Ingenuity is not something that can be measured in terms of processor power or video ram; neither is fun. You don't need to sacrifice AI for ingenuity and fun. Yes, there's going to be a trade off between graphics and AI, but as to which to chose, you simply figure out which adds more to the gameplay and overall fun. The focus of games, first and foremost at this point, is to be just that; games. Can they be other things? Yes. Do they have to be other things? Not really.
By calling the Wii a "piece of s---", Hecker is in fact limiting what games can do by creating an unreasonable standard for gaming. Not everything is going to be a visual masterpiece. Not everything needs to have a runaway budget to be great. Though at this point it's just personal opinion, consider the game Chibi-Robo. Incredible game in terms of it's use of perspective to give the illusion of a really freaking big place. That sounds pretty artistic to me, playing with perspective and depth in a 3-D environment to enhance the visual features. Or Katamari, everyone's favorite ball rolling game. There is nothing special about the graphics, but the fact that it plays with perception and depth makes it an incredible game.
Though I was skeptical at first of the woman's relation to the boy, I am going to assume that Gabe would have the know-how to verify this in someway, and that he wouldn't outright post it without verification.
That being said, while what they tried to do to help the boy was commendable, there is only one real thing that I take issue with; almost everything they did was in response to what the boy had already done, and it doesn't seem like there was an active move on the parents to get additional help for the boy. They suggested extracurricular activities, art, etc, but I am thinking more along the lines of what you mentioned, where he is taken to a military school, or where the parents approach the police (instead of the other way around) about what the boy is doing. Granted it's not going to stop the kid from lying, but if the parents bring up the issue first and explain things instead of having the classic "child finds courage to admit they're being abused" scenario occurring, then they get a little more leverage in the situation.
I can understand their not doing so, however, as the boy is quite frankly frightening. He's manipulative, he knows how to cover his ass (and remove excess poo apparently), and I wouldn't want to meet in in the fucking ball pit at Chuck E Cheese's much less a dark back alley.
Yes, you surely know every app they are going to need and have pre-installed it for them. And every application you haven't heard of is probably a virus. Of course, if you had setup their permissions properly then they couldn't install applications anyway. Instead of policing each application, set appropriate domain policies and work policies that make sense. Limit the size of email attachments. Put quotes on their accounts. Make sure the network drives have appropriate permissions.
Trying to monitor every application used on every PC is a modern version of micro-management. Do you look at every tool that is on someone's desk? Do you approve each stapler? If you don't let people visit web sites, can they bring in books and newspapers? Do you blacklist/whitelist the phone numbers they can call and receive calls from? \
That's not the issue he's dealing with though, is it? It's not like people are asking for a copy of MS Office installed on their computer; from what the OP detailed, it sounds a lot like they are not working IT for a company that has a need for excess software. What use does a financial company have for Photoshop or GIMP on a computer when they outsource their image editing to another company? If it's a program that a worker needs, such as Office, or the preferred database suite, then the person gets it. If they want other things, why do they need it on that computer? Do they need iTunes? Do they need Bit Torrent or Azureus, etc...not for work they don't. It's strict yes, but it's policy. They knew the policy when they began the job (or at least they should have), so there shouldn't be an issue. If they have issue, bring it up with the department chair who wrote the policy, not the IT guy.
I'd be willing to grant that Linux will not get off the ground until there is a little more cooperation from the power users when it comes to teaching newbies about running Linux, but your assumption about Macintosh really doesn't have any grounding in reality. It has been proven time and time again that the security in Mac OS X does exist and actually works about as well as legends claim. Maybe before you claim that a worm will wipe out half of the Macs on the internet, you should cite precedent of a virus/worm actually affecting a Mac that is not proof of concept, but rather, a legitimate worm. On top of that, how will a single worm "wipe out" tens of thousands of computers? Would not the idea of a patch alleviate the problem, as it has for windows after its countless viruses and worms?
suppose you write an executable that displays a simple image (let's assume everyone is thinking of goatse) and gives the executable a common title that the Voice Control may pick up; is this the new spam/spyware? Companies send out spyware that activate on common words that Vista picks up?
Incidentally, initially I was reminded of Futurama:
Farnsworth: "Shut up, friends. My Internet browser heard us saying the word "Fry" and it found a movie about Philip J. Fry for us. [The staff gather around.] It also opened my calendar to Friday and ordered me some French fries."
