"First adviser"? You clearly never had several cats at home. The "pack" structure of cats is *very* hierarchical, and the hierarchy is *very* rigid. There's just no concept of "leader", or first advisor, or whatever. They're just bullies, really. It's more like "If I'm pissed off, I'll slap somebody around -- somebody less important than myself. Oh, and I get dibs on food too." My aunt usually has around 5 cats at home, and she often literally has episodes where she tells off the top dog... er... cat, who then pouts and slaps the second in line around a bit, who then pouts and slaps the third in command around a bit, etc. etc. They go down the pecking order, with the last guy just meowing in vague complaint at my aunt.
Show me someone who can master a language in a month, and I'll show you a freaking genius. Sure, a month of coding might give you enough experience to write decently good code in a new language, but to truly master it, to understand why it was designed the way it was, to know all the nooks and crannies? To understand where the common idioms came from? How many people with a month of C understand what
volatile
and
register
are for? Or the difference between
cons char *pointer
and
char *cons pointer
? Perhaps you're just a lot less demanding of a "master" of a language than I am, though.
Actually, if you made a graphical representation of an @ slaughtering an f, it'd be just fine. But if your game realistically depicted a humanoid shredding a feline to pieces (can't be more specific than that, you only gave me characters, not colors!:), it'd be considered violent.
The @ and f example looks completely preposterous, but take, for example, the Worms series. You have a very graphic representation of chaos and mayhem, but it's ok because there's no implicit or explicit "real" violence there. Every 7 year old without some mental impairment knows at some level or another that actual worms don't go about killing each other with bazookas -- just like they know that cats and mice don't talk, and that no real life Tom would aim a shotgun at a real life Jerry.
The article is more hype than fact, but if this is indeed that deeply based on the DMCA, I think that this whole thing only applies to anti-circumvention measures. So fair use is still valid -- provided the original media is not DRM-encumbered. The only gotcha is that not even usual fair use provisions give you permission to bypass the copy protection.
In any event, I think the mere fact that nearly all computers use non-unified GPU/CPU memory architectures suggests that there is some advantage to them.
Considering most modern computers are a hodgepodge of technology created along a span of nearly 30 years, how on Earth would they ever have a unified ANYTHING architecture?
I claim no knowledge of the inner workings of Deep Blue's code, and in any case my formal knowledge of AI is barely any deeper than understanding how minimax with alpha/beta cuts works. This said, there are two thing about that article I want to mention.
First, and forgive the ad hominem feel of the statement, it takes a pretty enormous amount of hubris to say things like "his side claimed that White wins a Pawn or two and that no machine could resist snatching the material". The whole point of good AI is to be able to detect stuff like this. "it is impressive how Deep Blue has used so many of the well worn positional motifs of this particular opening. An opening that Deep Blue's programmers could not have reasonably expected" is also used to argue that there was some foul play afoot. Once again, the whole point of good AI is that it's capable of coming up with stuff that its creators can't.
Second, still related to the latter quote, I'm pretty sure that Deep Blue is freaking complex. If the heuristics generic and complex enough, emergent behaviour is prone to crop up. So the whole argument of certain plays being exceptionally elaborate or beyond the engineers' capacity to predict is pretty empty.
This said, Kasparov is still a hell of a player (understatement of the year), and I fully agree that this move by him shows a strength of belief and ideals that most of us should aspire to.
I can talk of Grand Theft Auto, which I know (haven't played either of the other two). While cutscenes are still pretty annoying, they're not level divisions. Those cutscenes usually either present you with a job or debrief you from one. The actual game world is open-ended, and you can potentially stack a number of jobs before you complete any of them. The actual game world isn't divided into rigid levels, it just has static cutscenes that happen in a game world that's already (partially) loaded.
I see no reason whatsoever why this card should spend significantly more battery power while in plain old 2D mode for normal "on the move" usage than "lesser" chips. Perhaps it even spends less than some comparable chips, seeing as it's built on a 65nm process. And if you're playing 3D games, I really doubt battery life is your biggest concern.
Because, of course, privilege escalation bugs have never EVER cropped up.
But that's merely a technical argument in an area where psychology reigns supreme. And the moment you assume the attitude of "It's not worth giving a damn because careful users won't have issues", you already lost that game.
actually, either you can come up with some activity that undeniable has zero effect on character, or you need at least one more control group with a designated activity orthogonal to the first two, so that you can tell if differences in violent behaviour are due to violent games making them more violent, or the other activity making them less so.
