My youth was spent hanging out with friends I met online, and we're still friends. As a matter of fact I met my wife on line 27 years ago. There's nothing wrong with meeting new friends who share your interests, and on-line is a great way for those friendships to happen.
Yes but... That was a different internet then. Or BBS boards or Compuserve or whatever you used in 1991.
Not that it can't be a great tool today, but back then you had to be pretty dedicated to be online, and probably shared similar (geeky) interests. It was also quite a civil place. You could have a real conversation with a stranger that could lead to real friendship.
Today it's a free for all, and it is not a friendly place. As wonderful as the anonymity these screen names provide us can be, it has also brought out the worst in us, where people feel pretty free to say horrible things to people they've never met. I would be somewhat wary of allowing my child to freely roam the internet, particularly when they're younger. I'm not saying bar them from all unpleasantness, but don't throw them to the wolves either.
The whole 'pedophile' thing makes the nightly news because it's shocking and sells advertisements, not because it's commonplace. Even a tiny bit of common sense exercised by a parent is usually enough to keep their kids safe.
On the internet of 2008 I wouldn't worry so much about a pedophile abducting my child. I would worry that my child was exposing too much of her- or himself, from flashing naughty bits to admitting drug use or petty crimes to just making a general ass of themselves in a way that could be traced back to them ten years down the road. The kind of foresight (and common sense) to worry about what (say) a future employer might think is pretty rare among teens (if not the definition of "immaturity") and again, is a good reason to monitor exactly what they're up to online. Not to deprive them of privacy, but at the very least make them aware you're checking up on them (and if you can, so can anyone else.)
We used to depend on a good DM to create the world around us, now it seems like that's gone with just endless die rolling to determing things that a competent DM... pardon me GM... could make up for his players.
I think part of the reason D&D has become so.. "For Dummies" is because competent DMs are difficult to come by. A good DM needs a vivid imagination as well as above-average improvisational abilities. They also need leadership and management skills, to be able to command the attention of a group of a table of peers, and be able to be completely dispassionate and poker-faced at the same time. In short they need intelligence, wisdom AND charisma. It's kind of a paradox I think, because the traits that would make someone a great DM would also make them excel at other areas of life so they wouldn't much need to spend six hours a weekend in a dank basement.
In 1st-2nd edition if you couldn't handle it the campaign crashed and burned. Think about it, any of you mid-30's/early 40's gamers who've been playing all along, how many times has a campaign really and truly worked? I think in twenty-five years I've played exactly one really excellent and immersive game. Of course I keep coming back, because there is something addictive about the possibilities (there's nothing like rolling up a new character.)
They've made it more or less autopilot now, so the bar for competency has been lowered, which is probably for the best. A great DM can always take the bits he wants and discard the rest, in the end the books are merely guidelines for someone with a vision of his own fantasy world and how campaign should be run. On the other hand a so-so DM nowadays can use the extensive and all-encompassing modern rules to keep the action chugging along without ruining everyone else's fun.
How? How does a copyright holder lose their right to profit if a copy goes to someone who couldn't buy it in the first place? There is no loss there. That's absurd. Where's the loss?
"Couldn't buy it" is a kind of subjective term isn't it? There's "couldn't buy it because he's near-starving in a third world nation", there's "couldn't buy it because his family is low income in a Western World", and there's "couldn't buy because he's a college student on an allowance and he just bought a new laptop."
I just don't see the last two as justification, but I've certainly heard them used as such. Being poor means you can't afford certain things-- particularly luxury items like games, To tell the truth I don't really even object to the act itself, we've all been young and it certainly is tempting to get something for nothing, but I do object to your sense of entitlement. For the sake of decency at least admit that "piracy" is morally ambiguous at best.
But he does say that since people trust Snopes that the software appears to be enorsed by Snopes. Which would lead people to go ahead and install it.
So.. Snopes readers... Who are generally somewhat cautious, skeptical or suspicious sorts, if only because they're most likely there to debunk some urban legend that's been going around... Are going to blindly install a shady virus scanner from a pop-up window ad.
I'm sure there's an exception to prove the rule, but I just don't see it happening. The fact that it hasn't been noticed for so long is a pretty good indication that most Snopes readers don't even allow pop-ups, or if they do they tune them out without a thought like they do on a hundred other sites a week.
All this says to me is that Snopes isn't careful who they allow as sponsors. After being a very casual visitor of Snopes for over a decade I think it's safe to say that while the quality of writing and research is pretty good, it's not exactly a "professional" site. It's quite possible that the editors themselves had no idea these ads were there, particularly if they use a middleman or service to broker their advertising.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes but... That was a different internet then. Or BBS boards or Compuserve or whatever you used in 1991.
