What the grandparent failed to mention is that they started turning back men of a certain age range, apparently under the logic that all men 20-25 or so are insurgents.
If someone says they are a civilian, and has no weapons or uniform, well...yeah, you can say 'Liar' and bring them in. Or you can believe them. What you cannot do is kill them.
By refusing to let people who claimed to be civilians leave the city, they delibrately placed people in the path of a firebombing and thus they committed blatant war crimes. I mean, it's not even at some debatable level.
Actually, I can kinda see the police's point, although it depends on what they were asking for.
Because, as far as I can tell, they weren't asking for library records. They wanted to know who a certain person was, and possibly knew he'd checked out a book near that time. That would be in the computer, but the librarian could hand over a list of the few men who checked out library books in that time frame without actually saying what those books were.
I'm all for restricting the usage of checkout information from the police, expecially 'Well, here's the list of people who checked out these Evil(TM) books'.
However, 'What is the name of the person who left here between 2 and 2:15, we need to question him' is not really the same kind of request. It doesn't have anything to do with the fact that's a library, or any presumed judgements on him because of his reading materials. It could have been almost anywhere.
OTOH, this is what law enforcement gets for acting like asses, in general, to libraries, with secret warrants and gag orders and profiling of people who check out certain books. Go in and make a simple request that isn't a privacy violation, and you end up waiting twenty minutes while getting the paperwork straightened out.
It's the same principle that I take while interacting with the police...if they want me to help them, they can stop all their little 'tricks' that play on accussed criminal's trust, because I'll be damned if I'm going to spend the time figuring out if any request of theirs is legit or a trick because they think I'm guilty of something, or even a trick to get me to lie about something to them, which they've managed to make a crime. They get my name and I'll even prove my identity to them, but that's all the courts say I have to do. I don't have to tell them which way someone ran past me until they get a subpoena issued and present it to me.
And it looks like libraries have started doing the smae thing. Have fun enforcing the law in a country where no one will help you without being required to by a court order because no one fucking trusts you. It really is getting close to that point.
Except your analogy is stupid, because it compares something that is legal, sending IR signals to a TV to change the channel, with something that is explicitly illegal, accessing a computer network after having your authorization revoked.
Do that anyway, and put a way for people to find you in case they need to talk. (For example, your frequency might overlap theirs, and they can't change, but you can.)
Yeah, that 'yelling at a kid' story really opens your eyes, although I remember it being a girl.
Basically, this guy is driving down the street, and this young girl runs in front of him and almost gets herself killed.
He stops the car and gets out to tell her exactly how stupid that was, that if he'd glanced away from the road she'd be dead. She ignores him and just keeps going. He grabs her arm to stop her, and, boom, registered sex offender.
Now, we can argue on whether or not his behavior is justified, but traditionally, adults have been allowed to stop random children, ones that aren't theirs, from doing really stupid things. Suddenly, not only is that not allowed, it is a crime, and not only a crime, it's a crime that will follow you the rest of your life.
Now, if we want to say 'he shouldn't have done that, it wasn't his kid', that's fine. Give him a 50 dollar fine and send him home. Or, more reasonably, make the fine at the disgression of the parents.
You don't stamp 'sex offender' on him for getting a little emotional because he almost just killed someone and she doesn't seem to care.
Hell, even for adults, 'restraining someone for a few seconds to try to talk them out of doing something stupid', while technically kidnapping, isn't normally prosecuted.
Sadly, you are mistaken. The crime is going somewhere that you clearly aren't allowed. While in many places that includes opening unlocked doors to private residences, that never includes wandering around in unfenced yards, at least not unfenced yards that are trivial to get to.
Or, you know, you could realize there are laws against unauthorized communication with a computer, whereas there are no laws against unauthorized communcations with people.
Walking into a private residence through an open door is not trespassing. Depending on where you live opening a door probably is, maybe even a slightly ajar one, but not just walking through a delibrately open one.
To be trespassing, there has to be some implication that you should not be there. An open door is not that.
Interestingly enough, that, too, is legal, assuming he does it via remote control. Infrared is a truely unregulated spectrum, even less regulated than the 'unregulated' ones, because it is counted as part of the 'visible light' spectrum, so you don't even have to follow the 'This device is certified to not emit and to absorb blah blah blah' rules. (And plenty of devices do spew large amounts of IR.)
