I just added a couple of zeros to my bank statement and I'm rich! Drinks are on me!
Really, though, I wish I had the "ability" to fool myself even for a minute by doctored photos, etc. My suspension of disbelief skills are horrible...
Is it me or are judges starting to "fight back" a bit? IANAL but I thought sactions were relatively rare and I've hear them used as threats or even imposed quite a bit as of late. Perhaps instead certain attorneys are getting more ballsy as they see their RIAA friends getting away with quite a bit?
In any event, it's a step in the right direction and pleased to read about it.
Whereas perhaps someone who is skeptical is more likely to be thorough in their exploration, I'm not sure it's something we should be striving for in our engineers. Hyperbole incoming! A hypochondriac would likely be a better doctor with respect to prescribing medicines and a misophobe a better maid but is that what we should shoot for?
Reinforcing the importance of being thorough, following procedures and truly thinking through the possibilities as analytically and logically as possible I believe is more important and easier to teach. It also works directly against major contributors to engineering related issues which are unfortunately related to characteristics innate to many if not most people on this planet; the desire to not think unnecessarily, cut corners if possible, etc. Besides, in my experience I've found that any skeptisim in my engineers as it invariably affects their ability to properly weigh other critical details in their analysis such as the propensity for it to occur, repercussions, etc.
P.S. I'm assuming here we're talking about the literal definition of "skepticism" (albeit not in severe form) and as it applies to someone's overall outlook and perception.
If enough folks were to use this system and then follow through with filing complaints then perhaps it could be useful in this fight. Several 2007 FTC related Acts set up this site (https://www.donotcall.gov/default.aspx) so you can register phone numbers telemarketers are to refrain from calling (with a few exceptions.) After 31 days you can file a complaint (http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/alerts/dncverifyalrt.shtm)
Granted I'm remaining cautiously optimistic about it at best however it's worth giving it a shot I think. At least at this point it's the only recourse I have for all the craptastic marketing calls I get. Not answering unknown caller IDs just results in them leaving a voicemail so I'd rather pickup and hang up on them straight away.
The more a creator does to facilitate this in the audience the better your chances for their immersion into your fictional world. When it comes to science fiction, however, this is especially challenging given that we who enjoy the genre tend to also be quite analytical and detail oriented. I love it!
Unfortunately the first key difference that shatters the analogy in my opinion is that shipping, commerce and pirates have never been nebulous concepts and therefore one can move straight into the heart of the matter and create actionable items. Anything related to the "inter-webs" unfortunately requires much more definition and learning just to get a foundation of understanding which is very rarely done as part of the necessary due diligence all three of our branches should be doing on an ongoing basis. Take spam legislation as an example. Remove the impact of marketing lobby groups and I'm not convinced we'd be that better off.
Next, pirates, like conventional war enemies, are identifiable. Cybercrime is more along the lines of terrorism in that even identifying the targets is extremely difficult and the potential for collateral damage high if you're not careful. If one carries the shipping analogy along the situation includes such scenarios as the fact that normal merchant ships are carrying invisible pirates who unbeknownst to them steal cargo from nearby ships. I doubt Jefferson would approve taking these ships out to protect American interests.
In my opinion the solution lies with legislation and government support for those hosting the valuable assets (ex. financial institutions, ISPs, etc.) Carrying the shipping analogy along once more, in WWII we learned a hard lesson with respect to our Atlantic shipping getting taken out by U boats. After many losses but before cracking Nazi codes we finally started providing military escorts which reduced losses. The impact of security compliance legislation like SOX is tremendous for our enterprises much like a lack of military escort was for WWII merchant ships. Help them and perhaps even incentivize security reinforcement. Leaving the actual counter cyber terrorism we perform clandestine I believe is critical to its efficacy.
... and there's a fair amount of this out and about http://www.therobingroom.com/Judge.aspx?ID=1392. Please read this and other user submissions on the net from counsel and others who deal directly with this guy. Then try to explain how he found the sympathy and tolerance for this nonsense? FYI - I have nothing to do with that site nor do I have a vested interest in seeing him go down. Just posting this, from what I hear, is ballsy enough given his NY connections.
Because it takes time to formulate an opinion of a company's behavior (or any entity for that matter) we generalize and create opinions in their infancy based on other immediately measurable factors such as product quality. That's why we *liked* MS and we currently *like* Google. As great as it'd be to see Google remain in our good graces, it would seem unlikely given historical perspective and current trends.
To those that claim Google wouldn't pull the anti-competetive tactics of MS I ask that you think back to the 80's and tell me whether their tactics were a foreseen evil. That is, were we all sitting there with a list of their now known evil deeds wondering if they'll try to pull them off? Nope. In general, most were using the old "evil company actions" dictionary to judge them which didn't include those tactics much like we're now using the second revision of the manual void of Google's new and innovative evil company tactics. Before you site millions of examples of MS' tactics being used before them, Standard Oil and antitrust, blah blah blah, bear in mind we're talking about generalizations made by the masses and thus they don't use the "smart person who does due diligence to evaluate a company manual." My point is that what Google is doing now, much like MS' actions in the 80's, only Monday_morning_quarterbackers in the future will recall as being evil and righteous justification for their hatred.
