There is no attempt to make a direct link between teen violence and video games anywhere in his argument.
He was not attempting to make a direct link, as far as I can tell. He was simply saying that what little evidence exists concerning the causal relationship (if any) between pretend violence and actual violence seems to suggest the opposite of the claim being made by George W. Bush et al.
Many American adults don't understand this because America is stuffed full of morons who forget that everything manmade on this planet is the result of commerce! People do not give anything away for free unless it is to lure you to spend money on something else. Period.
Untrue, many people cook their own meals and serve them to others (we call these people "friends" or sometimes "family") without the slightest expectation of recompense. Graffitti artists (whether you love them or hate them) put their work up for public display and never expect payment. Sometimes, I write software and give it away for free. I hear sometimes other people do that, too.
The fact that I could come up with mundane daily tasks such as EATING A MEAL to contradict your "People do not give anything away for free unless it is to lure you to spend money on something else. Period." assertion should offer some indication as to how much thought went into your little tirade, there.
No, fool, open source software can't get "bought up." Once it's released as open-source, we get it forever. Can't retroactively change license agreements (UCITA notwithstanding.) That's the whole point.
If you own every expression ever produced by another person, then every person owns every expression ever produced by you.
You're confused about what "own" means. We're not trying to "own" every expression ever produced. We're just interested in having access to those expressions, which is a far cry from claims of ownership. You're addressing an issue that no one has even raised.
Jon, and anyone who agrees with him, no longer have the right to complain when Wired runs a story by stealing comments, unaccredited, off of Slashdot; it's perfectly within their rights to do so, as they own your expression as much as you own the right to the expression of today's Top 10 hits.
You're confusing the issue of ownership yet again. We don't care that they get comments from Slashdot. It's the unaccredited part that bugs us. You see, when Wired takes quotes but does not give credit, they are implicitly claiming that they created these remarks, which is false. However, if I get a Metallica MP3 I'm not claiming I wrote the song, I just want to listen to it.
Take your FUD and go feed it to someone who might be fooled.
Perhaps young kids shouldn't be using the internet at all. My feeling is, if you're too young to see one part of the internet you're too young to see any part. The point of the internet is free access to all kinds of information, and by having your first introduction to it be in an environment of censorship, you're saying to the kids that censorship is good because it's letting them on the 'net. I say, let those children start by wandering around the children's section of the library and give them their first taste of information access that way. Then, when they're old enough (actually, mature enough is a better criteria) you can let them on the net: porn, racism, and/. alike.
Um, look, some folks find tech support humor funny. And seeing as how most folks around here seem to feel the Darwin awards are pretty funny, I'd say UF is pretty tame by comparison.
BTW, I really like UF and I read it pretty much everyday. Often from work. Where I do tech support.:)
Y2K will re-write your hard drive. Not only that, but it will scramble any disks that are even close to your computer. It will recalibrate your refrigerator's coolness setting so all your ice cream goes melty. It will demagnetize the strips on all your credit cards, screw up the tracking on your television and use subspace field harmonics to scratch any CD's you try to play.
Y2K will give your ex-girlfriend your new phone number. It will mix Kool-aid into your fish tank. It will drink all your beer and leave its socks out on the coffee table when there's company coming over. It will put a dead kitten in the back pocket of your good suit pants and hide your car keys when you are late for work.
Y2K will make you fall in love with a penguin. It will give you nightmares about circus midgets. It will pour sugar in your gas tank and shave off both your eyebrows while dating your girlfriend behind your back and billing the dinner and hotel room to your Discover card.
It will seduce your grandmother. It does not matter if she is dead, such is the power of Y2K, it reaches out beyond the grave to sully those things we hold most dear.
It moves your car randomly around parking lots so you can't find it. It will kick your dog. It will leave libidinous messages on your boss's voice mail in your voice! It is insidious and subtle. It is dangerous and terrifying to behold. It is also a rather interesting shade of mauve.
Y2K will give you Dutch Elm disease. It will leave the toilet seat up. It will make a batch of Methanphetimene in your bathtub and then leave bacon cooking on the stove while it goes out to chase grade-schoolers with your new snow blower.
Disclaimer: I can't seem to find the original author of this message, but s?he deserves a lot of credit. This is hilarious
Look, folks, all I said was that a port of Linux software to Be would take less time than a port of Windows software to Linux. POSIX compliance helps us by having at least SOME common system calls in place so that you don't have to replace every instance of fork() with CreateNewProcess32A() or whatever it is in Win32land. It just reduces the amount of time necessary to make a port because less stuff has to be changed.
And NT's POSIX subsystem is a joke. If it wasn't, we wouldn't need cygwin.
