Tell them that if you don't get your credit card watched, you're going to burn the place down. Burn it to the ground, and then take a vacation in some far off tropical place.
Like Nigeria? I hear there are lots of... lucrative... investment opportunities over there.
Just Email me with your Name, Address, Social Security number, and Credit Card information and I'll take care of it all.
Besides, since LAN parties can be as much about E-Peen rigs as the actual gaming, most gamers just go for the desktop. Only when you literally need to be able to pull out a computer and game for a few minutes at a time in varying locations is a laptop worthwhile.
I know not a single gamer who uses a laptop as a primary device. Desktops are much, much cheaper for comparable performance, offer greater options in terms of overclocking and cooling, and can be custom-built and easily upgraded. There aren't very many reasons for a gamer to use a laptop instead of a desktop; in fact, the only one I can really think of is the obvious portability that a laptop offers, which isn't demanded in most applications.
What do you eat? (Assuming that you consider animals and plants alive)
But seriously, this can set up some pretty interesting dilemmas, assuming you value highly the life of both, say, a sick child and a fetus (even ASSUMING that the stem cells come from fetuses). Even if you value them equally, there's no reason to make such a decision in favor of the fetus by default. Either way you're killing something.
But what I'm really afraid of is that, despite whatever scientific significance such a trial could have, the religious right will immediately jump on this and squelch it without giving it any sort of chance. At least, hopefully, we can get the scientific advances later from countries that are more willing to do the research.
The other obvious problem is that eventually, viral marketing will simply reach a point of saturation; and the more viral marketing campaigns there are, the less effective each one becomes. It's quite likely that viral marketing is effective not because of its approach (although its approach certainly is significant) but because of its novelty.
In fact, viral marketing might lose even more effectiveness as it proliferates. Viral marketing works great when only one or two products/companies are using it, because everyone talks about those two products - but when each person remembers or is interested in only one of many different viral marketing campaigns, they all lose effectiveness. Traditional marketing is probably a much safer bet.
"The interesting thing about the EXAR-1 was, that the pictures never did the car justice. When seen in person, the car was as beautiful as any foreigh exotic costing 7 or 8 times more; as well as the fact, that the EXAR-1 sported advances that even the most expensive automobiles in the world would not have for many years in the future."
"Mr. Ramirez, actually built an electric automobile, making sure that details, such as matching ring and pinion gears to tire and wheel size for optimum operation, were implemented, regardless of cost."
"Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company provided special tires developed expermintal future characteristics to be implemented into the design of the EXAR-1.
"Bell Helicoptor and Ling Tempco Vaught Aerospace engineers provided structural design and metalurgical analysis. 4130 chromally steel would be used as the roll cage to protect passengers and provide a body on frame,for inexpensive repair and maintance."
Doesn't sound cheap to me...
As for development/production costs:
"Pietro Frua provided the body design while the Department of Transportation cooperated in technical recommendations and asistance in overall safety design and new materials analysis...suffice to say that Ramirez built an electric automobile for approximately $18 million dollars, that General Motors (with government funding assistance, etc.) could not do for $360 million dollars..."
It seems pretty unlikely that they could produce such a car in large numbers for 10,000 USD each.
But ok, even granting the claim that they could, you have to account for inflation. Using a little calculator found here (http://www.westegg.com/inflation/), $10,000 US in 1970 is approximately equal to $50379.13 US in 2005. That's not exactly conveniently priced, by a long shot.
Especially considering that even if people DO start watching the world cup over the internet (which a bunch of companies have been all up in arms about), they won't be watching anything else.
Also the bad stastician's mistake - confusing correlation with causality. Or perhaps in this case, casualty.
To demonstrate, here's a little anecdote: It has been proven time and time again that there's a strong correlation between ice-cream sales and drowning deaths. In response, some local politicans suggested curbing ice-cream sales; they assumed that since there was a correlation, ice cream must somehow be responsible for these drowning deaths. The reality, of course, was much less sinister. Ice cream sales go up in the summer, and so do the number of people swimming (and thus, sinking).
This is the same thing, but with games; when someone gets shot "in the face," and when the murderer has violent video games, everyone assumes that there must be some sort of relation. In reality, more and more people are OWNING videogames, so there's a good chance that these people are just going to have them anyway. In my mind, all these politicans are jumping to pseudo-scientific conclusions. They haven't proven correlation, and they can't prove causality without first proving correlation.
I think what they should be asking is "How many people are playing video games that AREN'T murderers?" I know I'm not a murderer, and I enjoy my GTA.