P.S. I'll spare you the details but if you truly want to know what they're doing now that could be evil it takes, ironically enough, but a little Googling and an open mind;) I'd start it off with a few but that's where rationalizations and zealotry come in. If you dislike them there's enough to justify your position and rationalizations just as much as if you do like them.
Indeed but I would consider those to be either just a slightly more advanced version of the improvised weaponry we're used to (ex. Hamas' Qassam rockets are crude steel tubes packed with a super simple TNT/nitrate cocktail and a motor) or potentially state-sponsored/sanctioned terrorism. If the latter, I don't think it's relevant since the article is about fearing terrorists will take advantage of robotics as they become cheaper and highly available to the masses. Also, with the number of AKs and RPGs Russia alone put out (nevermind their impresive simplicity & resilience and thus average lifetimes) those tribal shops have a ton of catching up to do.
With respect to a simple remote control car-bomb, I absolutely agree and in fact believe they can do so now. However, I would question why they would bother when they can now use command-detonated improvised explosives that are and continue to be far cheaper, easier and less prone to failure. I would suspect they'll start using advanced weapons, though, when they can easily slap one together from the left over parts of downed robots from a modern military. Again, though, I'm generalizing and talking about the bulk of terrorist attacks.
It's probably best not to get too specific about any of this since it's so nebulous. Even what is considered a "terrorist" is debatable since, in theory, they have nuclear capabilities in some eyes (ex. 2 of the 5 nations considered by the US Dept. of State to be "State Sponsors of Terrorism" and thus allegedly "repeatedly provide support for acts of international terrorism" are nuclear capable North Korea and Iran.)
To those that challenge whether terrorists would use robots in the future, I disagree.
Terrorists don't make 155 mm artillery shells or munitions of any type. They rig what's available and hence IED, VBIED and other such improvised weapons are based on the highly available and cheap unspent munitions. Therefore it's not inconceivable that if sufficient "modern" militaries use robots in the future terrorists will be fashioning their new weapons out of those pieces instead. It will not be as good as the original, they're not going to build them from scratch nor somehow innovate since there's no need to. Just like their current versions of improvised weapons it'll be what they can slap together to at least scare if not also do some harm. It sounds crazy but I can see militaries in the future abandoning the "robot casualties" in war before learning how they can be used against them. After all, we don't seem to learn much from history and it'll likely be much like weapons caches left behind in past wars and other mistakes from a lack of foresight on our part.
From what we think is going on down to the presumption of Google's gamble it's all guestimates at best. To keep the gambling fun going I'd wager Google was the recent bidder that took it past reserve and AT&T and Verizon are going to call their bluff letting them win it. Google may then have to try to maneavuear out of the deal through the FCC or work something out with AT&T or Verizon allowing one of those two to pick it up for less than if they fought over it through an auction. If I was the other two that's what I'd do since even if Google's not gambling and wants to actually use it, it's unlikely their entry into this uncharted territory for them would be all that successful initially. Bear in mind as good of a company and chock full of resources as Google may be, success in that market cannot be attained as easily as in their current niches (ex. web ad, apps, etc.) Their current niches appear to have the benefits of "working in a silo" when compared to the telco industries in general.
Then again, maybe AT&T will win it and off-load all their illegal surveillance onto it running a clandestine parallel network... or Verizon will offer a new service call F-U-ios:)
When I read about the supposed upcoming downfall of beheamoths like the RIAA, MS or Scientology I can't help but feel like those poorly developed boss fights in some games in the 90s where it'd take what felt like hours to take it down. Don't expect any of those to go down any time soon especially when you consider these bosses have regenerative power (i.e. continues and diversified income streams to maintain their initiatives.) The contributions from the numerous Hollywood Scientologists alone would keep them going...
I normally see the grind, time or challenge based explanations for MMORPG cheating but what about the folks who do it because, like in life, they seek to get as much as possible for as little investment as is necessary? The above three reasons are certainly valid and although I've never seen someone quantify it I'd imagine it'd be a reflection of real life, no? Therefore it wouldn't be a crazy assumption to believe most do it out of that difficult to characterize in one word combination of greed, laziness and perceived online omnipotence.
Also and much like rubber-necking, that "good" feeling a lot of folks get when cheating or in any way "getting over on someone" cannot be understated. Perhaps simply that they played on the dark side and lived to tell?
The funny thing about it all is that the knowledge, scripts, etc. are created by the comparatively few that are technically capable of the work and often just doing it for the challenge. They then foolishly disseminate it to the public eventually making it prevalent enough to be caught on radars. It's like when high school nerds show jocks how to cheat on an exam to win cool points and end up screwing themselves.