I'm not claiming that porting will be trivially easy, I'm just saying that given a particular piece of software, the port from MacOS 8 to Windows95 will be more difficult than a port between Linux and BSD (licensing issues aside) largely due to the POSIX standard.
So in short, yes, I do think that, say, Apache, will be easier to port to MacOS X than it would be to MacOS 8. If I'm wrong, please correct me.
It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that businesses are mindless maintain-the-status-quo, do-whatever-everyone-is-doing creatures. But if you believe nothing else, believe that businesses love money, and they are now seeing, first-hand and repeatedly, that by not supporting alternative OSen, they are losing money. If their techs are not able to convince them that "M$ for everything" is folly, then at least their accountants will.
I'm glad to hear they sound frustrated and angry. It leads to the mentality that "I won't let this happen to me again next year!" I picture them saying "Dammit, next year we support this UNIX thing!" I'm hoping the year after that, people will pester them for Be ports. (And because Be is pretty much POSIX complient, the port will take less time.)
I just want to say how glad I am to see this happen right after the Mindcraft "vindication." It really does seem like a lot of companies are just ignoring a most of the FUD and making decisions based on real-world technical merit. "And there was much rejoicing...."
Postings directed to a particular newsgroup may not be targetted at a specific individual, but they are targetted at a community of people formed by the newsgroup's ``regulars''. It's reasonable for these people to want some sort of remedy for someone who is an utter nuisance.
Just get a newsreader that can filter out posts from people you don't want to hear from. That way, anyone can have the freedom to post -- a Good Thing(tm) -- and anyone can also have the freedom to not be pestered by an @$$hole -- also a Good Thing(tm).
I don't think we should go around making something a fellony when/dev/null is an easier, more free, and more empowering remedy.
Maybe this is just me, but I wouldn't worry too much about the best/worst way to meet the opposite sex. Do things you enjoy, and do them well. Invariably, you will meet others people during the course of these activities and sooner or later, one of them will be attractive to you. If you do what you do well, they might even be interested in you, too. Maybe you'll get along, maybe even go on a date. Then again, maybe not, and so you wait for the next one. For me at least, good things come to me only after I stop looking for them. You might find this holds true for you as well. Good luck!:)
... or is this a totally ineffectual system? I mean really, what's to stop you from telling your ISP you use the blocking software, and then just not using it? Could you not then just surf playboy.com to your heart's content?
This just seems like a high-profile "blue law" to me. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no attempt to make a direct link between teen violence and video games anywhere in his argument.
He was not attempting to make a direct link, as far as I can tell. He was simply saying that what little evidence exists concerning the causal relationship (if any) between pretend violence and actual violence seems to suggest the opposite of the claim being made by George W. Bush et al.
Many American adults don't understand this because America is stuffed full of morons who forget that everything manmade on this planet is the result of commerce! People do not give anything away for free unless it is to lure you to spend money on something else. Period.
Untrue, many people cook their own meals and serve them to others (we call these people "friends" or sometimes "family") without the slightest expectation of recompense. Graffitti artists (whether you love them or hate them) put their work up for public display and never expect payment. Sometimes, I write software and give it away for free. I hear sometimes other people do that, too.
The fact that I could come up with mundane daily tasks such as EATING A MEAL to contradict your "People do not give anything away for free unless it is to lure you to spend money on something else. Period." assertion should offer some indication as to how much thought went into your little tirade, there.
Yes. PostScript is a programming language. Here's a tutorial..
No, fool, open source software can't get "bought up." Once it's released as open-source, we get it forever. Can't retroactively change license agreements (UCITA notwithstanding.) That's the whole point.
If you own every expression ever produced by another person, then every person owns every expression ever produced by you.
You're confused about what "own" means. We're not trying to "own" every expression ever produced. We're just interested in having access to those expressions, which is a far cry from claims of ownership. You're addressing an issue that no one has even raised.
Jon, and anyone who agrees with him, no longer have the right to complain when Wired runs a story by stealing comments, unaccredited, off of Slashdot; it's perfectly within their rights to do so, as they own your expression as much as you own the right to the expression of today's Top 10 hits.
You're confusing the issue of ownership yet again. We don't care that they get comments from Slashdot. It's the unaccredited part that bugs us. You see, when Wired takes quotes but does not give credit, they are implicitly claiming that they created these remarks, which is false. However, if I get a Metallica MP3 I'm not claiming I wrote the song, I just want to listen to it.
Take your FUD and go feed it to someone who might be fooled.