Ok, here's the short version: Bennet got an e-mail with a subject line "Reminder: Link exchange with your site http://slashdot.org/". The e-mail body was addressed to "Dear Webmaster", and proceeded to include the link the spammer was trying to get Bennet to post on "his" site, slashdot.org. Apparently this Bennet fellow sues spammers as a hobby, and when he got to the small claims court, the judge figured that the e-mail was a personal e-mail, rather than spammish bulk e-mail. Hence the hilarious conclusion that Bennet must own slashdot -- otherwise it wouldn't be "his" site, and the e-mail couldn't possibly be personal, to him.
The rest of the article is Bennet explaining why suing these guys for fun is actually a worthwhile activity: if/when you do have to go to court for something that actually matters, you'll have some practice under your belt.
Most politicians worth a damn have enough skill with rhetoric to be able to make a decent speech with the general meaning of "the best way to honour your deceased loved ones is to not give the scum who killed them the pleasure of living the rest of your life in fear and anger". And I bet a good enough politician would make a damned good speech out of it. Nobody wants to take that chance though.
While quite evocative, your counter argument fails to address the first and probably most important of the items the GP used to define addiction: I don't compulsively pursue sexual activity to the exclusion of working, socializing or engaging in other activities.
In fact, I'll counter your counter arguments with something else: smoking is well known to be addictive, yet, except for the most hardcore cases of chain smoking, it's a socially accepted addiction. So social acceptance of your behaviour is an aid in defining addiction (as per the grandparent's example), but it's neither sufficient (as per your example) nor a required condition (as follows from mine).
Non-argument. Wifi routers usually come wide open by default and non-technical people don't usually know how to go about locking them down or hiding them. Not quite the same as your front door.
First, I reckon Google specifically pays for the "service" of being the default page and search engine. Mozilla calling the shots on development has nothing to do with contractual conditions on what amounts to "product placement".
Second, I doubt MSN search is actually better than Google, and I certainly can't see the point in making the Opera download page the default home page. That's simply a waste of the users' time.
... I have to say "nothing to see here". A country known for its avid market for consumer electronics and similar products sees large sales of a thoroughly hyped new product in a market that really probably sees barely any activity under normal circumstances (I mean, really, how big *IS* the retail OS market?). That by itself makes a record month without any effort involved.
Trouble is that iPods are made with 1.5" drives, which are nowhere near as popular as 2.5" or 3.5" drives, so much harder to actually get your hands on. Also, I have no clue what sort of price you'll have to pay for the one unit you want for the iPod case, as most of the 1.5" market is in the small device sector (mostly video/music players, I'd wager), and not really aimed at direct sales to the public.
"Make it smart enough to be useful, but not so smart that it starts becoming a liability". That's what they're saying. Actually it's a very fine line to tread, and one that requires very good programming skills to actually accomplish.
Expecting the population in general to understand the tech behind DRM is really not a fair expectation. How many non-technical people (or even technical but non-computer related) do you know that actually properly understand the concepts of domain, subdomain, top-level domain, web server, smtp/pop/imap servers and how they relate to each other? How many people do you know actually know that a "web server" isn't an alien machine but just a plain old computer, possibly assembled from more expensive parts and in a different type of case?
Now, how much do you think the average MLB video buyer knows about DRM and how it works? How much should he have to know? How much did MLB publicize the fact that you need them to give you a permission on a view-by-view basis?
Usually, to use a DVD without encountering DRM issues, you just need to know the region code on your player, and check the tag on the DVD against that code. The DVD's region encoding is usually quite visible near the credits on the backside of the box. Assuming you know about region codes, this is quite simple and hassle free (though you're still in for a shock if you're not aware of this, go into a different region and buy a DVD only to not be able to read it at home). When I see that the videos on MLB.com have copy protection, why can't I assume that it'll be approximately as hassle free as a DVD?
Re:How is this different than a food chemist?
on
Chefs As Chemists
·
· Score: 1
Your friends went into food from being chemistry undergrands (I suppose). These guys are master chefs that are reaching into chemistry for tools. Food + Chemistry for both. But the paths taken (and end results) are completely different
Preferred form for modification basically means "the actual source, in a reasonable format". I doubt an RPM counts as an "install script", and most applications have an install script in the form of a makefile either way. So I don't really think that providing source tarballs would be a problem.
