I remember a game for the Commodore PET - I think it was called 'Fur Trader' or something like that - you had to navigate rivers and drop off furs in various ports in the Canadian North, which was represented by those line & sqiggle graphics on a green/black screen. I remember learning about canoes and portages, and all of the small Northern outposts from the game like Fort Saskatchewan, Rocky Mtn. House, etc.
Yeah, that was it... I played it on the Commodore 64 - one of the ones that they wheeled around on pushcarts to the classrooms.
This page lists a game called "Fur Trader" - I wonder if that's it.
I definitely don't remember the Oregon Trail game - it must be a U.S. thing. However, I faintly remember playing a game about being a voyageur, rowing up river, trading furs and stuff. But I kept capsizing the darned canoe.
Any other Canadians remember what that was called? Maybe "Voyageur"?
As a (non deployed) soldier, I can tell you that while I haven't the slightest thing against any Iraqi civilian, the lives of all Iraqi civilians combined are worth less to me than the life of one of my men.
Then why did you become a soldier, if not to protect the innocent? Oh, I forgot, you're an AMERICAN soldier (i.e., a racist). Of course you don't care about Iraqi civilians - they're sand niggers, right? A thousand innocent Iraqis are obviously worth less than one soldier, right? Go thump a bible, ya biggot.
The fact remains the same, both worms exploit the same vulnerability, both worms modify system data without user's consent, and both are potentially "lethal" because of unpredicted errors and patch compatibility issues.
It is considered generally acceptable to help somebody without their consent. For instance, you can't be charged for giving someone CPR, if they need it, and they're not capable of giving consent, even if they end up dead anyway. However, if you don't do CPR properly, and end up killing the person, then you could be charged.
Therefore, this "CPR" worm falls into the same category. If it patches and fixes a computer infected by blaster, chances are the user isn't computer literate enough to know they need help, so there's not much the owner of the computer could do against the writer, particularly because letting their system be infected by blaster was causing network problems for everyone else. The latest virus can just be considered defending yourself. However, if the new worm infects a non-MSBlaster infected computer, and somehow causes a measurable negative effect, the person who wrote the worm is liable for the damages.
Given all that, it still doesn't matter, because if they can't catch the original author, how can we expect them to catch the new worm author? You've heard of anarchy online? This is it.
Terrorist groups have been killing nothing BUT civilians for a lot longer than 9/11. Where's your argument now?
I'm trying to see your point... are you saying that as long as the U.S. kills soldiers, then they also have the right to kill civilians? What kind of argument is that?
This discussion isn't about whether 9/11 was justified; killing people can never be justified, particularly when they're civilians. Perhaps you're saying that all that matters is who you target. If I target a soldier, and kill a civilian instead, then that's not as bad. I'd agree with you.
However, the U.S. has targetted civilians in the past, particularly with weapons of mass destruction. Also, the current U.S. administration apparently approves of using them again on civilian populations, if it became necessary. Morally, I'd say this is wrong.
Besides all this, if we were able to see the circumstances under which these soldiers are killing civilians (as we've seen only a couple on the news), I think we'd realize that in most cases, the deaths were preventable if the U.S. soldiers weren't so trigger happy (and afraid).
There's only one problem, that made me twitch at the end. If there's "no bias" there should be any reference to million of years of evolution. Near the end of the article, out of nowehere they state that "over hundreds of millions of years, they have evolved the ability to sense just how much force to apply"...
I think you're reaching. If the article was about opposing viewpoints over creationism/evolution, then I would expect to see points from both sides included in the discussion. In this case, however, the article is just reporting a new theory in biology, and I'm sure you realize that the field of biology has pretty much accepted evolution as the most probably theory. In some cases, I've read that since some fast forms of insect evolution have been obvserved on the month and year timescales, that as far as science is concerned, evolution is all but proven. Certainly it is the generally accepted explanation in biology.
Conversely, if the article were about a priest coming up with a new theory of the magical way that a water spider moves, I'm sure the writer would assume you knew that the priest was basing his new theory on the assumption that God created the universe in 7 days, or whatever.
Overall, I think that this is not a good article to judge journalistic bias by, because it's really just reporting the progress of research, instead of covering something more controversial, such as differences in political or religious beliefs.
The best type of article to judge bias would be if they covered a debate between a liberal and a conservative. If they started to editorialize, or choose sides, or whatever, that would be your obvious sign of bias. Also, if they chose their sound bites to only make one side look good, that's also bias.