Although I can understand how crazy things do indeed sometimes happen, but I don't know of a single "decent" trouble ticket system that by default doesn't mitigate such occurrences. Although the call back date could be set for any time whatsoever, there's always a date for resolution. Normally it's entered automatically based on the type of ticket, severity label as per the tech's discretion or any number of criteria and often not able to be changed by the tech him/herself. This prevents techs from trying to escape being listed on the "overdue" or "open tickets" reports managers pull up. If the tech can modify it then normally the managers pull reports on "time to resolve issue" or other such reports that would have eventually shown a ticket open for a long period of time.
What this reminds me of is a disturbing trend in bloggers that any traffic is good traffic and since they have little to loose they'll do just about anything. Gamecocks, Gizmodo and if we dig perhaps others recently, too. After all, when MS closes tickets they like to send an email (in fact one time I couldn't tell them I simply wanted to close a ticket, put no resolution and not receive an email but they were not allowed to just "drop it.) So why wouldn't the blogger get it as definitive proof of the event?
At the end of the day maybe it did happen... maybe it was data corruption... who knows but it smells fishy.
As Fred A noted in a post above, it's about what people are used to. It's, IMHO, the reason crappy Ipods tethered to Itunes sell so well and Jobs' reality distortion field plays only a small part there.
If we stay true to the open source course there will eventually be enough prolifiration that adoption will be more feasable to the masses thereby introducing the resources necessary to improve the products and increasing global tolerance for their problems much like they already do with respect to Windows. Linux fanatics aside, how many thought we'd see anything but a Windows or Mac system sold through a distributor such as Walmart already? Albeit baby steps we're getting there folks and should expect this from general tech media who as of late seem to only want to find what's wrong with technologies as it's safer (irrefutable) but still brings in the dollars (ex. readers, buyoffs, etc.)
In a past post I opined how ridiculous the computer review process is in general. It's like putting a Hummer against a BMW. If you test it from the perspective of off-roading, cost or virtually any factor it's pointless as they shouldn't be compared directly to begin with. Comparing this system with Windows or Macs is silly as I don't see any available at that price point. So why state you can't run Windows or Mac apps on it and make other such expectations of it? If I were to review it from solely the perspective of using it for my grandma that wants nothing more than net access it'd be the greatest, no? I don't see Dremel cordless rotary tools being compared to full band saws even if both can technically be called upon to do a number of the same tasks.
With all due respect to China and notwithstanding their recent accomplishments in space and other areas commonly associated with "advanced nations," they are considered a "developing nation" and thus should be looked at with a slightly different perspective I feel. They're making progress in many areas and are slowly getting there but it'll take time. Granted part of the reason they're absolved from the Kyoto protocol despite, like India, being so close to surpassing the US in carbon emissions is the fact they weren't responsible for the emissions that over time did the damage we're hoping to only now address. However equally important a reason they're absolved is their global consideration as a "developing nation."
I'm Panamanian and if I hung out our dirty legal laundry the world would laugh their buts off. But heck we're about 1 billion citizens shy of them and not as globally interesting;)
I'm sure one of you good folks can enlighten me as to why preventing domains from being "purchased" and rather making them a truly lease/rent transaction, remaining the property of the centralized body, preventing their re-sale between private parties and other such measures (draconian as they may sound) to prevent them from being treated as IP wouldn't solve this and a number of other issues (ex. litigation re: brand infringement, administrative overhead related to the volume of domain transactions, etc?) It's already such a transaction more or less no? I've always felt domain names, IP (as in the octects) and other aspects of the Internet should, to some degree, be treated like street addresses. As cool as it may sound (to some folks) to be able to purchase 1337 Ami Notu Street and plop in on your home it'd be too much overhead for regulatory and supporting bodies to handle. The post office alone would be crippled. It's hyperbole, I know, but illustrates why there should be some sacrifices with respect to "addressing" no matter the application.
Also or instead of the above, perhaps some measures like:
- domain leases require a minimum 90 day committment, paid in advance with no refunds
- much like patents require to some degree of effort to actualize the idea behind them, domain owners must put up content (not search crap) in 30 days or less (doesn't have to be policed rather a basis by which you can loose it if found)
- if a domain lease expires, it is listed for 30 days as "soon to be available" after which it will become available for lease at a random time ensuring everyone has a fair chance at it (no pre-orders, auctions, etc.)
Sometimes it's necessary I believe to make certain sacrifices when something starts going to crap. I don't think any of the above would significantly affect anyone but squatters and others seeking to misuse/abuse from both a personal and business perspective nor would it require much out the regulatory and private administrations involved. Perhaps we're not there yet to require such draconian measures but, as I stated in the beginning of the post, perhaps something escapes me here?
When making any purchase it's about the right tool for the job. A 4x4 jeep in NYC, planting a cactus in Siberia, etc. makes no sense. Consumers need help in becoming better educated in the computer purchasing process and this does not help matters. First and foremost they need to be informed that there is no Ipod of computers as it's simply a more complex situation. The right computer from both a hard and software perspective requires a little investigation into the consumer to ensure you get the right tool for the job.