In fact, not only is that legal, unlike computer systems, where the owner can just revoke his default authorization, there is absolutely no legal remedy to someone aiming a remote control at your TV and changing your channel, although it's possible you could get them for theft of electricity if they turned it on in the first place.
It's even more than that. You can become a sex offender for indecent exposure. Aka, pissing in the bushes, or mooning someone, or streaking, or skinnydipping in deep-in-the-woods public river. (Or, yes, flashing, which is what it's designed for.)
I'm sorry, but if someone gets drunk and tries to pee in the bushes on the way home, he shouldn't have to register as a 'sex offender'. That's worth a 250 dollar fine, nothing more.
Hell, even flashing someone shouldn't count. Yes, flashers need consoling, and that, unlike other indecent exposure reasons, is connected vaguely to 'sex', but it's a pretty victimless crime, unless people want to assert that people can be harmed by what they see, which has some horrible 1st amendment implications. I don't really see a moral difference between a guy walking up to a woman and saying 'Hey, you want to give me a blowjob?' and 'Hey, you want to give this a blowjob?' and pulling it out.
Now, obviously, we might want to do something about people who delibrately and lewdly expose themselves to children, but the response to pretty much everything else should be 'Good grief, put some pants on. Here's your ticket.', not 'You're an evil sex offender!'
As an aside, it really pisses me off they haven't standardized on a non-emergency number. For example, often, I've seen someone driving like a lunatic and would like to report them, so the cops can get out there and see if they can spot the guy doing something illegal, which he was doing about once every ten seconds, so the odds are pretty good. Or I've seen something that looked vaguely suspicious, like an unmarked truck apparently doing repair on a telephone pole.
However, I regularly drive through six counties, and probably eight cities. I can't be arsed to figure out who I need to call.
For all the evilness of 'Reporting on fellow citizens', it would be nice to have a standard way to say to the police 'Hey, you might to drive around on Highway 141 east of 400 and just look around a bit'. Not even the level of anonymous tips, just 'drive down this road instead of some other road'.
And, hell, I've felt stupid calling 911 after a traffic accident before. We all appeared okay and the cars weren't going to explode or anything, so I was having trouble figuring out how it was an 'emergency'. 911, in my head, is reserved for 'Running away from someone who has a gun' or 'Terrorists are about to poison the water supply'.
They don't have a right to enter an open shop without a presumption of welcome, and without complying with the rules of the site. If the sign says: "no entrance unless wearing a tie", and you wear a tie, you're not allowed in, and you're tresspassing. It's their property; you have to obey their rules, or stay the hell off of it.
So they had a sign up? Why, no, they didn't. That's the whole fucking point about open WAPs. There's no sign.
His actions were illegal, becoming illegal the moment they asked him to stop and he didn't. Before then, he was fine.
And you don't 'grant priviledge' to enter private property or use computers. People have the legal right to use any computer or walk anywhere they want until they see some indication that they are not wanted, be it a fence or a login page. Owners revoke priviledge to private property, not the other way around.
But, you're welcome to explain how the fuck you got on slashdot if accessing computers requires permission. (No, the AUP doesn't count, unless you can demonstrate how you got a copy of the AUP without connecting here.)
Incidentally, no, walking into a place that had that sign up, without a tie, is not trespassing, because that sign is nowhere near specific enough (What's a tie? Does that apply to women? What 'entrance'? Is a tie provided inside for people who want to 'enter'?), and people aren't even required to know how to read. 'No trepassing' signs have standard wording, size, and positioning for a reason. There's no way they could call the police on someone who had just walked past that sign and not been asked to leave in some other way.
No, and they've already had court cases about this. There are sports stadiums that are in downtown areas, and have buildings overlook them. Some of these buildings sell tickets to their roof during games, where you can clearly see the game.
The courts have held that, barring some law that makes 'being on the roof of a building' illegal, that is completely legal. (And you couldn't make a law like that for other reasons.)