They move because they put their faith in jesus and he spirits them along over the water on the wings of christ.
Damn dude, it said the CHRISTIAN science monitor.
You remember.. the people who don't believe in evolution? Or stem cell research? Or cloning?
That would certainly be most people's first impression, but I find that the CSM is probably the *most* objective reporting I've ever seen to date. There doesn't seem to be any particular bias that I can see. I'm glad I found the CSM, and I really enjoy reading it, even though I'm agnostic. I highly recommend everyone take a look with an open mind.
Don't forget that RIM is the same company that received a U.S. patent for "A hand-held electronic device with a keyboard optimized for use with the thumbs"
Yes, but remember 2 things:
1) The keyboard was innovative, particularly for the time it was used.
2) RIM actually MAKES the darned thing, so at least they're using the patent system as intended.
Now, I think RIM itself is a thoroughly disgusting company when it comes to stupid patents and that if this infringement claim holds up it would be poetic justice.
There is a fundamental difference between RIM and NTP: RIM makes a product, NTP doesn't. Patents are supposed to give companies that make innovative products a short term monopoly because that encourages companies to innovate. I would say that RIM is doing what was intended, and NTP is not.
Funny how there's always someone at/. ready to dismiss the accomplishments of others. When was the last time you jumped out of a plane?
1998. I have it on tape.
Besides, I wasn't dismissing his accomplishment - I said it was cool. I just think the media is wrong in claiming that it's skydiving. I think it's "gliding in a really small glider".
Ok, it's very cool, looks really fun, and it's an impressive feat, but can you really call it skydiving if you strap wings on yourself? What's with calling it a "fin"? I'm sorry, but those are wings. I'm pretty sure that a bird that high up with an oxygen tank could "skydive" (AKA glide") 35 km too.
Now, if someone wants to try this with only a parachute strapped to their back, then I'll agree with you that it's skydiving. All this guy did was fly across the English Channel in a really small glider that has a parachute instead of landing gear.
Can't you keep the bias out of the discussion on how to properly secure electronic voting? It really doesn't help the discussion, and that sword cuts both ways.
Are you calling me biased, you Nazi? Burn any crosses lately, you fucking fundamentalist shithead? I suppose you want to restrict my rights... well let me tell you, your mother was all for freedom of choice when I was banging her in the ass last night!
Have you ever setup touch screens? I do it quite frequently... they have to be calibrated before use, and periodically thereafter.
Now, if I were an unscrupulous voting machine operator, then no matter how good the software was, I could EASILY fool the calibration routines into thinking that real screen position X1,Y1 (vote for liberal) gets mapped to X2,Y2 (vote for conservative, nazi, etc.). The same could apply to the confirmation screen.
The fact is, the data you're entering (who to vote for) is transformed so many times during an electronic voting process (screen co-ordinates to memory locations to object references to PCI bus to telephone or network to ODBC to file, that there are far too many points for tampering. When I vote on paper, there's only myself, a piece of paper, and a pen involved. Maybe a ballot box. The only real place for tampering is the ballot box, and if you can't keep a friggin' box tamper proof, how do you expect to do the same with a computer?
I agree. Sometimes these defence projects try to hide the military side by saying, "build me a robot to explore Mars," but then they put in the rules, "extra points awarded if it can carry a payload, say, about the side of a missile." Ha ha.
We're looking for a few good people. Hard work, no pay, some risk, a chance for a fraction of the prize. See our current openings.
From your website:
"Help build America's Robot Army!"
So, let's get this straight... you're trying to create a robot that's going to be used in miliary applications to kill people. The army will no longer need to send thinking humans into battle, it can just send these, preprogrammed with specific targets, and a path to get there. It won't need human intervention to fire because it's autonomous. It will fire at whatever is deemed a target or a threat. Some of these will be civilians - some will even be children. But don't worry, no person will live to tell the story. No news crew will travel with the robot, and no troops will return with stories of how horrible war is, and how it should be avoided at all costs.
To those of you involved in this project, consider this: there are weapons in this world that should not have been invented. Let's take biological weapons for instance. Did the engineers who developed more lethal strains of anthrax make the world a better place? Shouldn't those people have been trying to cure diseases rather than to create better ones?
This weapon will never be used on U.S. soil. It has no "defence" value - it's only use is for attacking other people. It looks like it will be most effective in open flat areas, like maybe the deserts in the middle east? How do your morals stack up against what you're doing? Where I'm from, an engineer is given the public's trust to make the world safer, not more dangerous. Isn't there something better you should be spending your talents on?
