You realize that IDs don't necessarily stamp the age of a/. reader, just the age of the account.
I've been reading/. since 1998 but I only got around to making an account in 2005. It's very possible that someone at 1mill ID could have seen the "Good Ol' Days" of/.
But now you can feel good about yourself Mr. AC, you've managed to look like an ass while attempting to discredit someone's comments. Good for you.
You know what really bothers me the most? There's a lack of context.
I can send you off to www.mysite.com/mypage.html and plastered on there can be a blacklisted pic. I can advertize it as a funny pic, you don't know, you wont know until you see it. Now obviously a SITE like that wont stay up for long, but posted on a big site quick enough you can frame many many people who had no intent.
Additionally with sites like 4chan. I'm sure a lot of 16-17 year olds go through that site but they look like they could be 18+, you can't really tell, and there's no way to be sure. If one of the pics posted on there is blacklisted, bam that's a lot of people who though they were looking at an 18 year old and soon are pegged w/ this problem.
The real issue is INTENT, did the offended INTEND to see kiddie pron? 9/10 cases, probably not. The difference is, did you close the page? or save the pic? and no level of government bullshit shy of tapping your pc is going to come close to detecting that.
It's like buying shoes, and then later the police come to your door and arrest you for buying shoes that were stolen. You didn't buy them BECAUSE they were stolen... but the govm't isn't willing to make the distinction.
I used the GWT, it was excelent but you have to realize, it's designed to build web APPS, not Websites.
Additionally, it's got some kinks, and it relys so heavily on using a JEE backend (you dont need to, but the framework practically begs you to) which is a large leap and not something supported by a lot of hosting companies.
I liked it, but i found myself moving back to plain PHP/MYSQL real fast.
But should such an operation (deleting/changing/overwriting) a system critical file such as (boot.ini) attempt to happen on a Vista machine, all those annoying popups we bit** and moan about all the time would ACTUALLY prevent this from occurring, or at least give the developers an indication that thier installer/uninstaller was broken.
I imagine however, the vista installer/uninstaller was written differently and did not contain such a fatal bug, and thus: passed the test.
I'm no VistaHumper, but I thought I'd point it out.
Just because you paid for it dosent mean it's "proper" according to M$. From what I've seen victims of unlicenced OEM distrobuters / pirates basically get a "sorry, you paid a crook some money, now pay some more crooks (M$) and we'll let you keep using it."
It's like buying a stolen car, if the cops find out it's stolen, and don't catch the guy you bought it from, you get squat, and your car is taken away.
Microsoft seems to think 'economy pricing' should be left to thier 'upgrade' packages.
I can buy Vista Upgrade for $100, but i have to install XP, then upgrade it to vista every time i format. 10 years ago if i kept following this idea, id have to install Windows 95, Upgrade to 98, Upgrade to 2000, Upgrade to XP, and then Upgrade to Vista, but id would have saved 60% of my costs for 10x the load time.
It really is the price of the OS that drives people to pirate it. I bet lots of people would buy Vista if the midgrade version was $100 and the Ultimate was $250. Cheapos could move up with a $60 payment. M$ would probably still make a profit.
Actually that kind of makes sense. I think the pirating of XP probably lead to it's success. Because most people were scared to spend money on the new system (especially given 2000's stability) the priates got and spread vista a lot.
More people == more beta testers, more bugs, more people developing, more support. By SP2 most companies were adopting XP and ~most~ companies will actually buy thier licences.
Just a theory.
Perhaps we should take this tool with a grain of salt. I did some investigation and there's a lot of non-company related submissions from some companies. I'm on my company network right now, I could go to wikipedia and mod Hitler's page to say he's the most lovable guy ever and he loves jews, such an edit could be tracked back to my company, but could you really hold my company responsible for the edit?
Obviously caution needs to be applied when using this tool, but i fear people will be blindly linking companies to changes in attempts to pull humor or mock a company / organization.
I love how everyone is quick to point out violence *could* be caused by violent video games, but nobody sees the other side, perhaps people who are already fucked up in the head just simply play violent video games along side the rest of us sane people.
