You're dead on. However, it sure is surprising that they didn't test ClamAV, isn't it?/positive MS score and open source antivirus not tested? color me surprised.
What you're saying makes sense, but it doesn't seem to tie in even remotely as to why specifically spine injuries are prevented from healing.
From a more logical perspective, I'd guess that perhaps it's due to the necessity to immobilize the area (thus stop healing, unfortunately), to prevent further damage?
However, I have no idea if that explanation is any more accurate than your own.
Nobody browses sites all day as their exclusive usage, so I fail to see your point. Some people actually email, or download things, and the websites we load nowadays are not as small as geoshitties laden animated gif pages.
That's like saying "if you only use a disproportionately small amount of realistic usage, of course you won't hit the cap"
If they did a 3 hour slow throttle, they'd also release it over 3 hours, which would just be as stupid. Don't think a company with a COO that says "we need to change consumers" as opposed to changing their business is going to flex even an inch without it being required by law.
Virtually lots of people use the internet for more than 15-20 minutes in a row, so your point is moot. Nobody can specify how much bandwidth people are going to need.
They do that thing called watch movies on netflix online, or other HD websites? Or games? Or what about map downloads for a game? You think this might be affected?
quit making shit up as your excuse to how people can't possibly use their internet connection. I've seen that debate a million times and it's a crock of crap. You know someone doesn't know the argument when all they throw email/web browsing/IM as the excuse for why you don't need bandwidth.
no. They throttle you for more than 15 minutes. You get 100% for 15 minutes and then 50% until the throttle period ends (which can be longer than 15 minutes).
the delusion of choice and reality of choice are different things.
I have no choice of a provider that is competitive to comcast in my area, for example. So yes, I do have a choice, but it's not a competitive one, even at the 50% speed.
It also means that effectively, you may as well call the connection 50% of it's total speed. Thus, with a 22mb plan, I'm getting 11mb, effectively unless I throttle my own connection to 69%.
What does a specific translation of a word have bearing on? All it shows is you're being critical of a single interpretation of current slang. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mensa . I highly doubt anyone cares about or can predict beforehand the impact of something until someone takes it out of context. This is not due to IQ, this is to being an idiot in the current definition of. Or as put elsewhere by others, "the dumbest people you will ever see are the ones in upper management".
EG: dora aquapets. Maybe it sounded nice as a concept but they didn't realize it basically looks like a penis?
People just get the "oh, you signed this, you're constrained by it" irregardless of if it's legal, enforceable, or logical. Remember the berne convention?
I thought garmin was about to make an android device, thus ensuring that they have nothing to worry (essentially a cellphone/gps hybrid or something, same as is released).
they issued municipal bonds, or basically used taxpayer dollars to install something for the taxpayer. You know, like they do when they fix up roads, etc.
disabling SSID is a bad thing, it causes interference between WIFI channels. You'll actually get better reception between interference and less drops with SSID's being broadcast, as basically the other routers will recognize your SSID when it is broadcast.
I agree with the rest, but hiding SSID's both a: doesn't do anything good and b: does things bad.
A whole lot of questions are not precisely answered with all this as it's not only a new area of research but the answers are not straight up conclusive. There is a lack of causation between the correlation, if you will. Reading the last paragraph of the techdirt article shows exactly why I question this (blockquoted below).
Of course, nowhere does it explain why, if the study's findings are true, youth violence has decreased significantly over the same period of time that violent video games have become much more popular. If violent video games really made people consistently more violent, you'd expect to see that increase. And, if that number is not increasing, then you have to wonder if any reported increase in youth violence is even at a level that matters. If there's a marginal increase in aggressive behavior that doesn't lead to any increase in illegal behavior, is that really an issue? Also, when compared with another recent study that shows it's the small percentage of kids who don't play video games who are more likely to actually get in trouble, it makes you wonder if there are some completely independent factors at work here, rather than any direct correlation between violent video games and real world violence.
Interesting. I didn't think about your first argument. However, I think the only way to deal with that is for people to get used to games as a society and accept them for what they are.