For example, thus far those modded up to the limelight regarding Macs are certainly right about how easy it is to use especially for older folks. However, have you ever tried to get a retiree in their 50s used to working on Windows their whole lives to use a Mac? Heck they don't want to learn anything new much less a completely new operating system regardless of how much safer or easier it is over time. I know a number of people who tried because they were told it'd be incredibly easy but it really isn't for many. Buying a Mac and booting Windows is not necessarily the ideal solution either as perhaps they'd loose out on the benefit of their wiz-kid grandson who lives nearby and loves canabolizing HPs or something.
The most important step in educating consumers on computer purchasing I think is first to get folks to understand that comparing Macs and Windows-based PCs is like comparing apples and oranges (no pun intended.) Sure they're both fruit and if you're hungry both will do the job. But if you know nothing of what an apple or orange is but hate tangerines, peeling things, have a vitamin C deficiency and countless other specifics aren't introduced into the decision then you'll have a less than optimal outcome at best.
Also, computers to some degree are luxury items and thus a qualitative analysis of price I think further confuses folks in what's an already nebulous situation. Someone may laugh at the $100 difference between the two machines Walt compared but would clearly go with the cheapest if not properly informed about the dramatic differences in the experience they'd have with each. Wouldn't you buy the cheaper hammer if both appeared and were proposed to you as being the same?
As with buying a car and many other items one needs to find out about their past experiences, current needs, customer support and product life expectations and a number of other particulars to find the ideal solution. I even see grandmas do so with power tools in Home Depot worth a fraction of the cost of a new computer but with computers uneducated folks are overwhelmed... and we're not helping matters with over-simplifications.
With respect to this being adopted so well by his son, I'm wondering if it's just a matter timing. That is, computers are truly ubiquitous now and other elements in place making it more likely for children to take them in. As I ponder this I can't help but flash back to a small child I saw recently playing with a squishy, noise-making Fisher-Price-like toy. The catch was that it was a toy cell phone and he was actually using it like I'm sure he learned from parents and everyone around him. He could identify with it enough and compartmentalize is such that it was engaging. If it were the 1980s or even most of the 90s I don't think he would have cared at all.
Even an underprivileged child will likely know the concept of computers today since they are ubiquitous. Even if they don't they're certainly going to still be engaged due to the rarity of having something new and the wonderous abilities it affords them compared with what little they've had. Give them such a laptop in the 90s and it would have similar success, I think. However, do the same for the spoiled rich son of a Texas oil tychoon in the 90s and I doubt he'd give it a second look. That is, unless he already inherently has an affinity for computers but I'm talking mass kid appeal.
I've been feeling like I just don't get as much "value" from games nowadays and am left wondering if the issues in TFA are really based on this. Were folks left feeling like they didn't get enough value and partially due to external forces?
Expansions that are sold at full price (new Company of Heroes, SupCom, etc.), the lack of innovation in game genres that are most popular (RTS, MMOs, etc.), the tendency for the latter third if not even second half seemingly a hurried production, wrapping up plots with Deus Ex Machinas and a number of other elements leave me often times enjoying a game but at the end not being fulfilled like I used to (and still do on rare occasions.) I normally start to analyze the game wondering what went wrong specifically but recently I realized although I could isolate elements that needed improvement, the real problem for me was larger than that and surfaced once I zoomed out. I wanted more value for my money and certain improvements I felt would help. However, I'm not certain if they had been there to begin with I wouldn't feel the same. In the case of Bioshock this certainly applied to me.
Also, I think it would help games a lot to use more crescendo. Bioshock, Kane & Lynch and many others are great games however since you're in 5th gear with just about all aspects the entire time it's almost impossible to create a truly impacting big ending in comparison. Thus I'm left feeling like a cheesy 80s cliffhanger without any hope for knowing how the rest turns out. Feeling like I got only a piece certainly doesn't help the subconscious valuation of a product. Maybe game development should be done backwards with the ending getting the most attention, work, etc?
I have several systems at home including two which have dual 8800 768MB cards, 4 gigs of ram and are pretty much decked out all around. One I built myself and the other is a first generation Dell H2C. Sure I can run WoW on the others and it's not half bad but nothing beats the frame rates and overall experience I get out of those two beasts. I'm able to go all out at resolution, texture, shading and everything on a 24" widescreen giving me a much better experience when compared to standard machines. Also, I've never had to worry about my FPS when killing Gruul and other large raids.
It's certainly not necessary but I consider those systems luxury items much like tricked out a cars, boats and other hobby items. In terms of selling or buying such a system solely for WoW, at a glance it does sound silly but I wonder how many people have purchased high-end machines at this price level simply for the ultimate WoW experience? I mean c'mon haven't you ever heard of someone doing something silly for or because of WoW? I personally know of 3 in the past 6 months that bought high-end Alienware or Falcon Northwest laptops solely for WoW. Granted the cost and portability was at least in part so they could hide it from their wives but WoW was still the primary driver.
Slashdot Mirror
More assholes need to get fucked.
