The new system, developed under the guidance of the GAPP, stops individuals from playing online games for more than three hours by cutting the abilities of game characters. The new system cuts the ability level of a player's online game character by half after he or she has played for more than three consecutive hours. Once a player has played for more than five consecutive hours, the system cuts the ability level of that player's character to the lowest level allowed by the game.
Furthermore, the system keeps track of hours of play. Individuals who immediately log back onto a game after three hours of consecutive play will continue to have the ability of their game character lowered by the system. Players must be logged off for a minimum of five hours before the system resets.
Mabye I'm missing something here, but it seems to me that your average gaming young person will simply switch to another chracter in the same game, or failing that, another character in a different game.
Again from the TFA:
In addition, seven of China's largest online gaming firms pledged Tuesday to "sacrifice short-term revenues" to create a "healthy" environment for young internet users. Companies signing onto the "Beijing Accord" were Shanda, NetEase, The9, Optisp, Kingsoft, SINA, and Sohu. These seven companies also pledged to deploy the system when development is completed.
Seems to me that the members of this "Beijing Accord" aren't as concerned with the welfare of young people as they are with insuring that the average gamer must have accounts on two or three different games to keep playing as much as they'd like.
To pick apart the decoration in such a way as you have
It's a shame you didn't actually read my OP...if you had, you might have noticed that I was attempting to initiate a discussion on the topic (emphasis on might), rather than just 'picking apart' the decoration.
you either have too much time on your hands or just like to argue about things to "prove" you're smarter than those around you.
Well...I had the time to try to start a discusion about the symbolism of the wings award...just like you had the time to tragically misinterpret it and foam at the mouth for six sentences. As for me liking to argue about things, guilty as charged...only I prefer to call it 'discussion', That may be the reason why I frequest this discussion board...what's your excuse? As for "proving" I'm smarter than those around me, please see below:
There are more important things in life than worrying about whether astronaughts should get a wing decoration or not.
*Sigh*
Axe to grind against Captcha?
on
Defeating Captcha
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
Interesting that an article talking about (among other things) why Captcha is a bad idea is submitted by an anonymous reader, who is forced to validate their human status every time they attempt to post.
(And yes, I'm aware that the submitter may be a member who has merely chosen to submit the story anonymously, but where would the joke be then?)
Re:...the same features we delivered seven years a
on
Windows 95 Turns 10
·
· Score: 1
what other vehicle lends itself to being modified into a battle cruiser than that beast?
I read this story this morning on SpaceRef, and I was struck with the absurdity of the concept of "astronaut wings", since wings are less than useful in a vacuum. Still, I suppose that there's a great deal of precedent for the "wings" decoration...it's interesting to speculate on whether or not the nomenclature will eventually be shifted to more accurately reflect the current level of technological development (the 'order of the silver booster', or some such). It's equally possible that the nomenclature will never be altered, out of a respect for tradition and a nostalgia for the good old days...it's conceiveable that in the future, an astronaut living on a space station could be award "wings" for some accomplishment of other, having never travelled in an atmosphere himself.
Good to see these pilots get their props for their contributions, though, even if it is posthumously in the cases of John McKay and Joseph Walker, and even if surviving pilot Bill Dana seems unimpressed by the whole affair.
it [Windows 95] was quite a leap in stability and usablility from windows 3.1.
Excuse me? Have you ever had the (dis)pleasure of using Windows 95? It was a giant leap in stability, all right...a leap backwards. Granted, it was a paradigm shift from Windows 3.x, but for acceptable stability and useability, you'd be better off referencing Windows 98 SE, which finally managed to fix most of the issues plaguing Windows 95. (Note: I didn't mention Windows 2000, even though it is arguably the most stable Windows platform yet, because it is from a different kernel tree, and thus is pretty much apples and oranges for the purpose of this discusion.)
Analysts think this diligence will pay off. "The extraordinarily extensive testing they did makes a show-stopping bug a pretty unlikely occurrence," said Chuck Stegman, a vice president at Dataquest Inc., a high-tech market research firm in California. "Someone would have stumbled on it already."
