Actually we're relying on them hitting earth to colonise the outer moons... we're gonna get a bunch of scientists armed with solar powered drills to sit in touch capsules, wait until an asteroid hits close by, sending them hurtling into space. Some of them will reach jupiters moon's, and if they survive the 24mile/sec landing without too much of a headache, they can start building civilization.
Go to any computer geek and ask them "Who said, '640k is enough for anyone?'"
Judging by the fact that after anytime someone makes that quote, at least one person speaks out against it, I'd expect many "bill gates was supposed to have said it" type responses.
And I'm gonna leave it at that as i'm not stoned and can't be bothered with it!
The same source I trust for everything else that I believe that I know. My brain
Your brain is the source of the information? So you made it up yourself?
Of course, just because Bill says he didn't say it, doesn't mean anything
No, but you can't even tell me who said he did say it, apart from your own brain, which means even less.
Gates has always had big ideas for pc's... people laughed at him when he said 'one day, there'll be a computer in every home'. When he saw things becoming that big, i fail to believe that he would have been so short sighted when it came to memory, especially when he was pushing IBM to use processors with a wider address space.
It's still a perfect example of a popularly believed short-sighted quote
I consider the truth to be more important than popular belief, to the extent that I would say it's a completely flawed example of a short-sighted quote... unless of cause you preface it by saying "imagine if someone had said", rather than (intended or otherwise) perpetuating a myth.
The reason I didn't bother posting any links, is partly because somebody already posted a link to a wired article (http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,1484,00 .html) and partly because I assumed that everybody knows how to use google.
I unfortunately can't find the original interview that i recall where he stated it most clearly, but does this matter? Surely it's the roll of the quoter to include the reference of where they're quoting from?
The backdoor wouldn't even need to be in the main system/code, but could be on a seperate rom hidden or disguised somewhere along the control lines... maybe, probably easier to do that than it would be to hide it in the main system/code.
"Please name me a game that 'caused a child to lose the desire to live.'"
Actually I'm talking about the/real/ kind of bullying, not the game.
"parents of bullies need to wake up and realize thier kid is an ass and discpline them"
The parents of bullies are often as low down on the food chain as the bullies themselves, and can barely be relied on to perform the most basic of jobs, let alone raising a decent child.
"Banning the game will have NO effect whatsoever on real life bullying"
I never once said it would, what I'm talking about is sensitivity towards those with a problem. Yes these people are likely a bunch of jesus junkies who hate everything from drugs to music, they're the kind of people that "school board" position will often attract. But bullying is a real issue, and often isn't even the work of just one or two children, which makes dealing with it without looking at mass social influences dumb. They don't have a clue how to go about it, no one does, cruelty is part of human nature. They HAVE got this wrong, but that doesn't make it a non-issue.
You try telling a parent who's child's losing the desire to live that they should forget about it and go do something more important like clean up some polluted rivers, and see what response you get.
My point is that different people in different circumstances will have different ideas of which problems need to be tackled first. Yes, the world needs rescuing, but if you don't look after yourself first, you'll be in no position to look after anything else for long.
Whether you believe games affect people or not (my personal opinion is that/everything/ affects people, exposure to violence puts violence into the mind), knowing something that's turned your childs life into a misery has been made into a game... I can see how that would upset people enough to make them speak out.
Of cause, banning such a game increases the number of people affected by the bullying (ie, the would be game players) which I don't believe should happen.
"As for bullies: I was bullied as a kid. Then I learned to fight and kicked the crap out of anyone in high school that tried to bully anyone."...which is why you got fired from teaching maths at said school:-p
(yes I know about the self-invoking clause, I couldn't resist:-p )
Seriously tho, the whole idea that offending someone is bad is a bad idea itself! There's not much out there that wouldn't offend/someone/, who's to judge who's acceptible to offend and who isn't? Offending people is necessary in testing ideas and changing social attitudes. Should we really be surrounded in cotton wool in case god forbid we hear something that might not agree with us? How is that going to make us strong?
We wouldn't be where we are without having offended people all the way through history.
"but where is your outrage when companies are actively polluting rivers, lakes and land?"
erm, somewhere where it won't be modded off-topic? Are you really suggesting that individual complaints are invalid just because every other complaint about things wrong in the world weren't made at the same time?
So if I were to say, "these video games are wrong, and so is polluting", you'd come out with "well what about gun crime? You haven't mentioned that in the same sentence, so you obviously have no real morals"... where does
Slashdot Mirror
Actually we're relying on them hitting earth to colonise the outer moons... we're gonna get a bunch of scientists armed with solar powered drills to sit in touch capsules, wait until an asteroid hits close by, sending them hurtling into space. Some of them will reach jupiters moon's, and if they survive the 24mile/sec landing without too much of a headache, they can start building civilization.
We're just playing the waiting game!
--
plug: LCD TV's / Monitors (UK)
They're only saying that it's mathmatically possible that fragments ejected from the earth could reach these destinations.
In the interests of truth though, we should mention that they could be wrong in their maths.
Implying that it is not mathmatically possible?
Go to any computer geek and ask them "Who said, '640k is enough for anyone?'"
Judging by the fact that after anytime someone makes that quote, at least one person speaks out against it, I'd expect many "bill gates was supposed to have said it" type responses.
And I'm gonna leave it at that as i'm not stoned and can't be bothered with it!