I know that having the right to own games like this, or even play them with impunity, may not be the mainstream definition of "liberty," but we're basically having restrictions recommended on our media regardless of the actual reality; I believe Frankling said it best: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Plain and simple. The FAE is definitely not helping here, but I think a great deal of it is that people just *like* to see the government doing ANYTHING that seems morally right.
Hopefully, of course, the whole thing will blow over. Our grandparents (or for you older slashdotters, maybe even your parents) claimed that Rock & Roll was downright satanic. Heck, way back in the day, books like Chopin's THE AWAKENING or Hawthorne's THE SCARLET LETTER were seen as extremely overtly sexual and inappropriate.
This content bashing has been going on for a LONG time.
Just route your tracker requests through Tor + Privoxy. There's no way anyone's going to catch you from behind that. When I need extreme privacy, that's what I do.
I was just making up a method of citation for convenience... proper MLA citations would be impossible, seeing as I can't really attach a Works Cited list to a post;)
That's another rule: No citations are necessary when refering to commonly known material. You wouldn't have to cite Newton when you're explaining gravity, but you may well have to cite Hawking if you're explaining radiation from a black hole.
Regardless of whether something is "opinion" or "fact", it still has to be cited.
Good point on the intent v. implementation, but the current standard seems to be to treat an error in implementation as harshly as a simple error in intent. I would also argue that news.google.com isn't in a medium required to use citation, because it's not trying to convey any of its own ideas, whereas a blogger almost always is.
Of course, this brings up the real conflict inherent in the whole mess, because old-school style dictators are attempting to apply their same standards to the dynamic content to the internet. While I don't believe that it's realistic to expect every blogger to obey proper MLA format, I don't think they can wontonly plagarize either... I'm sure a happy medium will be found.
Even if you cite a source, it can still be plagarism. You must both cite the source from which the idea comes from AND quote any words the original source used. Anything less constitutes plagarism.
For example, the wikipedia article says that "Plagiarism is a form of academic dishonesty; it is a matter of deceit: fooling a reader into believing that certain written material is original when it is not. Plagiarism is a serious academic offense when the goal is to obtain some sort of personal academic credit or personal recognition.
Plagiarism is not necessarily the same as copyright infringement, which occurs when one violates copyright law." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagarism)
That is the correct way to properly cite the article, so as to not avoid plagarism.
This is wrong, because I don't cite the article OR use quotes:
Plagiarism is a form of academic dishonesty; it is a matter of deceit: fooling a reader into believing that certain written material is original when it is not. Plagiarism is a serious academic offense when the goal is to obtain some sort of personal academic credit or personal recognition.
Plagiarism is not necessarily the same as copyright infringement, which occurs when one violates copyright law.
This is wrong, because I don't cite the article:
"Plagiarism is a form of academic dishonesty; it is a matter of deceit: fooling a reader into believing that certain written material is original when it is not. Plagiarism is a serious academic offense when the goal is to obtain some sort of personal academic credit or personal recognition.
Plagiarism is not necessarily the same as copyright infringement, which occurs when one violates copyright law."
This is wrong because, EVEN THOUGH I'm citing the article, I'm still stealing their words. If they're using a specific wording and I use it, even if I cite the article, I MUST use quotes. Thus, the following is incorrect:
According to Wikipedia, plagiarism is a form of academic dishonesty; it is a matter of deceit: fooling a reader into believing that certain written material is original when it is not. Plagiarism is a serious academic offense when the goal is to obtain some sort of personal academic credit or personal recognition.
Plagiarism is not necessarily the same as copyright infringement, which occurs when one violates copyright law. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagarism)
Note, however, that if I don't use their words, only a citation is necessary:
According to wikipedia, plagarism is a grave issue of cheating and using someone else's words as your own without giving them credit. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagarism)
I see the third type of plagarism (No quotes, direct word lift, and citation) on Slashdot ALL THE TIME. Whenever a submitter copies part of the article verbatim without quoting it, that's plagarism.
Since it's the court's job to decide what constitutes proprietary information, hopefully AT&T's claim will be shot down.
This might be unrealistic, however, since courts did seal the information in the first place... I don't really know how Wired can benefit from this in any way, except, of course, by gaining market share and possible users from the geek community.
Slashdot Mirror
Ctrl+TAB is also the Alt+TAB alternative for firefox.
Just Email me with your Name, Address, Social Security number, and Credit Card information and I'll take care of it all.
Yea, but most gamers I know either:
A) Haul their desktop to a LAN party
or
B) Use a laptop that's not their primary machine.
Besides, since LAN parties can be as much about E-Peen rigs as the actual gaming, most gamers just go for the desktop. Only when you literally need to be able to pull out a computer and game for a few minutes at a time in varying locations is a laptop worthwhile.