On the other hand, the goodwill thing is indeed a good point. And there's the part where, given they actually need to make the source available, as per the GPL, their clients would probably rather have it in RPM format. No point in cutting off your nose to spite your face, kind of thing.
Slashdot Mirror
"First adviser"? You clearly never had several cats at home. The "pack" structure of cats is *very* hierarchical, and the hierarchy is *very* rigid. There's just no concept of "leader", or first advisor, or whatever. They're just bullies, really. It's more like "If I'm pissed off, I'll slap somebody around -- somebody less important than myself. Oh, and I get dibs on food too." My aunt usually has around 5 cats at home, and she often literally has episodes where she tells off the top dog... er... cat, who then pouts and slaps the second in line around a bit, who then pouts and slaps the third in command around a bit, etc. etc. They go down the pecking order, with the last guy just meowing in vague complaint at my aunt.
Actually, if you made a graphical representation of an @ slaughtering an f, it'd be just fine. But if your game realistically depicted a humanoid shredding a feline to pieces (can't be more specific than that, you only gave me characters, not colors! :), it'd be considered violent.
The @ and f example looks completely preposterous, but take, for example, the Worms series. You have a very graphic representation of chaos and mayhem, but it's ok because there's no implicit or explicit "real" violence there. Every 7 year old without some mental impairment knows at some level or another that actual worms don't go about killing each other with bazookas -- just like they know that cats and mice don't talk, and that no real life Tom would aim a shotgun at a real life Jerry.
The article is more hype than fact, but if this is indeed that deeply based on the DMCA, I think that this whole thing only applies to anti-circumvention measures. So fair use is still valid -- provided the original media is not DRM-encumbered. The only gotcha is that not even usual fair use provisions give you permission to bypass the copy protection.
There's at least one more option: They said that some ISPs are doing it, time to check if yours is one of them.
Considering most modern computers are a hodgepodge of technology created along a span of nearly 30 years, how on Earth would they ever have a unified ANYTHING architecture?
I claim no knowledge of the inner workings of Deep Blue's code, and in any case my formal knowledge of AI is barely any deeper than understanding how minimax with alpha/beta cuts works. This said, there are two thing about that article I want to mention.
First, and forgive the ad hominem feel of the statement, it takes a pretty enormous amount of hubris to say things like "his side claimed that White wins a Pawn or two and that no machine could resist snatching the material". The whole point of good AI is to be able to detect stuff like this. "it is impressive how Deep Blue has used so many of the well worn positional motifs of this particular opening. An opening that Deep Blue's programmers could not have reasonably expected" is also used to argue that there was some foul play afoot. Once again, the whole point of good AI is that it's capable of coming up with stuff that its creators can't.
Second, still related to the latter quote, I'm pretty sure that Deep Blue is freaking complex. If the heuristics generic and complex enough, emergent behaviour is prone to crop up. So the whole argument of certain plays being exceptionally elaborate or beyond the engineers' capacity to predict is pretty empty.
This said, Kasparov is still a hell of a player (understatement of the year), and I fully agree that this move by him shows a strength of belief and ideals that most of us should aspire to.
I can talk of Grand Theft Auto, which I know (haven't played either of the other two). While cutscenes are still pretty annoying, they're not level divisions. Those cutscenes usually either present you with a job or debrief you from one. The actual game world is open-ended, and you can potentially stack a number of jobs before you complete any of them. The actual game world isn't divided into rigid levels, it just has static cutscenes that happen in a game world that's already (partially) loaded.
I see no reason whatsoever why this card should spend significantly more battery power while in plain old 2D mode for normal "on the move" usage than "lesser" chips. Perhaps it even spends less than some comparable chips, seeing as it's built on a 65nm process. And if you're playing 3D games, I really doubt battery life is your biggest concern.
Because, of course, privilege escalation bugs have never EVER cropped up.
But that's merely a technical argument in an area where psychology reigns supreme. And the moment you assume the attitude of "It's not worth giving a damn because careful users won't have issues", you already lost that game.
actually, either you can come up with some activity that undeniable has zero effect on character, or you need at least one more control group with a designated activity orthogonal to the first two, so that you can tell if differences in violent behaviour are due to violent games making them more violent, or the other activity making them less so.