I just added a couple of zeros to my bank statement and I'm rich! Drinks are on me! Really, though, I wish I had the "ability" to fool myself even for a minute by doctored photos, etc. My suspension of disbelief skills are horrible...
Is it me or are judges starting to "fight back" a bit? IANAL but I thought sactions were relatively rare and I've hear them used as threats or even imposed quite a bit as of late. Perhaps instead certain attorneys are getting more ballsy as they see their RIAA friends getting away with quite a bit?
In any event, it's a step in the right direction and pleased to read about it.
Whereas perhaps someone who is skeptical is more likely to be thorough in their exploration, I'm not sure it's something we should be striving for in our engineers. Hyperbole incoming! A hypochondriac would likely be a better doctor with respect to prescribing medicines and a misophobe a better maid but is that what we should shoot for?
Reinforcing the importance of being thorough, following procedures and truly thinking through the possibilities as analytically and logically as possible I believe is more important and easier to teach. It also works directly against major contributors to engineering related issues which are unfortunately related to characteristics innate to many if not most people on this planet; the desire to not think unnecessarily, cut corners if possible, etc. Besides, in my experience I've found that any skeptisim in my engineers as it invariably affects their ability to properly weigh other critical details in their analysis such as the propensity for it to occur, repercussions, etc.
P.S. I'm assuming here we're talking about the literal definition of "skepticism" (albeit not in severe form) and as it applies to someone's overall outlook and perception.
If enough folks were to use this system and then follow through with filing complaints then perhaps it could be useful in this fight. Several 2007 FTC related Acts set up this site (https://www.donotcall.gov/default.aspx) so you can register phone numbers telemarketers are to refrain from calling (with a few exceptions.) After 31 days you can file a complaint (http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/alerts/dncverifyalrt.shtm)
Granted I'm remaining cautiously optimistic about it at best however it's worth giving it a shot I think. At least at this point it's the only recourse I have for all the craptastic marketing calls I get. Not answering unknown caller IDs just results in them leaving a voicemail so I'd rather pickup and hang up on them straight away.
The more a creator does to facilitate this in the audience the better your chances for their immersion into your fictional world. When it comes to science fiction, however, this is especially challenging given that we who enjoy the genre tend to also be quite analytical and detail oriented. I love it!
Unfortunately the first key difference that shatters the analogy in my opinion is that shipping, commerce and pirates have never been nebulous concepts and therefore one can move straight into the heart of the matter and create actionable items. Anything related to the "inter-webs" unfortunately requires much more definition and learning just to get a foundation of understanding which is very rarely done as part of the necessary due diligence all three of our branches should be doing on an ongoing basis. Take spam legislation as an example. Remove the impact of marketing lobby groups and I'm not convinced we'd be that better off.
Next, pirates, like conventional war enemies, are identifiable. Cybercrime is more along the lines of terrorism in that even identifying the targets is extremely difficult and the potential for collateral damage high if you're not careful. If one carries the shipping analogy along the situation includes such scenarios as the fact that normal merchant ships are carrying invisible pirates who unbeknownst to them steal cargo from nearby ships. I doubt Jefferson would approve taking these ships out to protect American interests.
In my opinion the solution lies with legislation and government support for those hosting the valuable assets (ex. financial institutions, ISPs, etc.) Carrying the shipping analogy along once more, in WWII we learned a hard lesson with respect to our Atlantic shipping getting taken out by U boats. After many losses but before cracking Nazi codes we finally started providing military escorts which reduced losses. The impact of security compliance legislation like SOX is tremendous for our enterprises much like a lack of military escort was for WWII merchant ships. Help them and perhaps even incentivize security reinforcement. Leaving the actual counter cyber terrorism we perform clandestine I believe is critical to its efficacy.
... and there's a fair amount of this out and about http://www.therobingroom.com/Judge.aspx?ID=1392. Please read this and other user submissions on the net from counsel and others who deal directly with this guy. Then try to explain how he found the sympathy and tolerance for this nonsense? FYI - I have nothing to do with that site nor do I have a vested interest in seeing him go down. Just posting this, from what I hear, is ballsy enough given his NY connections.
This is our "justice system." Makes me sick.
Because it takes time to formulate an opinion of a company's behavior (or any entity for that matter) we generalize and create opinions in their infancy based on other immediately measurable factors such as product quality. That's why we *liked* MS and we currently *like* Google. As great as it'd be to see Google remain in our good graces, it would seem unlikely given historical perspective and current trends.
;) I'd start it off with a few but that's where rationalizations and zealotry come in. If you dislike them there's enough to justify your position and rationalizations just as much as if you do like them.
To those that claim Google wouldn't pull the anti-competetive tactics of MS I ask that you think back to the 80's and tell me whether their tactics were a foreseen evil. That is, were we all sitting there with a list of their now known evil deeds wondering if they'll try to pull them off? Nope. In general, most were using the old "evil company actions" dictionary to judge them which didn't include those tactics much like we're now using the second revision of the manual void of Google's new and innovative evil company tactics. Before you site millions of examples of MS' tactics being used before them, Standard Oil and antitrust, blah blah blah, bear in mind we're talking about generalizations made by the masses and thus they don't use the "smart person who does due diligence to evaluate a company manual." My point is that what Google is doing now, much like MS' actions in the 80's, only Monday_morning_quarterbackers in the future will recall as being evil and righteous justification for their hatred.