In a very few places, peeping tom laws can apply if you use, say binoculars, or any technological means to see or hear better. But peeping tom laws are almost always restricted to people that have an expectation of privacy where they are, which, obviously, 30 foot high movie screens do not...they aren't even people. But neither do people on a baseball field surrounded by thousands of people.
I don't think we have an evidence that they even have a problem with freeloaders. For all we know, they like having an open network.
They had a problem with this weirdo sitting out in his car in the parking lot on a laptop for a month. They probably couldn't get him to leave, as the parking lot was probably owned by the mall or even public, instead of by the store, but they realized he was using their internet connection, and asked him to stop, on the theory that without an internet connection, he'd leave. (And, for all we know, three or four stores wanted him to leave, but it was just this store's wifi.)
I have no problem with people using free wifi connections, and I have no sympathy for idiots who can't configure routers. The law clearly says that you, by default, are authorized to access any network or computer system, be it open wifi or a website or a computer kiosk in a mall, until you are asked for authentication by automated means or receive notification that your authorization has been revoked. Anyone who has issues with that can explain what the hell they are doing on this website without permission. (No, the AUP doesn't count. You first accessed this site without seeing that.)
Here, his authorization was revoked. Endgame. Any access after that point was illegal.
Now, there is the interesting question of whether or not the claimed 'owner' of the wireless network was actaully the owner of the wireless network he was using, and I think it would be worth it clarify the laws in that area, that for example, to ban someone from your wireless network using not technological means (I.e., not over the network.) should require clearly stating the frequency and network name, and temporarily blocking their MAC address so you can demonstate you are, in fact, in charge of that wireless network, as opposed to some random asshole who's merely pretending to be in control of the network.
Physical property has trespassing, but under the law, anyone currently on the property should be assumed to be authorized to revoke your permission. But with wifi, 'the property' is a pretty fuzzy thing. If you're using a wifi network with the name of a coffee shop, and someone in a coffeeshop uniform shows up, that's one thing, but some random dude knocking on your apartment door and asking if you're using his wifi, and, if so, to stop, might be the owner, or he might be some idiot who wants more bandwidth and figured out a clever way to get it.
However, the laws don't reflect that possiblity yet, and, anyway, a police office also told him the owner had asked him to stop, and the police should count as verification.
And they should hit him with malicious loitering, or whatever it is called when you are loitering to do something illegal.
There is also a tool available for free from MS, Remove Hidden Data 1.0 (for XP) and 1.1 (for Office
2003), hereafter referred to as RHD, that allows batch removal information from Word
documents
That because those aren't for redacting anything, except for a few metadata fields, they're needed because dumb-as-shit Office often likes to include random data inside the files it creates. Sometimes it's previous version of the document, sometimes it's completely random parts of other documents, even non-Office documents. In addition to bloating up files for no logical reason, it also presents interesting security implications.
I.e., it's not solving the same type of issues as the PDF thing, MS Word documents can still leak data from idiots who think drawing a doc over text is useful. No, it's to solve an entire new problem, one that no one else in the computer industry has ever managed to have.
Anyone handling secure documents in MS Office should be shot. Anyone with secure documents on their computer shouldn't even have Office on it, because parts of sensitive documents will otherwise secretly end up inside other documents. Then someone says 'Well, I finished the summary for the CIA bribes of foreign government officials to put in the budget, after carefully making sure no one can track the amounts of the individual payments or where they went. I hate using these classifed machines, no internet access. But it's time to transfer this document to a non-classified computer so I put it with the rest of the official CIA budget and print it out. Someone sign off to unlock the floppy drive.(1)' and have the names of a dozen of bribed officials embedded right in there (cause you had that file open at the same time), now sitting in a non-classified documents on a non-classified computer.
1) I'm just guessing about someone signing off on the floppy, I don't actually know how they move info between their classified and unclassified computers.
Re:Remember when Firefox was a web browser?
on
Firefox VoIP Client
·
· Score: 1
That's not true!
I had a long post disproving that, but, um...Firefox crashed.
Everyone, it's now official: The reason that MS delays security patches is to give people time to update their 'extensions' so that they can transparently install in the next version of IE as quickly as the old.
Remember the "fight" against the snapjaw or the "fight" against the gribbler?