Video games are an interesting portal to play something you are not. I'm not a violent killer, I don't steal cars... it's not me, but I still find the games compelling because they have 3 distinct attractive features.
1) Graphics, i'm motivated by graphics, it's an interesting topic and all the most violent games tend to have the most innovative breakthroughs in graphics (Crysis 2 Engine / Unreal / Etc...)
2) Excitment factor. It's far more exciting to play the hero capping off 100's of enemies to save the day, or to play the bad guy and see if you can get away with it, it's like an interactive action flick, where you get to shape the outcome.
3) Mental agility, and hand eye coordination. Ever ponder why America's Army was even invented? It was made BY the US Military (well not by them, but under thier guidance & supervision by a contracted development company) to train like a simulator. While far from realistic, the games tend to fine tune hand-eye co-ordination, thinking on your feet, and being creative with the tools provided. As well, it let's people fammiliarize themselves with some of the aspects of the US army, like rank/operations etc... Although it's a crude aproximation, it does help with Hand Eye Coordination & Fast thinking.
(By the way, Playing hardcore FPS games is a great way to learn to type fast... cuz if you don't, you're a sitting duck)
Anyway, back to my point, there's lots of appeal for violent video games to the sane market, perhaps all this corelation that people love to point out in the media to insane lunatics that shoot up thier school or kill thier parents is just coincidence? Or at least, a large portion of it could be.
So the guy that shoots his classmates plays counterstrike? Well so does the doctor who saves lives every day, so does the vet, and so does the librarian. I don't believe that games MAKE insane people, but they could trigger already fucked up people to act. Although in those cases, it's not really the game at fault... it's a messed up person.
My 2cents...
Why? Because people are lazy, and apathetic, more people would be willing to conform than exert effort to get up and actually do anything about it, computer enthusiasts are the worst offenders, i was tempted to post as "Anonymous Coward" rather than create an account here. That is why.
Summary: People are lazy, it wont happen, it would however be nice.
Slashdot Mirror
15K-20K Hours of playing Morrowind? You've dedicated 1.71-2.28 WAKING YEARS to playing morrowind? Not Impossible but I'm calling bullshit....
D does!. But D also has so many neat features.
D is wonderful, and it can interop with C / C++ or write inline ASM for you micro-optimists out there.
You realize that IDs don't necessarily stamp the age of a /. reader, just the age of the account.
/. since 1998 but I only got around to making an account in 2005. It's very possible that someone at 1mill ID could have seen the "Good Ol' Days" of /.
I've been reading
But now you can feel good about yourself Mr. AC, you've managed to look like an ass while attempting to discredit someone's comments. Good for you.
You know what really bothers me the most? There's a lack of context.
I can send you off to www.mysite.com/mypage.html and plastered on there can be a blacklisted pic. I can advertize it as a funny pic, you don't know, you wont know until you see it. Now obviously a SITE like that wont stay up for long, but posted on a big site quick enough you can frame many many people who had no intent.
Additionally with sites like 4chan. I'm sure a lot of 16-17 year olds go through that site but they look like they could be 18+, you can't really tell, and there's no way to be sure. If one of the pics posted on there is blacklisted, bam that's a lot of people who though they were looking at an 18 year old and soon are pegged w/ this problem.
The real issue is INTENT, did the offended INTEND to see kiddie pron? 9/10 cases, probably not. The difference is, did you close the page? or save the pic? and no level of government bullshit shy of tapping your pc is going to come close to detecting that.
It's like buying shoes, and then later the police come to your door and arrest you for buying shoes that were stolen. You didn't buy them BECAUSE they were stolen... but the govm't isn't willing to make the distinction.
I used the GWT, it was excelent but you have to realize, it's designed to build web APPS, not Websites. Additionally, it's got some kinks, and it relys so heavily on using a JEE backend (you dont need to, but the framework practically begs you to) which is a large leap and not something supported by a lot of hosting companies. I liked it, but i found myself moving back to plain PHP/MYSQL real fast.
But should such an operation (deleting/changing/overwriting) a system critical file such as (boot.ini) attempt to happen on a Vista machine, all those annoying popups we bit** and moan about all the time would ACTUALLY prevent this from occurring, or at least give the developers an indication that thier installer/uninstaller was broken.