P.S. I'll spare you the details but if you truly want to know what they're doing now that could be evil it takes, ironically enough, but a little Googling and an open mind
...does not make you a chicken.
Tyler Durden (1999)
Indeed but I would consider those to be either just a slightly more advanced version of the improvised weaponry we're used to (ex. Hamas' Qassam rockets are crude steel tubes packed with a super simple TNT/nitrate cocktail and a motor) or potentially state-sponsored/sanctioned terrorism. If the latter, I don't think it's relevant since the article is about fearing terrorists will take advantage of robotics as they become cheaper and highly available to the masses. Also, with the number of AKs and RPGs Russia alone put out (nevermind their impresive simplicity & resilience and thus average lifetimes) those tribal shops have a ton of catching up to do.
With respect to a simple remote control car-bomb, I absolutely agree and in fact believe they can do so now. However, I would question why they would bother when they can now use command-detonated improvised explosives that are and continue to be far cheaper, easier and less prone to failure. I would suspect they'll start using advanced weapons, though, when they can easily slap one together from the left over parts of downed robots from a modern military. Again, though, I'm generalizing and talking about the bulk of terrorist attacks.
It's probably best not to get too specific about any of this since it's so nebulous. Even what is considered a "terrorist" is debatable since, in theory, they have nuclear capabilities in some eyes (ex. 2 of the 5 nations considered by the US Dept. of State to be "State Sponsors of Terrorism" and thus allegedly "repeatedly provide support for acts of international terrorism" are nuclear capable North Korea and Iran.)
To those that challenge whether terrorists would use robots in the future, I disagree.
Terrorists don't make 155 mm artillery shells or munitions of any type. They rig what's available and hence IED, VBIED and other such improvised weapons are based on the highly available and cheap unspent munitions. Therefore it's not inconceivable that if sufficient "modern" militaries use robots in the future terrorists will be fashioning their new weapons out of those pieces instead. It will not be as good as the original, they're not going to build them from scratch nor somehow innovate since there's no need to. Just like their current versions of improvised weapons it'll be what they can slap together to at least scare if not also do some harm. It sounds crazy but I can see militaries in the future abandoning the "robot casualties" in war before learning how they can be used against them. After all, we don't seem to learn much from history and it'll likely be much like weapons caches left behind in past wars and other mistakes from a lack of foresight on our part.
From what we think is going on down to the presumption of Google's gamble it's all guestimates at best. To keep the gambling fun going I'd wager Google was the recent bidder that took it past reserve and AT&T and Verizon are going to call their bluff letting them win it. Google may then have to try to maneavuear out of the deal through the FCC or work something out with AT&T or Verizon allowing one of those two to pick it up for less than if they fought over it through an auction. If I was the other two that's what I'd do since even if Google's not gambling and wants to actually use it, it's unlikely their entry into this uncharted territory for them would be all that successful initially. Bear in mind as good of a company and chock full of resources as Google may be, success in that market cannot be attained as easily as in their current niches (ex. web ad, apps, etc.) Their current niches appear to have the benefits of "working in a silo" when compared to the telco industries in general.
:)
Then again, maybe AT&T will win it and off-load all their illegal surveillance onto it running a clandestine parallel network... or Verizon will offer a new service call F-U-ios
When I read about the supposed upcoming downfall of beheamoths like the RIAA, MS or Scientology I can't help but feel like those poorly developed boss fights in some games in the 90s where it'd take what felt like hours to take it down. Don't expect any of those to go down any time soon especially when you consider these bosses have regenerative power (i.e. continues and diversified income streams to maintain their initiatives.) The contributions from the numerous Hollywood Scientologists alone would keep them going...
I normally see the grind, time or challenge based explanations for MMORPG cheating but what about the folks who do it because, like in life, they seek to get as much as possible for as little investment as is necessary? The above three reasons are certainly valid and although I've never seen someone quantify it I'd imagine it'd be a reflection of real life, no? Therefore it wouldn't be a crazy assumption to believe most do it out of that difficult to characterize in one word combination of greed, laziness and perceived online omnipotence.
Also and much like rubber-necking, that "good" feeling a lot of folks get when cheating or in any way "getting over on someone" cannot be understated. Perhaps simply that they played on the dark side and lived to tell?
The funny thing about it all is that the knowledge, scripts, etc. are created by the comparatively few that are technically capable of the work and often just doing it for the challenge. They then foolishly disseminate it to the public eventually making it prevalent enough to be caught on radars. It's like when high school nerds show jocks how to cheat on an exam to win cool points and end up screwing themselves.