Actually, TLJ is a blur now, but, yeah, you're right, there were fight cuts now that I think of it, and they were lame. Which is why I actually liked the fights in TLJ2. Other people bitched, but I was okay with it.(1) Yeah, they were also lame, but they weren't hard or anything, and it kept you from having to sit and watch.
I'd actually be kinda happier if there wasn't any fighting in the game. But twenty seconds of button wacking is better than a cutscreen where you fight, and it was damn hard to lose any of the fights in the game. (The hardest fight, I think, was actually the introduction fight, where you learn how to fight! Although you couldn't die there, and you didn't have to 'win'.)
Thats why there is a tutorial, the controls are very different from other games, but they are also very simple, since there are no buttons to remember. Its just left analogsticks lets you walk, right one lets you control the arm or whatever is relevant in the current situation
Well, that's an interesting theory, but some of us do not, in fact, use a joystick.
And Indigo Prophecy never fell back to cutscenes, if they hero did something, the player did it as well, there was no sit back and watch, it was always 'do stuff'.
See, that's where I'm have a difference of opinion. I don't want to have to do every little thing. I want to tell the character to do something and he does it. I don't see how making him pull left then right then left then right to drag a body, then move the end of a mop around in a circle, is entertainment. (I went and looked at a walkthough to recall what I was actually trying to do.) Just drag the damn body and mop the floor, it's not rocket science. Here body, put it here. Here mop, here sink, here floor, mop it.
I'm surprised they didn't make people walk around by pushing two buttons to simulate moving their feet. They could even have you tilt the joystick back and forth in the other direction to swing your arms so you don't fall over. And to access your inventory, you could thread your hand into your pocket!
1) Same with the fights in the Broken Sword 3, and the other action scenes, to mention another recent game that had them. I've got no objections to action scenes. (I do, however, have an objection to all that game's damn box pushing puzzles, and their stupid controls, and their crappy camera.)
Slashdot Mirror
What the grandparent failed to mention is that they started turning back men of a certain age range, apparently under the logic that all men 20-25 or so are insurgents.
If someone says they are a civilian, and has no weapons or uniform, well...yeah, you can say 'Liar' and bring them in. Or you can believe them. What you cannot do is kill them.
By refusing to let people who claimed to be civilians leave the city, they delibrately placed people in the path of a firebombing and thus they committed blatant war crimes. I mean, it's not even at some debatable level.
Actually, I can kinda see the police's point, although it depends on what they were asking for.
Because, as far as I can tell, they weren't asking for library records. They wanted to know who a certain person was, and possibly knew he'd checked out a book near that time. That would be in the computer, but the librarian could hand over a list of the few men who checked out library books in that time frame without actually saying what those books were.
I'm all for restricting the usage of checkout information from the police, expecially 'Well, here's the list of people who checked out these Evil(TM) books'.
However, 'What is the name of the person who left here between 2 and 2:15, we need to question him' is not really the same kind of request. It doesn't have anything to do with the fact that's a library, or any presumed judgements on him because of his reading materials. It could have been almost anywhere.
OTOH, this is what law enforcement gets for acting like asses, in general, to libraries, with secret warrants and gag orders and profiling of people who check out certain books. Go in and make a simple request that isn't a privacy violation, and you end up waiting twenty minutes while getting the paperwork straightened out.
It's the same principle that I take while interacting with the police...if they want me to help them, they can stop all their little 'tricks' that play on accussed criminal's trust, because I'll be damned if I'm going to spend the time figuring out if any request of theirs is legit or a trick because they think I'm guilty of something, or even a trick to get me to lie about something to them, which they've managed to make a crime. They get my name and I'll even prove my identity to them, but that's all the courts say I have to do. I don't have to tell them which way someone ran past me until they get a subpoena issued and present it to me.
And it looks like libraries have started doing the smae thing. Have fun enforcing the law in a country where no one will help you without being required to by a court order because no one fucking trusts you. It really is getting close to that point.
I, for one, welcome our new...ah, screw it, that's too long to say.
Except your analogy is stupid, because it compares something that is legal, sending IR signals to a TV to change the channel, with something that is explicitly illegal, accessing a computer network after having your authorization revoked.
God, all the morons are coming out of the woodwork today, aren't they?