I know not a single gamer who uses a laptop as a primary device. Desktops are much, much cheaper for comparable performance, offer greater options in terms of overclocking and cooling, and can be custom-built and easily upgraded. There aren't very many reasons for a gamer to use a laptop instead of a desktop; in fact, the only one I can really think of is the obvious portability that a laptop offers, which isn't demanded in most applications.
What do you eat? (Assuming that you consider animals and plants alive)
But seriously, this can set up some pretty interesting dilemmas, assuming you value highly the life of both, say, a sick child and a fetus (even ASSUMING that the stem cells come from fetuses). Even if you value them equally, there's no reason to make such a decision in favor of the fetus by default. Either way you're killing something.
But what I'm really afraid of is that, despite whatever scientific significance such a trial could have, the religious right will immediately jump on this and squelch it without giving it any sort of chance. At least, hopefully, we can get the scientific advances later from countries that are more willing to do the research.
The other obvious problem is that eventually, viral marketing will simply reach a point of saturation; and the more viral marketing campaigns there are, the less effective each one becomes. It's quite likely that viral marketing is effective not because of its approach (although its approach certainly is significant) but because of its novelty.
In fact, viral marketing might lose even more effectiveness as it proliferates. Viral marketing works great when only one or two products/companies are using it, because everyone talks about those two products - but when each person remembers or is interested in only one of many different viral marketing campaigns, they all lose effectiveness. Traditional marketing is probably a much safer bet.
Where's that information coming from?
From the site:
"The interesting thing about the EXAR-1 was, that the pictures never did the car justice. When seen in person, the car was as beautiful as any foreigh exotic costing 7 or 8 times more; as well as the fact, that the EXAR-1 sported advances that even the most expensive automobiles in the world would not have for many years in the future."
"Mr. Ramirez, actually built an electric automobile, making sure that details, such as matching ring and pinion gears to tire and wheel size for optimum operation, were implemented, regardless of cost."
"Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company provided special tires developed expermintal future characteristics to be implemented into the design of the EXAR-1.
"Bell Helicoptor and Ling Tempco Vaught Aerospace engineers provided structural design and metalurgical analysis. 4130 chromally steel would be used as the roll cage to protect passengers and provide a body on frame,for inexpensive repair and maintance."
Doesn't sound cheap to me...
As for development/production costs:
"Pietro Frua provided the body design while the Department of Transportation cooperated in technical recommendations and asistance in overall safety design and new materials analysis...suffice to say that Ramirez built an electric automobile for approximately $18 million dollars, that General Motors (with government funding assistance, etc.) could not do for $360 million dollars..."
It seems pretty unlikely that they could produce such a car in large numbers for 10,000 USD each.
But ok, even granting the claim that they could, you have to account for inflation. Using a little calculator found here (http://www.westegg.com/inflation/), $10,000 US in 1970 is approximately equal to $50379.13 US in 2005. That's not exactly conveniently priced, by a long shot.
Magnemite! Thundershock NOW!
Especially considering that even if people DO start watching the world cup over the internet (which a bunch of companies have been all up in arms about), they won't be watching anything else.
Besides, it's the internet. It can take it.
Also the bad stastician's mistake - confusing correlation with causality. Or perhaps in this case, casualty.
To demonstrate, here's a little anecdote:
It has been proven time and time again that there's a strong correlation between ice-cream sales and drowning deaths. In response, some local politicans suggested curbing ice-cream sales; they assumed that since there was a correlation, ice cream must somehow be responsible for these drowning deaths. The reality, of course, was much less sinister. Ice cream sales go up in the summer, and so do the number of people swimming (and thus, sinking).
This is the same thing, but with games; when someone gets shot "in the face," and when the murderer has violent video games, everyone assumes that there must be some sort of relation. In reality, more and more people are OWNING videogames, so there's a good chance that these people are just going to have them anyway. In my mind, all these politicans are jumping to pseudo-scientific conclusions. They haven't proven correlation, and they can't prove causality without first proving correlation.
I think what they should be asking is "How many people are playing video games that AREN'T murderers?" I know I'm not a murderer, and I enjoy my GTA.
I know that having the right to own games like this, or even play them with impunity, may not be the mainstream definition of "liberty," but we're basically having restrictions recommended on our media regardless of the actual reality; I believe Frankling said it best: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Not ALL of the traffic. Just the tracker requests, which afaik, aren't that much traffic (one refresh every couple of minutes, tops?)
Plain and simple. The FAE is definitely not helping here, but I think a great deal of it is that people just *like* to see the government doing ANYTHING that seems morally right.
Hopefully, of course, the whole thing will blow over. Our grandparents (or for you older slashdotters, maybe even your parents) claimed that Rock & Roll was downright satanic. Heck, way back in the day, books like Chopin's THE AWAKENING or Hawthorne's THE SCARLET LETTER were seen as extremely overtly sexual and inappropriate.
