Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 2:48 AM
To: pnetcust_serv@phoenix.com; pnet_tech_sppt@phoenix.com; public_relations@phoenix.com
Cc: robert.blincoe@theregister.co.uk; editors@tomshardware.com; news@arstechnica.com; henry.kuo@anandtech.com
Subject: re: PhoenixNet BIOS - backdoor whether I like it or not?
Phoenix,
I certainly hope that the information about PhoenixNet on your site [http://home.phoenixnet.com/about/index.html] is incomplete, or that I'm misinterpreting it.
My interpretation is that there is no way for me to disable PhoenixNet on a hardware level, that the program will run in Windows whether I like or not.
I consider this an unconscionable invasion of my privacy and a theft of my computing resources. I think that you're going to get lots of backlash and bad press, and you'll deserve all of it.
I for one will never buy a motherboard equipped with a PhoenixNet BIOS, nor will I install one in any of the dozens of PCs I manage.
Check the link, dude. Also, I pretty clearly said that IE6 urinates copiously on Mozilla for cookie-handling. IE5 is not as good, but even so, I'm right now (with IE5) staring at an Explorer window showing me cookie name, domain, expiration date, modified date, and last accessed date in sortable columns. So:P
question: is control controlled by its need to control? answer: yes
Namely, even on the "High" security setting, IE6 will accept 3rd-party cookies that have an "acceptable" P3P policy ("acceptable" is defined). If you'd read that document, it looks like they're implementing this rather well. They've made intelligent exceptions (e.g. "Special Provision for Legacy Opt-Out Cookies"), and they're very clear about IE6's behavior.
Now, I don't particularly like P3P, nor do I like feeling that M$ is shoving it down my throat. Is it the best possible solution? Perhaps not, but what else is there?
An earlier linked article at EPIC complains about how difficult most users find changing their cookie preferences and how confusing privacy is. Their solution? A "tools" page with 62 bloody links on it, to proxies, cookie managers, filters, PGP, SSH, anonymizers - most Windows users would have a heart attack just trying to understand the acronyms. That's supposed to be easier?? This is precisely the problem Microsoft is trying to address.
I hate to be an IE apologist, but IE6 kicks the shit out of Mozilla at cookie-handling. This is classic Microsoft strategy: move into a market space that has no standards and leverage their monopoly to say, "From now on, you're doing it our way." I don't like their monopoly powers, but no one else was even doing a half-assed job at this. What's the leading contender to P3P? There isn't one. You can install the something from EPIC's page (as far beyond the reach of most Windows users as recompiling a kernel), but I bet none of these have even 2% market penetration.
The only reason Microsoft could adopt P3P and take over this privacy space so easily is that the rest of the 'net has done such a piss-poor job of it for the last 10 years.
question: is control controlled by its need to control? answer: yes
Thanks for the reply. I have the utmost respect for an intellectually honest Christian. It's the vocal minority that pretend to be doubt free, and take their fears and aggressions out in condemning others, that really get my undies in a bunch.
Bible worship? Nah. We're supposed to worship God.
Agreed. The world would be a much better place if those who professed to do so really did.
question: is control controlled by its need to control? answer: yes
"Everything in the Bible is literally true except where it's obviously intended as a parable or metaphor."
I went to an evangelical Christian high school, so I've heard this more times than I can count. Hint: it's bullshit, because every Christian you ask will have different ideas about "obviously intended."
Obvious to whom? Under what circumstances? I knew people who would argue literally to the death that those were 7 24-hour days, just like days are now. Such arguments are pointless, because the Christian has his world-view, his sense of self, wrapped up in the argument: once he admits that some of the Bible might not be true, doubt creeps in. "Did Elijah the prophet really have control over bears? Did he really use that control to kill 42 little kids who were mocking him? Was that very nice? Aren't we supposed to turn the other cheek?" [2 Kings 2:23-24]
The Bible is not internally consistent, and you'd look like a raving lunatic to claim so. Thus your point of view: "Um... some of it's true, and some of it's... kind of true, in a, uh, metaphorical way." Humans have a nearly incredibly capacity for self-deception and rationalization, and nowhere is this better demonstrated than Bible-worship: millions of people believing without question the handed down myths and legends of a little tribe of people, translated and sanitized hundreds of years ago by a king with an agenda by monks who didn't know the language.
The Bible is a great book, but so is The Lord of the Rings. It doesn't make sense to get science, or a template for your life, from either of them.
question: is control controlled by its need to control? answer: yes
Jakob Nielsen, usability guru, had a couple articles on WAP:
Graceful Degradation of Scalable Internet Services, from October 1999, calls WAP the Wrong Approach to Portability and generally trashes the idea that cell phones as we know them will ever be productive 'net access devices.