If you guys are that worried about energy - hang your washing on the line instead of using a dryer - it works for me
Actually I live in Canada. In the winter we pretty much have to keep every heat producing appliance running just to keep the pipes from freezing. I need SETI just to keep the CPU pegged at 100% to keep the windows on that side of the house from frosting over.
Just kidding, obviously.
However, I was just responding to a question from another poster asking a legitimate question: Does a computer actually use more power while it's working than when it's just sitting there? The answer is yes, and I tried to explain why.
Also, let's say we're not just talking about your computer, but let's say you run it on your office computer. If every computer in an office uses $20 or even $10 more per month for electricity because everyone is running SETI@Home, then the owner of the business has a legitimate financial reason to not allow it on his or her network. On a 100 computer network, that could be $12,000 to $24,000 more per year in electricity costs.
Re:Doppler Drift Rate "chirping" seems way redunda
on
SETI@Home Publishes Skymap
·
· Score: 3, Informative
I leave my machines running 24x7 - so I don't see how extra CPU cycles will make a huge difference to my power bill
Let's just look at the CPU. CPUs have millions of transistors (a Pentium 4 has ~42 million), and each transistor is an electronic switch. The transistor technology they use is Field Effect or "FET". The most common would be "MOSFET". To maintain the state of the switch as ON or OFF, the device holds a small charge (positive or negative depending on the device) and the charge acts to "pinch off" the channel for current to flow, or to open the channel, as the case may be.
While a transistor is just sitting there in a particular ON or OFF state, it uses very little electricity. However, to change the state, you have to either charge or discharge the gate. When you charge or discharge it, this results in a small but finite amount of current flow, and there being resistance in metal and silicon, this results in power being consumed (at a rate of the current squared, times the resistance). So a transistor that is constantly switching will consume power, but a transistor not switching will consume very, very little.
So, if you home computer is just sitting there doing nothing, then it isn't using most of the chip, and the transistors just sit there waiting for the next instruction to execute. However, when you're running SETI @ Home, the CPU is constantly crunching numbers, and the transistors are constantly switching.
If you want to see this yourself, run a temperature monitor on the CPU while it's not doing anything, and then when you run SETI@Home or DOOM. You'll notice that the temperature spikes when it's doing something, and this is just used up energy. If you have electric heat in your house, and live in a cold climate all year long, you may not see the difference on your power bill, but I don't think that applies to most of us.
Wow, this is a brilliant post. "We don't need to recycle 'cuz we still have plenty of room to put our massive amounts of garbage!". Seriously, that has to be the most unbelievably ridiculous thing I have ever heard.
Wow, I can't believe the flaming I'm getting. I'm a Canadian; I grew up with recycling and I live by it. I think it's stupid not to make an attempt to recycle everything you can. However, I was just trying to point out that economically it isn't feasible because there's little economic incentive to recycle this stuff, unlike in Japan.
I was making fun of the OKC landfill, not saying it was a model plan.
I don't think that the U.S. has any shortage of landfill space. A Florida company that owns a landfill in Michigan sells the space to Toronto, for crying out loud! Of course, people in Michigan blame the Canadians for that... but whatever.
In Japan, I imagine that landfill space is at a premium, and recycling this junk makes sense, but I just don't see it being economically feasible in North America.
When I was in Oklahoma City in 2001 they didn't even have recycling, and I think they had a push going to generate more waste because they were piling it in this landfill near town and it was the highest point for hundreds of miles. It's probably been renamed to Mount Oklahoma by now.:-) Just kidding.
I think it is called rising to your level of incompetence.
This is also known around here as the "Peter Principle"; I remember reading the book when I was much younger. The idea is that, you will continue to be promoted until you reach a job you're no longer suited for.
People can actually get on the servers to play?!?!?!
Only once I couldn't get on a server, and I've been playing since day 3.
Next youll tell me that hunting rats,hitting them twenty times with blasters, and running for twenty minutes at a time is Star Wars!
Last night the group I was in got jumped by some bandits on Corellia. Three of us stayed back and opened up with our blasters, while a fourth circled around and jumped them from behind. Then I went down and checked out their land speeder. Is that Star Wars enough for you?
Also, medium level creatures can be taken out with one blaster shot if you're an expert with your weapon. You just need to work on your skills.
Slashdot Mirror
I remember a game for the Commodore PET - I think it was called 'Fur Trader' or something like that - you had to navigate rivers and drop off furs in various ports in the Canadian North, which was represented by those line & sqiggle graphics on a green/black screen. I remember learning about canoes and portages, and all of the small Northern outposts from the game like Fort Saskatchewan, Rocky Mtn. House, etc.