The same source I trust for everything else that I believe that I know. My brain
Your brain is the source of the information? So you made it up yourself?
Of course, just because Bill says he didn't say it, doesn't mean anything
No, but you can't even tell me who said he did say it, apart from your own brain, which means even less.
Gates has always had big ideas for pc's... people laughed at him when he said 'one day, there'll be a computer in every home'. When he saw things becoming that big, i fail to believe that he would have been so short sighted when it came to memory, especially when he was pushing IBM to use processors with a wider address space.
It's still a perfect example of a popularly believed short-sighted quote
I consider the truth to be more important than popular belief, to the extent that I would say it's a completely flawed example of a short-sighted quote... unless of cause you preface it by saying "imagine if someone had said", rather than (intended or otherwise) perpetuating a myth.
So who are you trusting? What's your source?
The reason I didn't bother posting any links, is partly because somebody already posted a link to a wired article (http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,1484,00 .html) and partly because I assumed that everybody knows how to use google.
But here is also an email from gates: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/15180#fn*
I unfortunately can't find the original interview that i recall where he stated it most clearly, but does this matter? Surely it's the roll of the quoter to include the reference of where they're quoting from?
It was a misquote from what he actually said; quoting a misquote, esp in the context of it being an actual quote, is a laugh-and-pointable offense.
Take it like a man. I laugh and point at you thus.
Yeah, I can just imagine that 50 years from now, (at least) people will point to this comment and laugh.
Like the "640k will be enough memory for anyone."
Just like we all point to anyone who quotes that and laugh
good answer... damn good answer
or big corporations that claim to be looking out for your best interests and not their profits
WHAT corporation claims that?!! And what corporation have you believed who's said that?!!
The backdoor wouldn't even need to be in the main system/code, but could be on a seperate rom hidden or disguised somewhere along the control lines... maybe, probably easier to do that than it would be to hide it in the main system/code.
nah we just know we can speed up the tracking system by compiling it with -O2
Nah, it's cuz it's where the REAL stolen SCO code is!
How would new fighter jets have helped in that case?
;-)
Nothing like jumping in a shiny new jet and blowing s**t up to take the stress off
except that he had a bomb in his pocket.
;-)
nah, he was just pleased to see ya
...the americans don't want anybody to discover that they've used chunks of GPL code
"Please name me a game that 'caused a child to lose the desire to live.'"
/real/ kind of bullying, not the game.
Actually I'm talking about the
"parents of bullies need to wake up and realize thier kid is an ass and discpline them"
The parents of bullies are often as low down on the food chain as the bullies themselves, and can barely be relied on to perform the most basic of jobs, let alone raising a decent child.
"Banning the game will have NO effect whatsoever on real life bullying"
I never once said it would, what I'm talking about is sensitivity towards those with a problem. Yes these people are likely a bunch of jesus junkies who hate everything from drugs to music, they're the kind of people that "school board" position will often attract. But bullying is a real issue, and often isn't even the work of just one or two children, which makes dealing with it without looking at mass social influences dumb. They don't have a clue how to go about it, no one does, cruelty is part of human nature. They HAVE got this wrong, but that doesn't make it a non-issue.
"I'm walking 45 feet forward at 3 fps."
:-p
Duh, real life is MUCH smoother than 3 frames per second!
Speak for yourself! I happen to compensate by doing drugs... ...nothing cooler than doing drugs...
I'm gonna bookmark that post should I ever come across anyone who needs to know what "oh my god how totally missed the point" means
You try telling a parent who's child's losing the desire to live that they should forget about it and go do something more important like clean up some polluted rivers, and see what response you get.
/everything/ affects people, exposure to violence puts violence into the mind), knowing something that's turned your childs life into a misery has been made into a game... I can see how that would upset people enough to make them speak out.
My point is that different people in different circumstances will have different ideas of which problems need to be tackled first. Yes, the world needs rescuing, but if you don't look after yourself first, you'll be in no position to look after anything else for long.
Whether you believe games affect people or not (my personal opinion is that
Of cause, banning such a game increases the number of people affected by the bullying (ie, the would be game players) which I don't believe should happen.
"As for bullies: I was bullied as a kid. Then I learned to fight and kicked the crap out of anyone in high school that tried to bully anyone." ...which is why you got fired from teaching maths at said school :-p
Hey I can play this one too!
:-p )
/someone/, who's to judge who's acceptible to offend and who isn't? Offending people is necessary in testing ideas and changing social attitudes. Should we really be surrounded in cotton wool in case god forbid we hear something that might not agree with us? How is that going to make us strong?
We wouldn't be where we are without having offended people all the way through history.
"Say Rockstar came out with a game in which you're a Nazi, trying to take over Europe."
Godwins Law
(yes I know about the self-invoking clause, I couldn't resist
Seriously tho, the whole idea that offending someone is bad is a bad idea itself! There's not much out there that wouldn't offend
"but where is your outrage when companies are actively polluting rivers, lakes and land?"
erm, somewhere where it won't be modded off-topic? Are you really suggesting that individual complaints are invalid just because every other complaint about things wrong in the world weren't made at the same time?
So if I were to say, "these video games are wrong, and so is polluting", you'd come out with "well what about gun crime? You haven't mentioned that in the same sentence, so you obviously have no real morals"... where does
You are a detriment to your argument.
270mbps AROUND the home, not TO the home