They did that. Then they asked him to leave. And then they got the police to ask him to leave.
Then they had him arrested.
Do that anyway, and put a way for people to find you in case they need to talk. (For example, your frequency might overlap theirs, and they can't change, but you can.)
Yeah, that 'yelling at a kid' story really opens your eyes, although I remember it being a girl.
Basically, this guy is driving down the street, and this young girl runs in front of him and almost gets herself killed.
He stops the car and gets out to tell her exactly how stupid that was, that if he'd glanced away from the road she'd be dead. She ignores him and just keeps going. He grabs her arm to stop her, and, boom, registered sex offender.
Now, we can argue on whether or not his behavior is justified, but traditionally, adults have been allowed to stop random children, ones that aren't theirs, from doing really stupid things. Suddenly, not only is that not allowed, it is a crime, and not only a crime, it's a crime that will follow you the rest of your life.
Now, if we want to say 'he shouldn't have done that, it wasn't his kid', that's fine. Give him a 50 dollar fine and send him home. Or, more reasonably, make the fine at the disgression of the parents.
You don't stamp 'sex offender' on him for getting a little emotional because he almost just killed someone and she doesn't seem to care.
Hell, even for adults, 'restraining someone for a few seconds to try to talk them out of doing something stupid', while technically kidnapping, isn't normally prosecuted.
Sadly, you are mistaken. The crime is going somewhere that you clearly aren't allowed. While in many places that includes opening unlocked doors to private residences, that never includes wandering around in unfenced yards, at least not unfenced yards that are trivial to get to.
Public urination can get you on the sex offender list.
'Sex offender' is a completely meaningless label.
Or, you know, you could realize there are laws against unauthorized communication with a computer, whereas there are no laws against unauthorized communcations with people.
You're a moron.
Walking into a private residence through an open door is not trespassing. Depending on where you live opening a door probably is, maybe even a slightly ajar one, but not just walking through a delibrately open one.
To be trespassing, there has to be some implication that you should not be there. An open door is not that.
Please post how you got authorization to access this site. No, the AUP doesn't count, you couldn't access that until you were here.
I challenge you to find a law where that actually is illegal.
Interestingly enough, that, too, is legal, assuming he does it via remote control. Infrared is a truely unregulated spectrum, even less regulated than the 'unregulated' ones, because it is counted as part of the 'visible light' spectrum, so you don't even have to follow the 'This device is certified to not emit and to absorb blah blah blah' rules. (And plenty of devices do spew large amounts of IR.)
In fact, not only is that legal, unlike computer systems, where the owner can just revoke his default authorization, there is absolutely no legal remedy to someone aiming a remote control at your TV and changing your channel, although it's possible you could get them for theft of electricity if they turned it on in the first place.
It's even more than that. You can become a sex offender for indecent exposure. Aka, pissing in the bushes, or mooning someone, or streaking, or skinnydipping in deep-in-the-woods public river. (Or, yes, flashing, which is what it's designed for.)
I'm sorry, but if someone gets drunk and tries to pee in the bushes on the way home, he shouldn't have to register as a 'sex offender'. That's worth a 250 dollar fine, nothing more.
Hell, even flashing someone shouldn't count. Yes, flashers need consoling, and that, unlike other indecent exposure reasons, is connected vaguely to 'sex', but it's a pretty victimless crime, unless people want to assert that people can be harmed by what they see, which has some horrible 1st amendment implications. I don't really see a moral difference between a guy walking up to a woman and saying 'Hey, you want to give me a blowjob?' and 'Hey, you want to give this a blowjob?' and pulling it out.
Now, obviously, we might want to do something about people who delibrately and lewdly expose themselves to children, but the response to pretty much everything else should be 'Good grief, put some pants on. Here's your ticket.', not 'You're an evil sex offender!'
911, guess they ever heard of the non-emergency #
As an aside, it really pisses me off they haven't standardized on a non-emergency number. For example, often, I've seen someone driving like a lunatic and would like to report them, so the cops can get out there and see if they can spot the guy doing something illegal, which he was doing about once every ten seconds, so the odds are pretty good. Or I've seen something that looked vaguely suspicious, like an unmarked truck apparently doing repair on a telephone pole.