This passage is especially amusing, since I gained most of my knowledge of Windows 95 through needing to reinstall it repeatedly on various systems.
Another gem from TFA:
But those customers expecting Windows 95 to be a great technological leap forward may be disappointed. International Business Machines Corp. and Apple Computer Inc. already have operating systems on the market that sport the features - greater memory management, the ability to perform several tasks at once and enhanced user-friendliness - now being hailed in Windows 95.
Big Blue has made some effort to counter Microsoft's media onslaught with ads that feature the names of companies that have relied on its OS/2 system for years. Yesterday, at corporate headquarters in Armonk, N.Y., IBM officials reiterated the virtues of its own time-tested product, and tried to ignore the festivities.
"Microsoft is delivering the same features we delivered seven years ago," said company spokesman Tim Breuer. "We're moving on business as usual here."
Honestly, is a story based at least marginally on fact too much to ask? A entire article without one scrap of evidence to back it up...in fact, in under thirty seconds I was able to find twoarticles that would seem to contradict this assertion.
Introduce him to GTA as soon as possible. That way he'll be nicely inured to all the violence and sex, so by the time he sees it outside the house, it won't be a big deal.
By the way, when he starts having nightmares, DON'T coddle him...nightmares never killed anyone (although I'm not sure about night terrors), and what does not kill you makes you stronger.
Trust me, one day he'll thank you. Probably while you're asleep...you won't feel a thing.
Before commenting, you might want to actually read, or at least skim, the paper I linked to in my original post.
Fom the paper:
The nanotubes are characterized by a chiral vector c = na + mb where a and b are vectors defining a unit cell in the planar graphene sheet and n and m are integers. Depending on chirality (i.e., the values of n and m), CNT can be either metallic or semiconducting. If (n-m)/3 is an integer, the nanotubes is metallic; otherwise it is a semiconductor (Dresselhaus, 1996).
Doubtful. Any users who would be testing out the IE7 beta (a statistically insignificant number to begin with), would in all probability be testing it out next to Firefox, rather than declining to download Firefox in favor of the IE7 beta.
Could recent security problems and lack of stability, reported by some users, lead to the decline of the browser that just passed 80 million downloads?"
Actually, the decline is probably because everyone who wants it has it by now. ^_^
Slashdot Mirror
From TFA:Mabye I'm missing something here, but it seems to me that your average gaming young person will simply switch to another chracter in the same game, or failing that, another character in a different game.
Again from the TFA:Seems to me that the members of this "Beijing Accord" aren't as concerned with the welfare of young people as they are with insuring that the average gamer must have accounts on two or three different games to keep playing as much as they'd like.
Do you think you could be any more anal?
Do you think you could be any more ignorant?
To pick apart the decoration in such a way as you have
It's a shame you didn't actually read my OP...if you had, you might have noticed that I was attempting to initiate a discussion on the topic (emphasis on might), rather than just 'picking apart' the decoration.
you either have too much time on your hands or just like to argue about things to "prove" you're smarter than those around you.
Well...I had the time to try to start a discusion about the symbolism of the wings award...just like you had the time to tragically misinterpret it and foam at the mouth for six sentences. As for me liking to argue about things, guilty as charged...only I prefer to call it 'discussion', That may be the reason why I frequest this discussion board...what's your excuse? As for "proving" I'm smarter than those around me, please see below:
There are more important things in life than worrying about whether astronaughts should get a wing decoration or not.
*Sigh*
Interesting that an article talking about (among other things) why Captcha is a bad idea is submitted by an anonymous reader, who is forced to validate their human status every time they attempt to post.
(And yes, I'm aware that the submitter may be a member who has merely chosen to submit the story anonymously, but where would the joke be then?)
what other vehicle lends itself to being modified into a battle cruiser than that beast?
A Herkimer Battle Jitney...I bet they get pretty much the same gas mileage too.