This content bashing has been going on for a LONG time.
The problem is that the politicians aren't statisticians, so they're (naturally) inept at asking the right questions of the statisticians.
That is, if they don't employ the statisticians so that they'll FIND biased statistics.
Just route your tracker requests through Tor + Privoxy. There's no way anyone's going to catch you from behind that. When I need extreme privacy, that's what I do.
I'd like to think that at least SOME of our critical systems are protected by faraday cages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_Cage
Meh, porn is pretty much essential to the internet, or is at least a large part of it, wheras guns aren't.
It's in the policy page, he said that he has read and accepted the policies... at that point, it's his problem.
I don't see how this is a bad thing, necessarily.
Just TEN PEOPLE died?
Sorry guys, not that significant. How many people die every year due to any sort of drug related addiction?
A hell of a lot more.
I am a total TI-89 whore ;)
I don't know my multiplication or division (I can't even long divide), but I'm doing just fine in calc and physics.
Slashdotting their server is a good start...
But seriously, it's not as if lawyers band together, or anything. I'm sure a rival firm would love to sue the pants off of these guys.
Until you sit on them.
Ouch.
I was just making up a method of citation for convenience... proper MLA citations would be impossible, seeing as I can't really attach a Works Cited list to a post ;)
That's another rule: No citations are necessary when refering to commonly known material. You wouldn't have to cite Newton when you're explaining gravity, but you may well have to cite Hawking if you're explaining radiation from a black hole.
Regardless of whether something is "opinion" or "fact", it still has to be cited.
Good point on the intent v. implementation, but the current standard seems to be to treat an error in implementation as harshly as a simple error in intent. I would also argue that news.google.com isn't in a medium required to use citation, because it's not trying to convey any of its own ideas, whereas a blogger almost always is.
Of course, this brings up the real conflict inherent in the whole mess, because old-school style dictators are attempting to apply their same standards to the dynamic content to the internet. While I don't believe that it's realistic to expect every blogger to obey proper MLA format, I don't think they can wontonly plagarize either... I'm sure a happy medium will be found.
Even if you cite a source, it can still be plagarism. You must both cite the source from which the idea comes from AND quote any words the original source used. Anything less constitutes plagarism.
For example, the wikipedia article says that "Plagiarism is a form of academic dishonesty; it is a matter of deceit: fooling a reader into believing that certain written material is original when it is not. Plagiarism is a serious academic offense when the goal is to obtain some sort of personal academic credit or personal recognition.
Plagiarism is not necessarily the same as copyright infringement, which occurs when one violates copyright law." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagarism)
That is the correct way to properly cite the article, so as to not avoid plagarism.
This is wrong, because I don't cite the article OR use quotes:
Plagiarism is a form of academic dishonesty; it is a matter of deceit: fooling a reader into believing that certain written material is original when it is not. Plagiarism is a serious academic offense when the goal is to obtain some sort of personal academic credit or personal recognition.
Plagiarism is not necessarily the same as copyright infringement, which occurs when one violates copyright law.
This is wrong, because I don't cite the article:
"Plagiarism is a form of academic dishonesty; it is a matter of deceit: fooling a reader into believing that certain written material is original when it is not. Plagiarism is a serious academic offense when the goal is to obtain some sort of personal academic credit or personal recognition.
Plagiarism is not necessarily the same as copyright infringement, which occurs when one violates copyright law."
This is wrong because, EVEN THOUGH I'm citing the article, I'm still stealing their words. If they're using a specific wording and I use it, even if I cite the article, I MUST use quotes. Thus, the following is incorrect:
According to Wikipedia, plagiarism is a form of academic dishonesty; it is a matter of deceit: fooling a reader into believing that certain written material is original when it is not. Plagiarism is a serious academic offense when the goal is to obtain some sort of personal academic credit or personal recognition.
Plagiarism is not necessarily the same as copyright infringement, which occurs when one violates copyright law.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagarism)
Note, however, that if I don't use their words, only a citation is necessary:
According to wikipedia, plagarism is a grave issue of cheating and using someone else's words as your own without giving them credit. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagarism)
I see the third type of plagarism (No quotes, direct word lift, and citation) on Slashdot ALL THE TIME. Whenever a submitter copies part of the article verbatim without quoting it, that's plagarism.
Since it's the court's job to decide what constitutes proprietary information, hopefully AT&T's claim will be shot down.
This might be unrealistic, however, since courts did seal the information in the first place... I don't really know how Wired can benefit from this in any way, except, of course, by gaining market share and possible users from the geek community.