I imagine however, the vista installer/uninstaller was written differently and did not contain such a fatal bug, and thus: passed the test.
I'm no VistaHumper, but I thought I'd point it out.
Just because you paid for it dosent mean it's "proper" according to M$. From what I've seen victims of unlicenced OEM distrobuters / pirates basically get a "sorry, you paid a crook some money, now pay some more crooks (M$) and we'll let you keep using it."
It's like buying a stolen car, if the cops find out it's stolen, and don't catch the guy you bought it from, you get squat, and your car is taken away.
Or even more scary: the delivery system for these no-consent MS Updates.
Microsoft seems to think 'economy pricing' should be left to thier 'upgrade' packages.
I can buy Vista Upgrade for $100, but i have to install XP, then upgrade it to vista every time i format. 10 years ago if i kept following this idea, id have to install Windows 95, Upgrade to 98, Upgrade to 2000, Upgrade to XP, and then Upgrade to Vista, but id would have saved 60% of my costs for 10x the load time.
It really is the price of the OS that drives people to pirate it. I bet lots of people would buy Vista if the midgrade version was $100 and the Ultimate was $250. Cheapos could move up with a $60 payment. M$ would probably still make a profit.
Actually that kind of makes sense. I think the pirating of XP probably lead to it's success. Because most people were scared to spend money on the new system (especially given 2000's stability) the priates got and spread vista a lot. More people == more beta testers, more bugs, more people developing, more support. By SP2 most companies were adopting XP and ~most~ companies will actually buy thier licences. Just a theory.
Perhaps we should take this tool with a grain of salt. I did some investigation and there's a lot of non-company related submissions from some companies. I'm on my company network right now, I could go to wikipedia and mod Hitler's page to say he's the most lovable guy ever and he loves jews, such an edit could be tracked back to my company, but could you really hold my company responsible for the edit?
Obviously caution needs to be applied when using this tool, but i fear people will be blindly linking companies to changes in attempts to pull humor or mock a company / organization.
I love how everyone is quick to point out violence *could* be caused by violent video games, but nobody sees the other side, perhaps people who are already fucked up in the head just simply play violent video games along side the rest of us sane people. Video games are an interesting portal to play something you are not. I'm not a violent killer, I don't steal cars... it's not me, but I still find the games compelling because they have 3 distinct attractive features. 1) Graphics, i'm motivated by graphics, it's an interesting topic and all the most violent games tend to have the most innovative breakthroughs in graphics (Crysis 2 Engine / Unreal / Etc...) 2) Excitment factor. It's far more exciting to play the hero capping off 100's of enemies to save the day, or to play the bad guy and see if you can get away with it, it's like an interactive action flick, where you get to shape the outcome. 3) Mental agility, and hand eye coordination. Ever ponder why America's Army was even invented? It was made BY the US Military (well not by them, but under thier guidance & supervision by a contracted development company) to train like a simulator. While far from realistic, the games tend to fine tune hand-eye co-ordination, thinking on your feet, and being creative with the tools provided. As well, it let's people fammiliarize themselves with some of the aspects of the US army, like rank/operations etc... Although it's a crude aproximation, it does help with Hand Eye Coordination & Fast thinking. (By the way, Playing hardcore FPS games is a great way to learn to type fast... cuz if you don't, you're a sitting duck) Anyway, back to my point, there's lots of appeal for violent video games to the sane market, perhaps all this corelation that people love to point out in the media to insane lunatics that shoot up thier school or kill thier parents is just coincidence? Or at least, a large portion of it could be. So the guy that shoots his classmates plays counterstrike? Well so does the doctor who saves lives every day, so does the vet, and so does the librarian. I don't believe that games MAKE insane people, but they could trigger already fucked up people to act. Although in those cases, it's not really the game at fault... it's a messed up person. My 2cents...
Why? Because people are lazy, and apathetic, more people would be willing to conform than exert effort to get up and actually do anything about it, computer enthusiasts are the worst offenders, i was tempted to post as "Anonymous Coward" rather than create an account here. That is why.
Summary: People are lazy, it wont happen, it would however be nice.