Yeah, that was it... I played it on the Commodore 64 - one of the ones that they wheeled around on pushcarts to the classrooms.
This page lists a game called "Fur Trader" - I wonder if that's it.
I definitely don't remember the Oregon Trail game - it must be a U.S. thing. However, I faintly remember playing a game about being a voyageur, rowing up river, trading furs and stuff. But I kept capsizing the darned canoe.
Any other Canadians remember what that was called? Maybe "Voyageur"?
As a (non deployed) soldier, I can tell you that while I haven't the slightest thing against any Iraqi civilian, the lives of all Iraqi civilians combined are worth less to me than the life of one of my men.
Then why did you become a soldier, if not to protect the innocent? Oh, I forgot, you're an AMERICAN soldier (i.e., a racist). Of course you don't care about Iraqi civilians - they're sand niggers, right? A thousand innocent Iraqis are obviously worth less than one soldier, right? Go thump a bible, ya biggot.
The fact remains the same, both worms exploit the same vulnerability, both worms modify system data without user's consent, and both are potentially "lethal" because of unpredicted errors and patch compatibility issues.
It is considered generally acceptable to help somebody without their consent. For instance, you can't be charged for giving someone CPR, if they need it, and they're not capable of giving consent, even if they end up dead anyway. However, if you don't do CPR properly, and end up killing the person, then you could be charged.
Therefore, this "CPR" worm falls into the same category. If it patches and fixes a computer infected by blaster, chances are the user isn't computer literate enough to know they need help, so there's not much the owner of the computer could do against the writer, particularly because letting their system be infected by blaster was causing network problems for everyone else. The latest virus can just be considered defending yourself. However, if the new worm infects a non-MSBlaster infected computer, and somehow causes a measurable negative effect, the person who wrote the worm is liable for the damages.
Given all that, it still doesn't matter, because if they can't catch the original author, how can we expect them to catch the new worm author? You've heard of anarchy online? This is it.
everything is fine and the power is out as far west as detroit, as south as cleaveland and as far north as toronto
Well, in truth, the power is out in Ottawa, which is farther north than Toronto.
Terrorist groups have been killing nothing BUT civilians for a lot longer than 9/11. Where's your argument now?
I'm trying to see your point... are you saying that as long as the U.S. kills soldiers, then they also have the right to kill civilians? What kind of argument is that?
This discussion isn't about whether 9/11 was justified; killing people can never be justified, particularly when they're civilians. Perhaps you're saying that all that matters is who you target. If I target a soldier, and kill a civilian instead, then that's not as bad. I'd agree with you.
However, the U.S. has targetted civilians in the past, particularly with weapons of mass destruction. Also, the current U.S. administration apparently approves of using them again on civilian populations, if it became necessary. Morally, I'd say this is wrong.
Besides all this, if we were able to see the circumstances under which these soldiers are killing civilians (as we've seen only a couple on the news), I think we'd realize that in most cases, the deaths were preventable if the U.S. soldiers weren't so trigger happy (and afraid).
There's only one problem, that made me twitch at the end. If there's "no bias" there should be any reference to million of years of evolution. Near the end of the article, out of nowehere they state that "over hundreds of millions of years, they have evolved the ability to sense just how much force to apply"...
I think you're reaching. If the article was about opposing viewpoints over creationism/evolution, then I would expect to see points from both sides included in the discussion. In this case, however, the article is just reporting a new theory in biology, and I'm sure you realize that the field of biology has pretty much accepted evolution as the most probably theory. In some cases, I've read that since some fast forms of insect evolution have been obvserved on the month and year timescales, that as far as science is concerned, evolution is all but proven. Certainly it is the generally accepted explanation in biology.
Conversely, if the article were about a priest coming up with a new theory of the magical way that a water spider moves, I'm sure the writer would assume you knew that the priest was basing his new theory on the assumption that God created the universe in 7 days, or whatever.
Overall, I think that this is not a good article to judge journalistic bias by, because it's really just reporting the progress of research, instead of covering something more controversial, such as differences in political or religious beliefs.
The best type of article to judge bias would be if they covered a debate between a liberal and a conservative. If they started to editorialize, or choose sides, or whatever, that would be your obvious sign of bias. Also, if they chose their sound bites to only make one side look good, that's also bias.
They move because they put their faith in jesus and he spirits them along over the water on the wings of christ.