Ok, here's the short version: Bennet got an e-mail with a subject line "Reminder: Link exchange with your site http://slashdot.org/". The e-mail body was addressed to "Dear Webmaster", and proceeded to include the link the spammer was trying to get Bennet to post on "his" site, slashdot.org. Apparently this Bennet fellow sues spammers as a hobby, and when he got to the small claims court, the judge figured that the e-mail was a personal e-mail, rather than spammish bulk e-mail. Hence the hilarious conclusion that Bennet must own slashdot -- otherwise it wouldn't be "his" site, and the e-mail couldn't possibly be personal, to him.
The rest of the article is Bennet explaining why suing these guys for fun is actually a worthwhile activity: if/when you do have to go to court for something that actually matters, you'll have some practice under your belt.
Perhaps the fact that the guy in question was somehow considered to be the owner, thus overlord, of slashdot is what makes it one of those exceptions?
Most politicians worth a damn have enough skill with rhetoric to be able to make a decent speech with the general meaning of "the best way to honour your deceased loved ones is to not give the scum who killed them the pleasure of living the rest of your life in fear and anger". And I bet a good enough politician would make a damned good speech out of it. Nobody wants to take that chance though.
Working as intended.
At least from the terrorists' point of view. I mean, this is exactly what terrorism is, right?
I'd say that yes, Jim Henson's a well known name.
While quite evocative, your counter argument fails to address the first and probably most important of the items the GP used to define addiction: I don't compulsively pursue sexual activity to the exclusion of working, socializing or engaging in other activities.
In fact, I'll counter your counter arguments with something else: smoking is well known to be addictive, yet, except for the most hardcore cases of chain smoking, it's a socially accepted addiction. So social acceptance of your behaviour is an aid in defining addiction (as per the grandparent's example), but it's neither sufficient (as per your example) nor a required condition (as follows from mine).
Non-argument. Wifi routers usually come wide open by default and non-technical people don't usually know how to go about locking them down or hiding them. Not quite the same as your front door.
First, I reckon Google specifically pays for the "service" of being the default page and search engine. Mozilla calling the shots on development has nothing to do with contractual conditions on what amounts to "product placement".
Second, I doubt MSN search is actually better than Google, and I certainly can't see the point in making the Opera download page the default home page. That's simply a waste of the users' time.
... I have to say "nothing to see here". A country known for its avid market for consumer electronics and similar products sees large sales of a thoroughly hyped new product in a market that really probably sees barely any activity under normal circumstances (I mean, really, how big *IS* the retail OS market?). That by itself makes a record month without any effort involved.
Trouble is that iPods are made with 1.5" drives, which are nowhere near as popular as 2.5" or 3.5" drives, so much harder to actually get your hands on. Also, I have no clue what sort of price you'll have to pay for the one unit you want for the iPod case, as most of the 1.5" market is in the small device sector (mostly video/music players, I'd wager), and not really aimed at direct sales to the public.
"Make it smart enough to be useful, but not so smart that it starts becoming a liability". That's what they're saying. Actually it's a very fine line to tread, and one that requires very good programming skills to actually accomplish.
Expecting the population in general to understand the tech behind DRM is really not a fair expectation. How many non-technical people (or even technical but non-computer related) do you know that actually properly understand the concepts of domain, subdomain, top-level domain, web server, smtp/pop/imap servers and how they relate to each other? How many people do you know actually know that a "web server" isn't an alien machine but just a plain old computer, possibly assembled from more expensive parts and in a different type of case?
Now, how much do you think the average MLB video buyer knows about DRM and how it works? How much should he have to know? How much did MLB publicize the fact that you need them to give you a permission on a view-by-view basis?
Usually, to use a DVD without encountering DRM issues, you just need to know the region code on your player, and check the tag on the DVD against that code. The DVD's region encoding is usually quite visible near the credits on the backside of the box. Assuming you know about region codes, this is quite simple and hassle free (though you're still in for a shock if you're not aware of this, go into a different region and buy a DVD only to not be able to read it at home). When I see that the videos on MLB.com have copy protection, why can't I assume that it'll be approximately as hassle free as a DVD?
Your friends went into food from being chemistry undergrands (I suppose). These guys are master chefs that are reaching into chemistry for tools. Food + Chemistry for both. But the paths taken (and end results) are completely different
Preferred form for modification basically means "the actual source, in a reasonable format". I doubt an RPM counts as an "install script", and most applications have an install script in the form of a makefile either way. So I don't really think that providing source tarballs would be a problem.
On the other hand, the goodwill thing is indeed a good point. And there's the part where, given they actually need to make the source available, as per the GPL, their clients would probably rather have it in RPM format. No point in cutting off your nose to spite your face, kind of thing.