Okay, I made a simple subtraction error on Slashdot. I'm sure I'll get stoned for this.
But... you met someone online 27 years ago? How the hell is that even possible?
My youth was spent hanging out with friends I met online, and we're still friends. As a matter of fact I met my wife on line 27 years ago. There's nothing wrong with meeting new friends who share your interests, and on-line is a great way for those friendships to happen.
Yes but... That was a different internet then. Or BBS boards or Compuserve or whatever you used in 1991.
Not that it can't be a great tool today, but back then you had to be pretty dedicated to be online, and probably shared similar (geeky) interests. It was also quite a civil place. You could have a real conversation with a stranger that could lead to real friendship.
Today it's a free for all, and it is not a friendly place. As wonderful as the anonymity these screen names provide us can be, it has also brought out the worst in us, where people feel pretty free to say horrible things to people they've never met. I would be somewhat wary of allowing my child to freely roam the internet, particularly when they're younger. I'm not saying bar them from all unpleasantness, but don't throw them to the wolves either.
The whole 'pedophile' thing makes the nightly news because it's shocking and sells advertisements, not because it's commonplace. Even a tiny bit of common sense exercised by a parent is usually enough to keep their kids safe.
On the internet of 2008 I wouldn't worry so much about a pedophile abducting my child. I would worry that my child was exposing too much of her- or himself, from flashing naughty bits to admitting drug use or petty crimes to just making a general ass of themselves in a way that could be traced back to them ten years down the road. The kind of foresight (and common sense) to worry about what (say) a future employer might think is pretty rare among teens (if not the definition of "immaturity") and again, is a good reason to monitor exactly what they're up to online. Not to deprive them of privacy, but at the very least make them aware you're checking up on them (and if you can, so can anyone else.)
We used to depend on a good DM to create the world around us, now it seems like that's gone with just endless die rolling to determing things that a competent DM... pardon me GM... could make up for his players.
I think part of the reason D&D has become so.. "For Dummies" is because competent DMs are difficult to come by. A good DM needs a vivid imagination as well as above-average improvisational abilities. They also need leadership and management skills, to be able to command the attention of a group of a table of peers, and be able to be completely dispassionate and poker-faced at the same time. In short they need intelligence, wisdom AND charisma. It's kind of a paradox I think, because the traits that would make someone a great DM would also make them excel at other areas of life so they wouldn't much need to spend six hours a weekend in a dank basement.
In 1st-2nd edition if you couldn't handle it the campaign crashed and burned. Think about it, any of you mid-30's/early 40's gamers who've been playing all along, how many times has a campaign really and truly worked? I think in twenty-five years I've played exactly one really excellent and immersive game. Of course I keep coming back, because there is something addictive about the possibilities (there's nothing like rolling up a new character.)
They've made it more or less autopilot now, so the bar for competency has been lowered, which is probably for the best. A great DM can always take the bits he wants and discard the rest, in the end the books are merely guidelines for someone with a vision of his own fantasy world and how campaign should be run. On the other hand a so-so DM nowadays can use the extensive and all-encompassing modern rules to keep the action chugging along without ruining everyone else's fun.
How? How does a copyright holder lose their right to profit if a copy goes to someone who couldn't buy it in the first place? There is no loss there. That's absurd. Where's the loss?
"Couldn't buy it" is a kind of subjective term isn't it? There's "couldn't buy it because he's near-starving in a third world nation", there's "couldn't buy it because his family is low income in a Western World", and there's "couldn't buy because he's a college student on an allowance and he just bought a new laptop."
I just don't see the last two as justification, but I've certainly heard them used as such. Being poor means you can't afford certain things-- particularly luxury items like games, To tell the truth I don't really even object to the act itself, we've all been young and it certainly is tempting to get something for nothing, but I do object to your sense of entitlement. For the sake of decency at least admit that "piracy" is morally ambiguous at best.
But he does say that since people trust Snopes that the software appears to be enorsed by Snopes. Which would lead people to go ahead and install it.
So.. Snopes readers... Who are generally somewhat cautious, skeptical or suspicious sorts, if only because they're most likely there to debunk some urban legend that's been going around... Are going to blindly install a shady virus scanner from a pop-up window ad.
I'm sure there's an exception to prove the rule, but I just don't see it happening. The fact that it hasn't been noticed for so long is a pretty good indication that most Snopes readers don't even allow pop-ups, or if they do they tune them out without a thought like they do on a hundred other sites a week.
All this says to me is that Snopes isn't careful who they allow as sponsors. After being a very casual visitor of Snopes for over a decade I think it's safe to say that while the quality of writing and research is pretty good, it's not exactly a "professional" site. It's quite possible that the editors themselves had no idea these ads were there, particularly if they use a middleman or service to broker their advertising.