However, I regularly drive through six counties, and probably eight cities. I can't be arsed to figure out who I need to call.
For all the evilness of 'Reporting on fellow citizens', it would be nice to have a standard way to say to the police 'Hey, you might to drive around on Highway 141 east of 400 and just look around a bit'. Not even the level of anonymous tips, just 'drive down this road instead of some other road'.
And, hell, I've felt stupid calling 911 after a traffic accident before. We all appeared okay and the cars weren't going to explode or anything, so I was having trouble figuring out how it was an 'emergency'. 911, in my head, is reserved for 'Running away from someone who has a gun' or 'Terrorists are about to poison the water supply'.
You retard.
They don't have a right to enter an open shop without a presumption of welcome, and without complying with the rules of the site. If the sign says: "no entrance unless wearing a tie", and you wear a tie, you're not allowed in, and you're tresspassing. It's their property; you have to obey their rules, or stay the hell off of it.
So they had a sign up? Why, no, they didn't. That's the whole fucking point about open WAPs. There's no sign.
His actions were illegal, becoming illegal the moment they asked him to stop and he didn't. Before then, he was fine.
And you don't 'grant priviledge' to enter private property or use computers. People have the legal right to use any computer or walk anywhere they want until they see some indication that they are not wanted, be it a fence or a login page. Owners revoke priviledge to private property, not the other way around.
But, you're welcome to explain how the fuck you got on slashdot if accessing computers requires permission. (No, the AUP doesn't count, unless you can demonstrate how you got a copy of the AUP without connecting here.)
Incidentally, no, walking into a place that had that sign up, without a tie, is not trespassing, because that sign is nowhere near specific enough (What's a tie? Does that apply to women? What 'entrance'? Is a tie provided inside for people who want to 'enter'?), and people aren't even required to know how to read. 'No trepassing' signs have standard wording, size, and positioning for a reason. There's no way they could call the police on someone who had just walked past that sign and not been asked to leave in some other way.
No, and they've already had court cases about this. There are sports stadiums that are in downtown areas, and have buildings overlook them. Some of these buildings sell tickets to their roof during games, where you can clearly see the game.
The courts have held that, barring some law that makes 'being on the roof of a building' illegal, that is completely legal. (And you couldn't make a law like that for other reasons.)
In a very few places, peeping tom laws can apply if you use, say binoculars, or any technological means to see or hear better. But peeping tom laws are almost always restricted to people that have an expectation of privacy where they are, which, obviously, 30 foot high movie screens do not...they aren't even people. But neither do people on a baseball field surrounded by thousands of people.
I don't think we have an evidence that they even have a problem with freeloaders. For all we know, they like having an open network.
They had a problem with this weirdo sitting out in his car in the parking lot on a laptop for a month. They probably couldn't get him to leave, as the parking lot was probably owned by the mall or even public, instead of by the store, but they realized he was using their internet connection, and asked him to stop, on the theory that without an internet connection, he'd leave. (And, for all we know, three or four stores wanted him to leave, but it was just this store's wifi.)
I have no problem with people using free wifi connections, and I have no sympathy for idiots who can't configure routers. The law clearly says that you, by default, are authorized to access any network or computer system, be it open wifi or a website or a computer kiosk in a mall, until you are asked for authentication by automated means or receive notification that your authorization has been revoked. Anyone who has issues with that can explain what the hell they are doing on this website without permission. (No, the AUP doesn't count. You first accessed this site without seeing that.)
Here, his authorization was revoked. Endgame. Any access after that point was illegal.
Now, there is the interesting question of whether or not the claimed 'owner' of the wireless network was actaully the owner of the wireless network he was using, and I think it would be worth it clarify the laws in that area, that for example, to ban someone from your wireless network using not technological means (I.e., not over the network.) should require clearly stating the frequency and network name, and temporarily blocking their MAC address so you can demonstate you are, in fact, in charge of that wireless network, as opposed to some random asshole who's merely pretending to be in control of the network.
Physical property has trespassing, but under the law, anyone currently on the property should be assumed to be authorized to revoke your permission. But with wifi, 'the property' is a pretty fuzzy thing. If you're using a wifi network with the name of a coffee shop, and someone in a coffeeshop uniform shows up, that's one thing, but some random dude knocking on your apartment door and asking if you're using his wifi, and, if so, to stop, might be the owner, or he might be some idiot who wants more bandwidth and figured out a clever way to get it.