My understanding of Global Warming on the whole isn't as great as it should be, however, recalling a few classes where the subject came up, most of the professors discussed global warming over periods much greater than a couple thousand years. IIRC, I thought that the hockey stick diagram that is heavily referred to in the report is suspicious not because of the increase of temperature, but because of when it is increasing and the rate at which it has been increasing? Is anyone able to shed light on that?
Even if Nintendo does not opt to release a movie DVD option for the Wii, would it be all that difficult to scrap together a software decoder for it once it's out?
What will you do? And after that?
on
Microsoft or Google?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
What exactly does each company want you to do for them if you were to work for them? Are either going to drone you? Are either going to put you into a position where you are going to be able to have some freedom and personal satisfaction in your work? Job satisfaction, as well as life satisfaction, will be important. Which job looks as if it's going to allow you to really experience what you need in life? Which is going to allow you to grow as a person outside of work? (If that is a desired result, that is) Also, and I know this is trivial, which is going to offer you better benefits right away?
Slashdot Mirror
Answer me this; when trolls appear on a major message board, is the solution to close the board altogether?
(my personal answer is no)
There isn't an answer to patent trolls or patent warlords other than to deal with them on a case to case basis, IMO. There isn't going to be a reliable fool proof way to prevent it. Even if you rewrite the entire patent system to specify what can and cannot be patented through the system and what can and cannot be used in wording, you're still not going to please them all; there will STILL be trolls and warlords even with a rewrite.
Why bother with a rewrite when making dedicated teams to deal with questionable patents takes care of the problem more directly without interfering with patent holders that already follow the rules and don't have problematic patents.
Oh, and the purpose of an example is just that; it's an example. I have suggested in this thread that a moderation system is exactly what is needed; not a rewrite or a remake of the system, but a moderation system added to it. I think my example stands; closing a board is a terrible solution to trolls (unless there truly are nothing but trolls there); maintaining the law and dealing with the trolls as they come is really the best you can do. Or, remove the system out right. I prefer the former.
I can certainly understand that many frivolous patents are given. But I must reiterate that a dramatic rewrite isn't necessary (obviously IMO), simply because a major rewrite, or even a mass retraction of patents isn't the best answer either. Small steps are the answer; tweaks and such, IMO.
There are a lot of good patents out there, even in relation to the bad. What can simply be edited is the way in which patents must be worded so as to not allow ambiguity. From there, a review of the patents that are in question can be held; it doesn't have to be a court proceeding, it can just be controlled by the patent office. From there, the patents which really are questionable can be reviewed, and continually reviewed. This method allows for a careful examination of the patents to ensure that the patent is not too broad or frivolous, and also gives both large companies and small companies a fair chance to ensure that their voice is heard on the matter.
You mentioned Slashdot's moderation system; I think that is exactly what is needed. Not mass banning of patents or a complete rewrite of it, but moderation, to ensure that the patents are relevant, reasonable, and concise.
First question; what the product that your company(s) produced/worked on truly unique or different, or using genuinely unique technology that was free of patent infringement?
I know the door swings both ways; patent trolls sit right next to patent warlords, blah blah blah. I'm not saying that the patent rules cannot change, and I don't think that is what the Apple lawyers are saying either. However, consider what is being said by Google; they want a complete re-write. Okay, but what will the result be? Hollering that it needs to be fixed without any real solution doesn't really do any good. Also, given that this is a rather embedded system in place, a complete rewrite and replacement would take years, what with the testing and all.
As for the small businesses you worked for, I'm sorry they got squished under the strong arm of bigger companies, but my question still stands; was the patent infringement legitimate? What, do you want to wipe the patent slate clean and have everyone start from scratch? Well that would certainly suck. Should companies with X amount of patents have to give up all their patents and start anew with a one patent per year ruling? Doesn't sound fair to them, now does it.
What if, instead of being dramatic and rewriting the entire system, the parts of the system where it falls apart, the litigation side, is scrutinized and reviewed, with necessary changes taking place. Huh, sounds familiar...oh wait; it was said already.
Seriously, if simply revising what seems to be an alright system for many companies (not just big companies, small ones as well profit from the patent system) is not enough, then what is the answer? How should it work?