Beyond that, they're just going to get more and more realistic. When they look real enough to feel real (as many do nowadays), then what? Make them less real? Wouldn't that defuse the point of realism and it being a simulation/virtual/"game"? Example: army simulations that are as real as possible, which commonly later turn into games.
I don't see a current solution for that, really. It seems to be a person to person thing.
ex: the whole "using games as an excuse for X activity" thing, courtesy of blaming grand theft auto. etc.
meanwhile, there is *tons* of software to allow PC's to be routers, and such has existed for a long time. I remember even windows offering this with some kind of connection manager for 98SE, and that ubuntu lets you create ad-hoc networks. Why is this being touted as new?
somewhere, stupid people decided that the realism of a VIRTUAL game is somehow parallel to how "realistic" an idea is. Barring the fact that even if X action/activity/verb in a video game were ever realistic enough to be 100% as real mentally/etc, why would anyone have a problem with anything being virtually where it isn't going to affect anything? Ohh, you did (verb) to your (noun), look at the end result to the virtual world? 0.
Oh right, there's no study showing an actual link between violent behaviors and violent people, as the point of doing things virtually is release stress.
I can only hope some day people actually realize this and don't use it as an excuse for moral outcry.
I remember the big issue back in february covered on consumerist: http://consumerist.com/5157481/ about facebook refusing to delete people's profiles. Just how long do they intend to retain someone's data?
didn't this come up before, and there were serious privacy violations/other issues involving facebook trying to keep up dead people's profiles? I don't remember if it was a celebrity thing.
most people can do distributed computing far more powerfully for less money via getting a more potent graphics card whether it is from Nvidia or ATI, really.
build cost can probably be around $400 like that, and have better performance for cheaper. Doesn't Nvidia advertise around 1 or 2 Tflops for their graphics cards as ATI does?
you think that thing competes with a Sparc server? I suppose next you're going to think they should sue those people who made an ethernet jack server thing if it were the same name?
Slashdot Mirror
You're dead on. However, it sure is surprising that they didn't test ClamAV, isn't it? /positive MS score and open source antivirus not tested? color me surprised.
What you're saying makes sense, but it doesn't seem to tie in even remotely as to why specifically spine injuries are prevented from healing.
From a more logical perspective, I'd guess that perhaps it's due to the necessity to immobilize the area (thus stop healing, unfortunately), to prevent further damage?
However, I have no idea if that explanation is any more accurate than your own.
Nobody browses sites all day as their exclusive usage, so I fail to see your point. Some people actually email, or download things, and the websites we load nowadays are not as small as geoshitties laden animated gif pages.
That's like saying "if you only use a disproportionately small amount of realistic usage, of course you won't hit the cap"
If they did a 3 hour slow throttle, they'd also release it over 3 hours, which would just be as stupid. Don't think a company with a COO that says "we need to change consumers" as opposed to changing their business is going to flex even an inch without it being required by law.
Virtually lots of people use the internet for more than 15-20 minutes in a row, so your point is moot. Nobody can specify how much bandwidth people are going to need.
They do that thing called watch movies on netflix online, or other HD websites? Or games? Or what about map downloads for a game? You think this might be affected?
quit making shit up as your excuse to how people can't possibly use their internet connection. I've seen that debate a million times and it's a crock of crap. You know someone doesn't know the argument when all they throw email/web browsing/IM as the excuse for why you don't need bandwidth.
no. They throttle you for more than 15 minutes. You get 100% for 15 minutes and then 50% until the throttle period ends (which can be longer than 15 minutes).
the delusion of choice and reality of choice are different things.
I have no choice of a provider that is competitive to comcast in my area, for example. So yes, I do have a choice, but it's not a competitive one, even at the 50% speed.
It also means that effectively, you may as well call the connection 50% of it's total speed. Thus, with a 22mb plan, I'm getting 11mb, effectively unless I throttle my own connection to 69%.
What does a specific translation of a word have bearing on? All it shows is you're being critical of a single interpretation of current slang. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mensa . I highly doubt anyone cares about or can predict beforehand the impact of something until someone takes it out of context. This is not due to IQ, this is to being an idiot in the current definition of. Or as put elsewhere by others, "the dumbest people you will ever see are the ones in upper management".