However, the laws don't reflect that possiblity yet, and, anyway, a police office also told him the owner had asked him to stop, and the police should count as verification.
And they should hit him with malicious loitering, or whatever it is called when you are loitering to do something illegal.
There is also a tool available for free from MS, Remove Hidden Data 1.0 (for XP) and 1.1 (for Office 2003), hereafter referred to as RHD, that allows batch removal information from Word documents
That because those aren't for redacting anything, except for a few metadata fields, they're needed because dumb-as-shit Office often likes to include random data inside the files it creates. Sometimes it's previous version of the document, sometimes it's completely random parts of other documents, even non-Office documents. In addition to bloating up files for no logical reason, it also presents interesting security implications.
I.e., it's not solving the same type of issues as the PDF thing, MS Word documents can still leak data from idiots who think drawing a doc over text is useful. No, it's to solve an entire new problem, one that no one else in the computer industry has ever managed to have.
Anyone handling secure documents in MS Office should be shot. Anyone with secure documents on their computer shouldn't even have Office on it, because parts of sensitive documents will otherwise secretly end up inside other documents. Then someone says 'Well, I finished the summary for the CIA bribes of foreign government officials to put in the budget, after carefully making sure no one can track the amounts of the individual payments or where they went. I hate using these classifed machines, no internet access. But it's time to transfer this document to a non-classified computer so I put it with the rest of the official CIA budget and print it out. Someone sign off to unlock the floppy drive.(1)' and have the names of a dozen of bribed officials embedded right in there (cause you had that file open at the same time), now sitting in a non-classified documents on a non-classified computer.
1) I'm just guessing about someone signing off on the floppy, I don't actually know how they move info between their classified and unclassified computers.
That's not true!
I had a long post disproving that, but, um...Firefox crashed.
I'm not entirely sure how it would be possible for them to end up with a worse browsing future.
Everyone, it's now official: The reason that MS delays security patches is to give people time to update their 'extensions' so that they can transparently install in the next version of IE as quickly as the old.
Remember the "fight" against the snapjaw or the "fight" against the gribbler?
Actually, TLJ is a blur now, but, yeah, you're right, there were fight cuts now that I think of it, and they were lame. Which is why I actually liked the fights in TLJ2. Other people bitched, but I was okay with it.(1) Yeah, they were also lame, but they weren't hard or anything, and it kept you from having to sit and watch.
I'd actually be kinda happier if there wasn't any fighting in the game. But twenty seconds of button wacking is better than a cutscreen where you fight, and it was damn hard to lose any of the fights in the game. (The hardest fight, I think, was actually the introduction fight, where you learn how to fight! Although you couldn't die there, and you didn't have to 'win'.)
Thats why there is a tutorial, the controls are very different from other games, but they are also very simple, since there are no buttons to remember. Its just left analogsticks lets you walk, right one lets you control the arm or whatever is relevant in the current situation
Well, that's an interesting theory, but some of us do not, in fact, use a joystick.
And Indigo Prophecy never fell back to cutscenes, if they hero did something, the player did it as well, there was no sit back and watch, it was always 'do stuff'.
See, that's where I'm have a difference of opinion. I don't want to have to do every little thing. I want to tell the character to do something and he does it. I don't see how making him pull left then right then left then right to drag a body, then move the end of a mop around in a circle, is entertainment. (I went and looked at a walkthough to recall what I was actually trying to do.) Just drag the damn body and mop the floor, it's not rocket science. Here body, put it here. Here mop, here sink, here floor, mop it.
I'm surprised they didn't make people walk around by pushing two buttons to simulate moving their feet. They could even have you tilt the joystick back and forth in the other direction to swing your arms so you don't fall over. And to access your inventory, you could thread your hand into your pocket!
1) Same with the fights in the Broken Sword 3, and the other action scenes, to mention another recent game that had them. I've got no objections to action scenes. (I do, however, have an objection to all that game's damn box pushing puzzles, and their stupid controls, and their crappy camera.)