So...the solution is a complete re-write of the patent system? Why is Apple's stance so bad? If a patent is challenged, litigation is needed to help settle the claim. Why trash the system just because patent trolls screw things up?
Let's think of it this way; message boards have trolls. They basically do the same thing that patent trolls do -- they exist to annoy, trying to get their little bit of the pie (with message boards, that's the 15 seconds of fame. With patents, it's the $$$) Would you seriously spend hours upon hours rethinking and redoing the entire message board style just because of some annoying trolls, or would you just squash the trolls under your mighty bannination powers? The latter is much easier, and makes a lot more sense.
What better place than a discussion panel to bring up their viewpoint? If only people who believed the system was flawed attended, it would be just like an internet forum, except replace porn and furries with patent office.
From TFA:
The issue that Lutton takes with Google's stance is that it's destructive and costly, and basically calls for something else, without any real indication of what that else is. Apple certainly has had fun with patent whores in the past, but they usually come out on top or take care of the issue. Lutton wasn't saying that the patent system is absolutely perfect, that is, without flaws or error. What they did acknowledge is that given the alternative options in other parts of the world, it's best for them. Why is that so bad?
Also (sorry to double post, but this just came to mind), what happens if it is blockable. Does using the software to prevent CIPAV from calling home constitute a felony for disrupting a Federal investigation? Or, what happens in the case of a rebuild? Is that also considered to be messing with a Federal Investigation if the target is unaware that they are being monitored?
Yeah, but now we're installing two things via Malware; a browser extension and the CIPAV program. That's two things to sneak in, hide, and have run undetected by the computer, and also an assumption that the CIPAV is compatible with the browser used. On top of that, there is still an IP trail in router logs if data is being sent to an unknown location that you never accessed. After that, it's pretty easy to close up access, should the paranoid and disillusioned be watching their router logs carefully.
Also, While I do understand what you're saying the the method GET, but that's still an outgoing connection that wasn't initiated by the user. (The web access action was, but the CIPAV extension wasn't) Wouldn't the guardian program still pick that up as suspicious activity?
There are many programs out there, such as LittleSnitch for Mac, which are rather adamant about making sure you know everything that is phoning home on your computer. Does the CIPAV have a method of circumventing these road blocks or would the FBI be stumped by the same software that is intended to keep computers safe from malicious software? While I could certainly understand them working with larger developers like Symantec and Microsoft to ensure that their anti-spyware and virus protection software dutifully ignores a product like CIPAV, what about machines running protection applications from smaller developers, or even open source protection, like the ClamAV project?
Better yet, if programs like CIPAV become more common as a tool for Federal Investigations, does it become a requirement that said programs allow CIPAV and its successors to do their work?
For some reason, our software licensing folk installed Vista on all public access terminals this last weekend, contrary to the position taken by our IT people and our College of Business who decided to stay with XP until Vista was a little more office friendly. Won't somebody think of the students!?
But I can't seem to get the Browser Check to pull passwords on Safari 2.0 or Mac/Win Firefox with all three using password manager. Is there a specific way that the password manager/auto-fill needs to be set up in order to pull the data?
IE, is this more FUD-ey stuff that is very situational than practical?
This never was going to happen. Great idea, real chance to get some fun debate, but never would have happened. One way or another, Thompson would have refused because it wasn't a battle on his terms. He knows, this, as did Gabe/Tycho most likely.
Plus, given the amount of literal death threats given to Thompson, I think that the PA guys did the right thing.
For the most part, at least as far as I know, most schools have a policy waiver which needs to be signed to use the computers on the campus/in the school. Kids are getting an opportunity to see these rules; it's a whole nother story whether or not they read them.
And as much as blocking sucks, the fact is that they broke the rules knowingly; they should have realized the possible consequences as soon as they started using those proxies. I don't think that many people are going to argue that censoring is good, but the fact is that the school is liable for the content that is viewed/pulled on their servers. If kids are going online to download games, music, porn, or anything of that matter, the school is liable. If the children see or obtain material using the school's network and the parents catch wind of it, who do you think is going to get in trouble? The school.
I agree that 3 months is a harsh punishment for using a proxy; I'd hate to see what they would have done to me during my high school years. But they broke the rules willingly and knowingly, and they sort of have to be prepared to accept that there will be consequences, even if it isn't fair.