I read this story this morning on SpaceRef, and I was struck with the absurdity of the concept of "astronaut wings", since wings are less than useful in a vacuum. Still, I suppose that there's a great deal of precedent for the "wings" decoration...it's interesting to speculate on whether or not the nomenclature will eventually be shifted to more accurately reflect the current level of technological development (the 'order of the silver booster', or some such). It's equally possible that the nomenclature will never be altered, out of a respect for tradition and a nostalgia for the good old days...it's conceiveable that in the future, an astronaut living on a space station could be award "wings" for some accomplishment of other, having never travelled in an atmosphere himself.
Good to see these pilots get their props for their contributions, though, even if it is posthumously in the cases of John McKay and Joseph Walker, and even if surviving pilot Bill Dana seems unimpressed by the whole affair.
it [Windows 95] was quite a leap in stability and usablility from windows 3.1.
Excuse me? Have you ever had the (dis)pleasure of using Windows 95? It was a giant leap in stability, all right...a leap backwards. Granted, it was a paradigm shift from Windows 3.x, but for acceptable stability and useability, you'd be better off referencing Windows 98 SE, which finally managed to fix most of the issues plaguing Windows 95. (Note: I didn't mention Windows 2000, even though it is arguably the most stable Windows platform yet, because it is from a different kernel tree, and thus is pretty much apples and oranges for the purpose of this discusion.)
From TFA:This passage is especially amusing, since I gained most of my knowledge of Windows 95 through needing to reinstall it repeatedly on various systems.
Another gem from TFA: Yes...I vaguely recall IBM's OS/2...but Apple? No....I'm drawing a blank. ^_^
Honestly, is a story based at least marginally on fact too much to ask? A entire article without one scrap of evidence to back it up...in fact, in under thirty seconds I was able to find two articles that would seem to contradict this assertion.
How exactly did this make it onto Slashdot?
Google, Skype and the Future of IM
Oh, I see...
From the (IN)SECURE article: How are we supposed to take this article seriously, when the author can't even spell 'pwn3d' correctly? ^_^
Try HavenCo, based in the principality of Sealand.
Before embarking on your project, I would highly recommend you watch this compelling and informative docudrama.
Forewarned is forearmed, after all...
But does this kind of thing still work for Windows XP and the server editions?
Short answer: yes.
Long answer: hell yes.
There is no such thing as security if you have physical access to the box. Period.
If hacker knowledge is outlawed, only outlaws will have hacker knowledge.
Introduce him to GTA as soon as possible. That way he'll be nicely inured to all the violence and sex, so by the time he sees it outside the house, it won't be a big deal.
By the way, when he starts having nightmares, DON'T coddle him...nightmares never killed anyone (although I'm not sure about night terrors), and what does not kill you makes you stronger.
Trust me, one day he'll thank you.
Probably while you're asleep...you won't feel a thing.
Before commenting, you might want to actually read, or at least skim, the paper I linked to in my original post.
Fom the paper:
It's also Carbon, something regularly used for resistors (prior to film resistors.) Seems resistance and heat will be some kind of issue.
Actually, carbon nanotubes are as conductive as copper...here's a nice resource .
This paper suggests that this sort of thing was being done 5 years ago.
From the paper:
Oh...it's the other shoe dropping.
Funny, when I said 'if you can't beat 'em, litigate 'em to death, I guess', in this discussion, several people took offense.
How's that crow taste?
Thanks for the link, offtopic though it may be.
Very informative and useful.
Hemos has it right
There is no story here.
Then why exactly did Hemos post the alleged non-story in the first place?
Doubtful. Any users who would be testing out the IE7 beta (a statistically insignificant number to begin with), would in all probability be testing it out next to Firefox, rather than declining to download Firefox in favor of the IE7 beta.
Could recent security problems and lack of stability, reported by some users, lead to the decline of the browser that just passed 80 million downloads?"
Actually, the decline is probably because everyone who wants it has it by now. ^_^
Here you go.
Knock yourself out.
Let me clarify my response. State one even mildly plausible alternative motive for seeking these patents, and I'll concede the point.
Microsoft had seen the windowing idea at Xerox PARC. The idea came from there.
Nice attempt at historical revisionism, but no. Try looking here or here for a quick history lesson.
only a small part of the Windows TCP/IP stack was taken from BSD.
I'm confused...are you arguing with me or corroborating my statements? Come back when you've made up your mind.