In WAP Backlash, from July 2000, he says "skip the current generation of WAP" and trashes it some more. Plus he says "I told you so" a couple times.
WAP Field Study Findings, December 2000; good quote: "Considering that WAP users pay for airtime by the minute, one of our users calculated that it would have been cheaper for her to buy a newspaper and throw away everything but the TV listings than to look up that evening's BBC programs on her WAP phone." Trashes WAP some more, says "I told you so" a couple more times (God, he loves saying that;).
Anyway, good stuff if you want a user-centric view of why WAP tanked.
question: is control controlled by its need to control? answer: yes
In addition, Microsoft says, it will provide a free bit of programming code, called a "meta tag," that site owners could use to bar any Smart Tags from appearing on their sites.
Yes, this is an Evil Thing, and further evidence that Microsoft isn't pulling punches in its attempts to dominate everything that plugs into AC power. But, of the 400 posts here so far, I haven't seen a single one which calls out this simple fact: it's blockable. Don't want IE6 to add "Smart Tags" to your site? Tell it not to.
Further evidence, if we needed it, that most posters don't RTFAs.
question: is control controlled by its need to control? answer: yes
I went in for carpal tunnel testing last year, and this is exactly what it was like. They put sensors in various places on my forearm and upper arm, then shot electricity through my finger-tips to measure the nerves' resistance. Fucking hurt, too, and I couldn't pick anything up for the rest of the day.
Hmmm... maybe once these things come out, some enterprising/. reader can reverse-engineer it (ala:::Cue:::Cat:::) to be a carpal tunnel testing device.
I got my ass kicked at Quake last night, but that damn Mad Catz controller said my nerve conduction was at 87% nominal. I don't understand it, man - I've been ice-packing for days just trying to get it over 85%, but it didn't help my game at all!"
Then we could create a mod to show nerve conduction next to ping. There'll be a black market in Multiple Schlerosis drugs and horse steroids as kids everywhere strive to get their conduction up 5%. FanBoi magazines will run articles, and for the first time in history vitamins will become popular amongst pasty white teenage game geeks, "This B6 complex increased my conduction, like, 1% last month, d00d! I'm saving up to buy the d-Alpha Tocopherol E next, man, that cut-rate d1-Alpha doesn't help much at all."
question: is control controlled by its need to control? answer: yes
I'm working for stock options, and it's a good deal for me and my employer. Here's why:
We're a startup, and we're being very agressive about containing costs. Money saved in salary is money we can put towards product development or marketing, which will increase the [potential] value of the company and, thus, my options.
I'm being compensated at about 80% of what I would be in a different environment, but there are other factors which IMHO more than make up for that. Even so, the money's more than enough to live comfortably.
The work is hard to classify: I'm gaining valuable experience in many areas simultaneously, and will be more valuable when I leave the company than when I started work.
My options are a certain percentage of company value at inception; they're 100% pegged to the company's success. If the company dives the options will be worthless; if the company completes its plan the options will be worth Real Money, more then compensating me for the lower salary.
My labor will help influence, although not determine, the company's success. IOW, if we tank I'm not the fall guy ('less I really fuck up;).
We are not now, nor do we ever intend to be, publicly traded. This makes the options more risky but less volatile.
Yes, some companies can use options unethically, and employees should be much more careful about taking them as an alternative to cash compensation or benefits. But in many cases they can be win-win for employer and employee.
question: is control controlled by its need to control? answer: yes
You know, I don't want to jump on any anti-Katz bandwagon, but this illustrates his worst propensities: grandiose generalizations with no backup. Look, if your column is only available on the web, dammit, how about using some of that new-fangled hypertext to provide us with a link or two? There are two differences between journalism and unsupported opinion: the first relies on facts, and the second is worthless.
question: is control controlled by its need to control? answer: yes
This debate (tempest in a teapot, more like it) reminds me of similar arguments regarding Tolkien and (mostly) TLOTR, and Tolkien himself has words that will inform this discussion. People have variously claimed that Tolkien was writing an allegory of the Bible, World War II, ancient Greece, and your mom. Tolkien has the last word, though, with this fairly famous quote:
I think that many confuse 'applicability' with 'allegory'; but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the auther.
(Aside: a literary critic once castigated Tolkien for his use of 'elfish' rather than 'elvish', and referred Tolkien to the OED. Tolkien's responded with "I wrote the Oxford English Dictionary," which was true. The man knew whereof he spoke.)