Perhaps young kids shouldn't be using the internet at all. My feeling is, if you're too young to see one part of the internet you're too young to see any part. The point of the internet is free access to all kinds of information, and by having your first introduction to it be in an environment of censorship, you're saying to the kids that censorship is good because it's letting them on the 'net. I say, let those children start by wandering around the children's section of the library and give them their first taste of information access that way. Then, when they're old enough (actually, mature enough is a better criteria) you can let them on the net: porn, racism, and /. alike.
Um, look, some folks find tech support humor funny. And seeing as how most folks around here seem to feel the Darwin awards are pretty funny, I'd say UF is pretty tame by comparison.
BTW, I really like UF and I read it pretty much everyday. Often from work. Where I do tech support. :)
Y2K will re-write your hard drive. Not only that, but it will scramble any disks that are even close to
your computer. It will recalibrate your refrigerator's coolness setting so all your ice cream goes melty. It
will demagnetize the strips on all your credit cards, screw up the tracking on your television and use
subspace field harmonics to scratch any CD's you try to play.
Y2K will give your ex-girlfriend your new phone number. It will mix Kool-aid into your fish tank. It will drink
all your beer and leave its socks out on the coffee table when there's company coming over. It will put a
dead kitten in the back pocket of your good suit pants and hide your car keys when you are late for work.
Y2K will make you fall in love with a penguin. It will give you nightmares about circus midgets. It will
pour sugar in your gas tank and shave off both your eyebrows while dating your girlfriend behind your
back and billing the dinner and hotel room to your Discover card.
It will seduce your grandmother. It does not matter if she is dead, such is the power of Y2K, it
reaches out beyond the grave to sully those things we hold most dear.
It moves your car randomly around parking lots so you can't find it. It will kick your dog. It will leave
libidinous messages on your boss's voice mail in your voice! It is insidious and subtle. It is dangerous and
terrifying to behold. It is also a rather interesting shade of mauve.
Y2K will give you Dutch Elm disease. It will leave the toilet seat up. It will make a batch of
Methanphetimene in your bathtub and then leave bacon cooking on the stove while it goes out to chase
grade-schoolers with your new snow blower.
Disclaimer: I can't seem to find the original author of this message, but s?he deserves a lot of credit. This is hilarious
Look, folks, all I said was that a port of Linux software to Be would take less time than a port of Windows software to Linux. POSIX compliance helps us by having at least SOME common system calls in place so that you don't have to replace every instance of fork() with CreateNewProcess32A() or whatever it is in Win32land. It just reduces the amount of time necessary to make a port because less stuff has to be changed.
And NT's POSIX subsystem is a joke. If it wasn't, we wouldn't need cygwin.
I'm not claiming that porting will be trivially easy, I'm just saying that given a particular piece of software, the port from MacOS 8 to Windows95 will be more difficult than a port between Linux and BSD (licensing issues aside) largely due to the POSIX standard.
So in short, yes, I do think that, say, Apache, will be easier to port to MacOS X than it would be to MacOS 8. If I'm wrong, please correct me.
It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking that businesses are mindless maintain-the-status-quo, do-whatever-everyone-is-doing creatures. But if you believe nothing else, believe that businesses love money, and they are now seeing, first-hand and repeatedly, that by not supporting alternative OSen, they are losing money. If their techs are not able to convince them that "M$ for everything" is folly, then at least their accountants will.
I'm glad to hear they sound frustrated and angry. It leads to the mentality that "I won't let this happen to me again next year!" I picture them saying "Dammit, next year we support this UNIX thing!" I'm hoping the year after that, people will pester them for Be ports. (And because Be is pretty much POSIX complient, the port will take less time.)
Postings directed to a particular newsgroup may not be targetted at a specific individual, but they are targetted at a community of people formed by the newsgroup's ``regulars''. It's reasonable for these people to want some sort of remedy for someone who is an utter nuisance.
Just get a newsreader that can filter out posts from people you don't want to hear from. That way, anyone can have the freedom to post -- a Good Thing(tm) -- and anyone can also have the freedom to not be pestered by an @$$hole -- also a Good Thing(tm).
I don't think we should go around making something a fellony when /dev/null is an easier, more free, and more empowering remedy.
Maybe this is just me, but I wouldn't worry too much about the best/worst way to meet the opposite sex. Do things you enjoy, and do them well. Invariably, you will meet others people during the course of these activities and sooner or later, one of them will be attractive to you. If you do what you do well, they might even be interested in you, too. Maybe you'll get along, maybe even go on a date. Then again, maybe not, and so you wait for the next one. For me at least, good things come to me only after I stop looking for them. You might find this holds true for you as well. Good luck! :)
... or is this a totally ineffectual system? I mean really, what's to stop you from telling your ISP you use the blocking software, and then just not using it? Could you not then just surf playboy.com to your heart's content?
This just seems like a high-profile "blue law" to me. Correct me if I'm wrong.