Although I can understand how crazy things do indeed sometimes happen, but I don't know of a single "decent" trouble ticket system that by default doesn't mitigate such occurrences. Although the call back date could be set for any time whatsoever, there's always a date for resolution. Normally it's entered automatically based on the type of ticket, severity label as per the tech's discretion or any number of criteria and often not able to be changed by the tech him/herself. This prevents techs from trying to escape being listed on the "overdue" or "open tickets" reports managers pull up. If the tech can modify it then normally the managers pull reports on "time to resolve issue" or other such reports that would have eventually shown a ticket open for a long period of time.
What this reminds me of is a disturbing trend in bloggers that any traffic is good traffic and since they have little to loose they'll do just about anything. Gamecocks, Gizmodo and if we dig perhaps others recently, too. After all, when MS closes tickets they like to send an email (in fact one time I couldn't tell them I simply wanted to close a ticket, put no resolution and not receive an email but they were not allowed to just "drop it.) So why wouldn't the blogger get it as definitive proof of the event?
At the end of the day maybe it did happen... maybe it was data corruption... who knows but it smells fishy.
As Fred A noted in a post above, it's about what people are used to. It's, IMHO, the reason crappy Ipods tethered to Itunes sell so well and Jobs' reality distortion field plays only a small part there.
If we stay true to the open source course there will eventually be enough prolifiration that adoption will be more feasable to the masses thereby introducing the resources necessary to improve the products and increasing global tolerance for their problems much like they already do with respect to Windows. Linux fanatics aside, how many thought we'd see anything but a Windows or Mac system sold through a distributor such as Walmart already? Albeit baby steps we're getting there folks and should expect this from general tech media who as of late seem to only want to find what's wrong with technologies as it's safer (irrefutable) but still brings in the dollars (ex. readers, buyoffs, etc.)
In a past post I opined how ridiculous the computer review process is in general. It's like putting a Hummer against a BMW. If you test it from the perspective of off-roading, cost or virtually any factor it's pointless as they shouldn't be compared directly to begin with. Comparing this system with Windows or Macs is silly as I don't see any available at that price point. So why state you can't run Windows or Mac apps on it and make other such expectations of it? If I were to review it from solely the perspective of using it for my grandma that wants nothing more than net access it'd be the greatest, no? I don't see Dremel cordless rotary tools being compared to full band saws even if both can technically be called upon to do a number of the same tasks.
With all due respect to China and notwithstanding their recent accomplishments in space and other areas commonly associated with "advanced nations," they are considered a "developing nation" and thus should be looked at with a slightly different perspective I feel. They're making progress in many areas and are slowly getting there but it'll take time. Granted part of the reason they're absolved from the Kyoto protocol despite, like India, being so close to surpassing the US in carbon emissions is the fact they weren't responsible for the emissions that over time did the damage we're hoping to only now address. However equally important a reason they're absolved is their global consideration as a "developing nation."
;)
I'm Panamanian and if I hung out our dirty legal laundry the world would laugh their buts off. But heck we're about 1 billion citizens shy of them and not as globally interesting
I'm sure one of you good folks can enlighten me as to why preventing domains from being "purchased" and rather making them a truly lease/rent transaction, remaining the property of the centralized body, preventing their re-sale between private parties and other such measures (draconian as they may sound) to prevent them from being treated as IP wouldn't solve this and a number of other issues (ex. litigation re: brand infringement, administrative overhead related to the volume of domain transactions, etc?) It's already such a transaction more or less no? I've always felt domain names, IP (as in the octects) and other aspects of the Internet should, to some degree, be treated like street addresses. As cool as it may sound (to some folks) to be able to purchase 1337 Ami Notu Street and plop in on your home it'd be too much overhead for regulatory and supporting bodies to handle. The post office alone would be crippled. It's hyperbole, I know, but illustrates why there should be some sacrifices with respect to "addressing" no matter the application.
Also or instead of the above, perhaps some measures like:
- domain leases require a minimum 90 day committment, paid in advance with no refunds
- much like patents require to some degree of effort to actualize the idea behind them, domain owners must put up content (not search crap) in 30 days or less (doesn't have to be policed rather a basis by which you can loose it if found)
- if a domain lease expires, it is listed for 30 days as "soon to be available" after which it will become available for lease at a random time ensuring everyone has a fair chance at it (no pre-orders, auctions, etc.)
Sometimes it's necessary I believe to make certain sacrifices when something starts going to crap. I don't think any of the above would significantly affect anyone but squatters and others seeking to misuse/abuse from both a personal and business perspective nor would it require much out the regulatory and private administrations involved. Perhaps we're not there yet to require such draconian measures but, as I stated in the beginning of the post, perhaps something escapes me here?
When making any purchase it's about the right tool for the job. A 4x4 jeep in NYC, planting a cactus in Siberia, etc. makes no sense. Consumers need help in becoming better educated in the computer purchasing process and this does not help matters. First and foremost they need to be informed that there is no Ipod of computers as it's simply a more complex situation. The right computer from both a hard and software perspective requires a little investigation into the consumer to ensure you get the right tool for the job.