EG: dora aquapets. Maybe it sounded nice as a concept but they didn't realize it basically looks like a penis?
simple, it doesn't.
People just get the "oh, you signed this, you're constrained by it" irregardless of if it's legal, enforceable, or logical. Remember the berne convention?
I'd blame the nepotism that puts media bigwigs into continual favorable positions (here's looking at you RIAA lawyers who got into the DOJ).
I thought garmin was about to make an android device, thus ensuring that they have nothing to worry (essentially a cellphone/gps hybrid or something, same as is released).
umm, that's exactly what the cities did.
they issued municipal bonds, or basically used taxpayer dollars to install something for the taxpayer. You know, like they do when they fix up roads, etc.
disabling SSID is a bad thing, it causes interference between WIFI channels. You'll actually get better reception between interference and less drops with SSID's being broadcast, as basically the other routers will recognize your SSID when it is broadcast.
I agree with the rest, but hiding SSID's both a: doesn't do anything good and b: does things bad.
take a look at my links that this guy hasn't responded to. you'll see a lot supporting the other side too.
Frankly, I'd like something other than just looking up studies to try to prove a point. I can cite too.
#1: from PBS.
#2. from kotaku
#3 from Harvard .
How many more do you want?
PTSD being treated by videogames is possible, but that has no correlation to violence.
Oh wait, I'm not done. Here's a summation by techdirt of both your studies and my studies linked .
A whole lot of questions are not precisely answered with all this as it's not only a new area of research but the answers are not straight up conclusive. There is a lack of causation between the correlation, if you will. Reading the last paragraph of the techdirt article shows exactly why I question this (blockquoted below).
wow, I didn't even think about that part.
okay, so they "plan to"
yet, we don't have a release yet.
is this to just avoid press or do people actually believe them?
Interesting. I didn't think about your first argument. However, I think the only way to deal with that is for people to get used to games as a society and accept them for what they are.
Beyond that, they're just going to get more and more realistic. When they look real enough to feel real (as many do nowadays), then what? Make them less real? Wouldn't that defuse the point of realism and it being a simulation/virtual/"game"? Example: army simulations that are as real as possible, which commonly later turn into games.
I don't see a current solution for that, really. It seems to be a person to person thing.
ex: the whole "using games as an excuse for X activity" thing, courtesy of blaming grand theft auto. etc.
this is correct.
meanwhile, there is *tons* of software to allow PC's to be routers, and such has existed for a long time. I remember even windows offering this with some kind of connection manager for 98SE, and that ubuntu lets you create ad-hoc networks. Why is this being touted as new?
somewhere, stupid people decided that the realism of a VIRTUAL game is somehow parallel to how "realistic" an idea is. Barring the fact that even if X action/activity/verb in a video game were ever realistic enough to be 100% as real mentally/etc, why would anyone have a problem with anything being virtually where it isn't going to affect anything? Ohh, you did (verb) to your (noun), look at the end result to the virtual world? 0.
Oh right, there's no study showing an actual link between violent behaviors and violent people, as the point of doing things virtually is release stress.
I can only hope some day people actually realize this and don't use it as an excuse for moral outcry.
if something has hit slashdot, it wouldn't be all that surprising to hit bigger media
I remember the big issue back in february covered on consumerist: http://consumerist.com/5157481/ about facebook refusing to delete people's profiles. Just how long do they intend to retain someone's data?
didn't this come up before, and there were serious privacy violations/other issues involving facebook trying to keep up dead people's profiles? I don't remember if it was a celebrity thing.
most people can do distributed computing far more powerfully for less money via getting a more potent graphics card whether it is from Nvidia or ATI, really.
build cost can probably be around $400 like that, and have better performance for cheaper. Doesn't Nvidia advertise around 1 or 2 Tflops for their graphics cards as ATI does?
meanwhile, 1 4890 graphics card will consume less than 187 watts and also provide 1.5 tflops, let alone the new 5xxx series of ati cards.
you think that thing competes with a Sparc server? I suppose next you're going to think they should sue those people who made an ethernet jack server thing if it were the same name?