Except that pretty much any physics-made-into-entertainment that you will see in public basically does this as well. I don't know if anyone else would watch a professor of physics speak to a group of children; they almost always bring out the few big tricks they know to explain various concepts, such as laying down on a bed of nails and having someone smash a cinder block which rests upon their chest with a hammer. Isn't this flashy physics as well? Undoubtedly, the physicist performing knows what the actual forces are which make the trick work, but are they going to roll a chalk board out and have the kids start calculating the arc of the swing used to crush the cinder block? No. They just give a general summary of what happened, leaving out non-pertinent facts.
Same with Mythbusters. Granted they don't always do the most intelligent things, but if they were to sit down and explain each and every method they use verbatim, including the formulas and calculations performed, the amount of people who would understand what is actually going on drastically drops. Disturbing, yes, but it's true. The more of the science they explain, the smaller and smaller their audience gets, and probably the smaller and smaller their understanding gets.
They are undoubtedly some talented builders, entertaining presenters, but they are first and foremost a TV show, which has to consider ratings; when faced with the option of appeasing the scientific community and appeasing the general masses, they have little choice, really.
First off, how exactly would it be possible to enforce this other than through willing submissions from universities? Short of a bunch of Men in Black (mibs) physically checking the server to ensure that these funds are going to implement the said packet filtration system, is there really a way to remotely check and/or enforce this? Would there have to be only one unified method used to perform the filtering, and if so, what about colleges with a system that is incompatible with that unified method?
I'm not really too keen on student money being sent towards incriminating students and limiting bandwidth, but I'm really wondering about the realism behind this bill; how the hell would it be enforced with private colleges and universities?
Exactly; granted, you can kill a DVD, a HD, or a CD relatively easily; however, at the same time, you can archive to all three in a few minutes, whereas making carbon copies of film strips and audio reels takes considerably longer and also is not as easily stored as digital content. On top of that, access becomes an issue; watching 8mm films requires a projector to display them, meaning you have to keep a projector in good working condition while parts and service-workers for the projector vanish as new technology comes. For the time being, CDs, DVDs, and HDs will still have people able to service them and literally millions of machines to access the content with. As technology progresses, if there is a change in the way that data is stored, content will still be fairly easy to transfer over, since the technology will be more readily available than computers were during their advent. (Meaning more people will have access to it to work on converting the data quickly)
Basically, Digital storage is a fine solution, assuming you play to its strong points.
They won't officially comment because the more natural hype that builds, the better the system will sell.
But there is a caveat that often happens with games that are CPU based at the core and fun based as a secondary feature. It's wonderful that developers are always trying to push the limits of games, but often times what happens is that a game falls into repetitiveness. A simple example is Oblivion; wonderful game, great while it lasted, but most people have moved beyond it. Is that what art is supposed to be? Momentarily glorified, but quickly overlooked?
People love to rant on the Wii being underpowered, but there is absolutely no reason that a game has to be pumping out the highest end graphics possible when it comes at the cost of game play and replay value. I don't begrudge PC gamers or Xbox 360 gamers for the "high end" games that they get to monkey around with, but truthfully, how many of these really give a lasting gaming experience? Halo 2 got it right (to a degree) in the sense that it took the content that people wanted (the multiplayer of Halo) and put it online with a small visual/gameplay update. Huge success which people still play. Since you really can't upgrade a console once it's been purchased (storage aside), what good does it do to keep pushing how far the console will go, sacrificing gameplay until you're basically watching a movie and hitting a button to go to the next scene? Might as well just watch a DVD at that point.
Instead of looking at the Wii as underpowered, I've personally felt that what Nintendo did with the Wii was to set a cap for the games; when deciding the architecture of the Wii, they obviously had two choices; try to compete in terms of power and put yet another extremely expensive next gen system on the market, or, put out a system which was more affordable and focused on "fun" games. (I realize that fun is really subjective, but that does seem to be their intent) The result is as you see; they went for an affordable machine which people could purchase. (Let's ignore the fact that it's sold out pretty much everywhere) IIRC, Nintendo had Dev kits out for the Wii pretty early on, so developers knew what they had to work with a long time ago, and presumably are still working on games as such with these restrictions in mind. Thus far, every single game that I have played on the Wii has been a seamless experience; no slow down, no extremely long loading times; I pop in the game, and for the most part, I'm playing right away. This isn't something that the 360 and the PS3 can claim for all of their games. I realize that there is less going on behind the scenes on the Wii which allows for this seamless loading, but consider the more average gamer or consumer; do you think they care about the numbers behind the scenes? No, they want to be able to play a game on their system without having to wait for the system to load everything. It could be a beautiful game for the system, but if it takes too long to load and all the user ends up with is a pretty picture, what's the point?