Damn dude, it said the CHRISTIAN science monitor.
You remember.. the people who don't believe in evolution? Or stem cell research? Or cloning?
That would certainly be most people's first impression, but I find that the CSM is probably the *most* objective reporting I've ever seen to date. There doesn't seem to be any particular bias that I can see. I'm glad I found the CSM, and I really enjoy reading it, even though I'm agnostic. I highly recommend everyone take a look with an open mind.
Don't forget that RIM is the same company that received a U.S. patent for "A hand-held electronic device with a keyboard optimized for use with the thumbs"
Yes, but remember 2 things:
1) The keyboard was innovative, particularly for the time it was used.
2) RIM actually MAKES the darned thing, so at least they're using the patent system as intended.
Now, I think RIM itself is a thoroughly disgusting company when it comes to stupid patents and that if this infringement claim holds up it would be poetic justice.
There is a fundamental difference between RIM and NTP: RIM makes a product, NTP doesn't. Patents are supposed to give companies that make innovative products a short term monopoly because that encourages companies to innovate. I would say that RIM is doing what was intended, and NTP is not.
Funny how there's always someone at /. ready to dismiss the accomplishments of others. When was the last time you jumped out of a plane?
1998. I have it on tape.
Besides, I wasn't dismissing his accomplishment - I said it was cool. I just think the media is wrong in claiming that it's skydiving. I think it's "gliding in a really small glider".
Ok, it's very cool, looks really fun, and it's an impressive feat, but can you really call it skydiving if you strap wings on yourself? What's with calling it a "fin"? I'm sorry, but those are wings. I'm pretty sure that a bird that high up with an oxygen tank could "skydive" (AKA glide") 35 km too.
Now, if someone wants to try this with only a parachute strapped to their back, then I'll agree with you that it's skydiving. All this guy did was fly across the English Channel in a really small glider that has a parachute instead of landing gear.
Can't you keep the bias out of the discussion on how to properly secure electronic voting? It really doesn't help the discussion, and that sword cuts both ways.
Are you calling me biased, you Nazi? Burn any crosses lately, you fucking fundamentalist shithead? I suppose you want to restrict my rights... well let me tell you, your mother was all for freedom of choice when I was banging her in the ass last night!
Voting machines use touch-screens.
Have you ever setup touch screens? I do it quite frequently... they have to be calibrated before use, and periodically thereafter.
Now, if I were an unscrupulous voting machine operator, then no matter how good the software was, I could EASILY fool the calibration routines into thinking that real screen position X1,Y1 (vote for liberal) gets mapped to X2,Y2 (vote for conservative, nazi, etc.). The same could apply to the confirmation screen.
The fact is, the data you're entering (who to vote for) is transformed so many times during an electronic voting process (screen co-ordinates to memory locations to object references to PCI bus to telephone or network to ODBC to file, that there are far too many points for tampering. When I vote on paper, there's only myself, a piece of paper, and a pen involved. Maybe a ballot box. The only real place for tampering is the ballot box, and if you can't keep a friggin' box tamper proof, how do you expect to do the same with a computer?
I agree. Sometimes these defence projects try to hide the military side by saying, "build me a robot to explore Mars," but then they put in the rules, "extra points awarded if it can carry a payload, say, about the side of a missile." Ha ha.
We're looking for a few good people. Hard work, no pay, some risk, a chance for a fraction of the prize. See our current openings.
From your website:
"Help build America's Robot Army!"
So, let's get this straight... you're trying to create a robot that's going to be used in miliary applications to kill people. The army will no longer need to send thinking humans into battle, it can just send these, preprogrammed with specific targets, and a path to get there. It won't need human intervention to fire because it's autonomous. It will fire at whatever is deemed a target or a threat. Some of these will be civilians - some will even be children. But don't worry, no person will live to tell the story. No news crew will travel with the robot, and no troops will return with stories of how horrible war is, and how it should be avoided at all costs.
To those of you involved in this project, consider this: there are weapons in this world that should not have been invented. Let's take biological weapons for instance. Did the engineers who developed more lethal strains of anthrax make the world a better place? Shouldn't those people have been trying to cure diseases rather than to create better ones?
This weapon will never be used on U.S. soil. It has no "defence" value - it's only use is for attacking other people. It looks like it will be most effective in open flat areas, like maybe the deserts in the middle east? How do your morals stack up against what you're doing? Where I'm from, an engineer is given the public's trust to make the world safer, not more dangerous. Isn't there something better you should be spending your talents on?