For example, thus far those modded up to the limelight regarding Macs are certainly right about how easy it is to use especially for older folks. However, have you ever tried to get a retiree in their 50s used to working on Windows their whole lives to use a Mac? Heck they don't want to learn anything new much less a completely new operating system regardless of how much safer or easier it is over time. I know a number of people who tried because they were told it'd be incredibly easy but it really isn't for many. Buying a Mac and booting Windows is not necessarily the ideal solution either as perhaps they'd loose out on the benefit of their wiz-kid grandson who lives nearby and loves canabolizing HPs or something.
The most important step in educating consumers on computer purchasing I think is first to get folks to understand that comparing Macs and Windows-based PCs is like comparing apples and oranges (no pun intended.) Sure they're both fruit and if you're hungry both will do the job. But if you know nothing of what an apple or orange is but hate tangerines, peeling things, have a vitamin C deficiency and countless other specifics aren't introduced into the decision then you'll have a less than optimal outcome at best.
Also, computers to some degree are luxury items and thus a qualitative analysis of price I think further confuses folks in what's an already nebulous situation. Someone may laugh at the $100 difference between the two machines Walt compared but would clearly go with the cheapest if not properly informed about the dramatic differences in the experience they'd have with each. Wouldn't you buy the cheaper hammer if both appeared and were proposed to you as being the same?
As with buying a car and many other items one needs to find out about their past experiences, current needs, customer support and product life expectations and a number of other particulars to find the ideal solution. I even see grandmas do so with power tools in Home Depot worth a fraction of the cost of a new computer but with computers uneducated folks are overwhelmed... and we're not helping matters with over-simplifications.
With respect to this being adopted so well by his son, I'm wondering if it's just a matter timing. That is, computers are truly ubiquitous now and other elements in place making it more likely for children to take them in. As I ponder this I can't help but flash back to a small child I saw recently playing with a squishy, noise-making Fisher-Price-like toy. The catch was that it was a toy cell phone and he was actually using it like I'm sure he learned from parents and everyone around him. He could identify with it enough and compartmentalize is such that it was engaging. If it were the 1980s or even most of the 90s I don't think he would have cared at all.
Even an underprivileged child will likely know the concept of computers today since they are ubiquitous. Even if they don't they're certainly going to still be engaged due to the rarity of having something new and the wonderous abilities it affords them compared with what little they've had. Give them such a laptop in the 90s and it would have similar success, I think. However, do the same for the spoiled rich son of a Texas oil tychoon in the 90s and I doubt he'd give it a second look. That is, unless he already inherently has an affinity for computers but I'm talking mass kid appeal.
...sorry couldn't resist.
I've been feeling like I just don't get as much "value" from games nowadays and am left wondering if the issues in TFA are really based on this. Were folks left feeling like they didn't get enough value and partially due to external forces?
Expansions that are sold at full price (new Company of Heroes, SupCom, etc.), the lack of innovation in game genres that are most popular (RTS, MMOs, etc.), the tendency for the latter third if not even second half seemingly a hurried production, wrapping up plots with Deus Ex Machinas and a number of other elements leave me often times enjoying a game but at the end not being fulfilled like I used to (and still do on rare occasions.) I normally start to analyze the game wondering what went wrong specifically but recently I realized although I could isolate elements that needed improvement, the real problem for me was larger than that and surfaced once I zoomed out. I wanted more value for my money and certain improvements I felt would help. However, I'm not certain if they had been there to begin with I wouldn't feel the same. In the case of Bioshock this certainly applied to me.
Also, I think it would help games a lot to use more crescendo. Bioshock, Kane & Lynch and many others are great games however since you're in 5th gear with just about all aspects the entire time it's almost impossible to create a truly impacting big ending in comparison. Thus I'm left feeling like a cheesy 80s cliffhanger without any hope for knowing how the rest turns out. Feeling like I got only a piece certainly doesn't help the subconscious valuation of a product. Maybe game development should be done backwards with the ending getting the most attention, work, etc?
I have several systems at home including two which have dual 8800 768MB cards, 4 gigs of ram and are pretty much decked out all around. One I built myself and the other is a first generation Dell H2C. Sure I can run WoW on the others and it's not half bad but nothing beats the frame rates and overall experience I get out of those two beasts. I'm able to go all out at resolution, texture, shading and everything on a 24" widescreen giving me a much better experience when compared to standard machines. Also, I've never had to worry about my FPS when killing Gruul and other large raids.
It's certainly not necessary but I consider those systems luxury items much like tricked out a cars, boats and other hobby items. In terms of selling or buying such a system solely for WoW, at a glance it does sound silly but I wonder how many people have purchased high-end machines at this price level simply for the ultimate WoW experience? I mean c'mon haven't you ever heard of someone doing something silly for or because of WoW? I personally know of 3 in the past 6 months that bought high-end Alienware or Falcon Northwest laptops solely for WoW. Granted the cost and portability was at least in part so they could hide it from their wives but WoW was still the primary driver.
... chimps smoke less pot than college students. Crap forgot where that source study came from...