Ingenuity is not something that can be measured in terms of processor power or video ram; neither is fun. You don't need to sacrifice AI for ingenuity and fun. Yes, there's going to be a trade off between graphics and AI, but as to which to chose, you simply figure out which adds more to the gameplay and overall fun. The focus of games, first and foremost at this point, is to be just that; games. Can they be other things? Yes. Do they have to be other things? Not really.
By calling the Wii a "piece of s---", Hecker is in fact limiting what games can do by creating an unreasonable standard for gaming. Not everything is going to be a visual masterpiece. Not everything needs to have a runaway budget to be great. Though at this point it's just personal opinion, consider the game Chibi-Robo. Incredible game in terms of it's use of perspective to give the illusion of a really freaking big place. That sounds pretty artistic to me, playing with perspective and depth in a 3-D environment to enhance the visual features. Or Katamari, everyone's favorite ball rolling game. There is nothing special about the graphics, but the fact that it plays with perception and depth makes it an incredible game.
Though I was skeptical at first of the woman's relation to the boy, I am going to assume that Gabe would have the know-how to verify this in someway, and that he wouldn't outright post it without verification. That being said, while what they tried to do to help the boy was commendable, there is only one real thing that I take issue with; almost everything they did was in response to what the boy had already done, and it doesn't seem like there was an active move on the parents to get additional help for the boy. They suggested extracurricular activities, art, etc, but I am thinking more along the lines of what you mentioned, where he is taken to a military school, or where the parents approach the police (instead of the other way around) about what the boy is doing. Granted it's not going to stop the kid from lying, but if the parents bring up the issue first and explain things instead of having the classic "child finds courage to admit they're being abused" scenario occurring, then they get a little more leverage in the situation. I can understand their not doing so, however, as the boy is quite frankly frightening. He's manipulative, he knows how to cover his ass (and remove excess poo apparently), and I wouldn't want to meet in in the fucking ball pit at Chuck E Cheese's much less a dark back alley.
I'd be willing to grant that Linux will not get off the ground until there is a little more cooperation from the power users when it comes to teaching newbies about running Linux, but your assumption about Macintosh really doesn't have any grounding in reality. It has been proven time and time again that the security in Mac OS X does exist and actually works about as well as legends claim. Maybe before you claim that a worm will wipe out half of the Macs on the internet, you should cite precedent of a virus/worm actually affecting a Mac that is not proof of concept, but rather, a legitimate worm. On top of that, how will a single worm "wipe out" tens of thousands of computers? Would not the idea of a patch alleviate the problem, as it has for windows after its countless viruses and worms?
suppose you write an executable that displays a simple image (let's assume everyone is thinking of goatse) and gives the executable a common title that the Voice Control may pick up; is this the new spam/spyware? Companies send out spyware that activate on common words that Vista picks up? Incidentally, initially I was reminded of Futurama: Farnsworth: "Shut up, friends. My Internet browser heard us saying the word "Fry" and it found a movie about Philip J. Fry for us. [The staff gather around.] It also opened my calendar to Friday and ordered me some French fries."
My understanding of Global Warming on the whole isn't as great as it should be, however, recalling a few classes where the subject came up, most of the professors discussed global warming over periods much greater than a couple thousand years. IIRC, I thought that the hockey stick diagram that is heavily referred to in the report is suspicious not because of the increase of temperature, but because of when it is increasing and the rate at which it has been increasing? Is anyone able to shed light on that?
Even if Nintendo does not opt to release a movie DVD option for the Wii, would it be all that difficult to scrap together a software decoder for it once it's out?
What exactly does each company want you to do for them if you were to work for them? Are either going to drone you? Are either going to put you into a position where you are going to be able to have some freedom and personal satisfaction in your work? Job satisfaction, as well as life satisfaction, will be important. Which job looks as if it's going to allow you to really experience what you need in life? Which is going to allow you to grow as a person outside of work? (If that is a desired result, that is) Also, and I know this is trivial, which is going to offer you better benefits right away?