If you guys are that worried about energy - hang your washing on the line instead of using a dryer - it works for me
Actually I live in Canada. In the winter we pretty much have to keep every heat producing appliance running just to keep the pipes from freezing. I need SETI just to keep the CPU pegged at 100% to keep the windows on that side of the house from frosting over.
Just kidding, obviously.
However, I was just responding to a question from another poster asking a legitimate question: Does a computer actually use more power while it's working than when it's just sitting there? The answer is yes, and I tried to explain why.
Also, let's say we're not just talking about your computer, but let's say you run it on your office computer. If every computer in an office uses $20 or even $10 more per month for electricity because everyone is running SETI@Home, then the owner of the business has a legitimate financial reason to not allow it on his or her network. On a 100 computer network, that could be $12,000 to $24,000 more per year in electricity costs.
I leave my machines running 24x7 - so I don't see how extra CPU cycles will make a huge difference to my power bill
Let's just look at the CPU. CPUs have millions of transistors (a Pentium 4 has ~42 million), and each transistor is an electronic switch. The transistor technology they use is Field Effect or "FET". The most common would be "MOSFET". To maintain the state of the switch as ON or OFF, the device holds a small charge (positive or negative depending on the device) and the charge acts to "pinch off" the channel for current to flow, or to open the channel, as the case may be.
While a transistor is just sitting there in a particular ON or OFF state, it uses very little electricity. However, to change the state, you have to either charge or discharge the gate. When you charge or discharge it, this results in a small but finite amount of current flow, and there being resistance in metal and silicon, this results in power being consumed (at a rate of the current squared, times the resistance). So a transistor that is constantly switching will consume power, but a transistor not switching will consume very, very little.
So, if you home computer is just sitting there doing nothing, then it isn't using most of the chip, and the transistors just sit there waiting for the next instruction to execute. However, when you're running SETI @ Home, the CPU is constantly crunching numbers, and the transistors are constantly switching.
If you want to see this yourself, run a temperature monitor on the CPU while it's not doing anything, and then when you run SETI@Home or DOOM. You'll notice that the temperature spikes when it's doing something, and this is just used up energy. If you have electric heat in your house, and live in a cold climate all year long, you may not see the difference on your power bill, but I don't think that applies to most of us.
Wow, this is a brilliant post. "We don't need to recycle 'cuz we still have plenty of room to put our massive amounts of garbage!". Seriously, that has to be the most unbelievably ridiculous thing I have ever heard.
Wow, I can't believe the flaming I'm getting. I'm a Canadian; I grew up with recycling and I live by it. I think it's stupid not to make an attempt to recycle everything you can. However, I was just trying to point out that economically it isn't feasible because there's little economic incentive to recycle this stuff, unlike in Japan.
I was making fun of the OKC landfill, not saying it was a model plan.
Sheesh, people! Calm down!
Sounds like a good idea for the U.S., too.
:-) Just kidding.
I don't think that the U.S. has any shortage of landfill space. A Florida company that owns a landfill in Michigan sells the space to Toronto, for crying out loud! Of course, people in Michigan blame the Canadians for that... but whatever.
In Japan, I imagine that landfill space is at a premium, and recycling this junk makes sense, but I just don't see it being economically feasible in North America.
When I was in Oklahoma City in 2001 they didn't even have recycling, and I think they had a push going to generate more waste because they were piling it in this landfill near town and it was the highest point for hundreds of miles. It's probably been renamed to Mount Oklahoma by now.
I can crack any computer in 2 seconds. Now where did I put my sledge hammer?
when "6 inches" will do
Dude, I doubt that there's ever been a time when "6 inches" will *do* anything. Sorry.
Was it just me, or did all of those inkblots look like blurry characters from Southpark?
I think it is called rising to your level of incompetence.
This is also known around here as the "Peter Principle"; I remember reading the book when I was much younger. The idea is that, you will continue to be promoted until you reach a job you're no longer suited for.
People can actually get on the servers to play?!?!?!
Only once I couldn't get on a server, and I've been playing since day 3.
Next youll tell me that hunting rats,hitting them twenty times with blasters, and running for twenty minutes at a time is Star Wars!
Last night the group I was in got jumped by some bandits on Corellia. Three of us stayed back and opened up with our blasters, while a fourth circled around and jumped them from behind. Then I went down and checked out their land speeder. Is that Star Wars enough for you?
Also, medium level creatures can be taken out with one blaster shot if you're an expert with your weapon. You just need to work on your skills.