Back on track: yes, many of the coincidences that Mr. Wheat points out are applicable to 2001, but that in no way makes them allegorical. Of course, it's easier to sell books if you tell your audience, "I've discovered the true, shocking purpose behind X." rather than, "Here's some cool shit I made up that kinda fits with X."
question: is control controlled by its need to control? answer: yes
You said, There's no need for 2 shift keys if a single one were properly placed somewhere more centrally.
This is incorrect, IMHO. Something I realized as I began to type faster is that my high school typing teacher's advice was right-on: never ever use the same hand for SHIFT and the key it's modifying. At high speed it's hard to time that SHIFT, especially when you're hand's already contorted to hit two keys. What often happens is that your other hand will hit a key before you let go of shift. By SHIFTing with the opposite hand you maintain a better cadence on the keys and are more efficient.
I also disagree that the CAPS LOCK key should be small. It's large for a reason - (i) for efficiency it has to be hit with your pinky, your least-coordinated digit, and (ii) depending upon the previous key press (e.g. 'G' ot 'T'), your finger might have a (relatively) substantial distance to travel. This interaction os governed by Fitt's Law: "The time to acquire a target is a function of the distance to and size of the target."
Now consider that the CAPS LOCK key, while rarely used, is critical. For instance, typing 'CAPS LOCK' without it would be slow and painful. But it's use is only justified if the extra acquisition time is less than the time it takes to use the SHIFT key (for short groups like 'RMS,' using SHIFT can be faster). So the faster you can hit the CAPS LOCK key, the more efficient you'll be in cases of long groups of capital letters. This doesn't happen often, but that's one reason why it's so important: you don't have much chance to practice.
I like your other ideas, though.
question: is control controlled by its need to control? answer: yes
First, what the article said is that there's no proof at all that sex does sell games, or even help promote them. Like all those lame-ass dot-com hype parties in San Francisco and Seattle. Who gives a fuck what the product is? Where's the free booze and tote-bag? Most game companies would be better off having the booth babe beta their game for a day instead of waltzing around in butt-floss.
Second, to answer "why so many videogames rely on explicit violence," my HO is that most game companies have no bloody idea how to make a good game. You'd be hard-pressed to find a better-run or more talented game shop than id software, but they're still basically a technology shop. They build engines and write network code. Ever wonder why Nethack is more interesting to play than Quake3Arena? Because design and coding time went more towards gameplay than technology.
The gaming industry seems to be learning a few lessons lately: Half-Life and Thief were fascinating to play, and technologically advanced "enough." But in this industry, pre-release hype counts for not just a lot but nearly everything. With no hype you get no positioning on store shelves, no advance orders, no magazine covers. And what's easier to hype? A couple screen shots with bump-mapped water or a "gameplay features document" that puts most people to sleep?
Even Black & White was hyped mostly for its engine and AI. The gameplay, IMHO, is pretty stunningly boring. Like Starcraft, but with a sidekick; like Dungeon Keeper with a slightly smarter demon. I don't know what the solution is, or if there is one, but most games these days either put me to sleep or annoy me.
question: is control controlled by its need to control? answer: yes
Maybe you should read the article before posting next time, Sparky. It's not about soft porn in games, but about real live soft porn at gaming trade shows. So yes, I find that much more concerning than pushing a button and causing a few pixels on screen to be reconfigured as I "kill" a "zombie."
question: is control controlled by its need to control? answer: yes
Of course it's not just games. I find women beautiful, but I'm still sick and tired of seeing breasts everywhere as the primary focus of advertising. I fully support a women's right to celebrate her sexuality any way she chooses, for self-gratification, money, attention, or whatever. But I think it's sad that so often it's for the financial gain or prurient interest of emotionally-retarded men.
I found the article's comparisons with porn interesting, but I don't agree with the author's premise that games are very far removed from Hollywood. Christ - Hollywood not exploit women? The difference here is audience, and it's a typical chicken-and-egg scenario.
Women go to see Hollywood movies all the time, and not always the notorious "chick flicks." Hollywood takes the female audience very seriously, and panders to it very successfully (just like it panders to everyone, of course; this isn't gender-specific). Porn and games, however, are consumed mostly by men, often young men, so these industries pander to that audience.
Is it lack of focus by game developers? Is it that men are more easily visually stimulated than women (porn), or more competitive (games)? In my experience, women are less apt to want to sit in front of a computer, for any reason. Dunno why:/
question: is control controlled by its need to control? answer: yes
We've already given industry the chance to "sort it out themselves," and it wasn't exactly paradise. In England, at the start of the Industrial Revolution, there were no real restrictions on the behaviour of industry. Ever heard of chimney sweeps?
Contrary to what you've seen in Mary Poppins, chimney sweeps were not happy little boys and girls singing in the streets. They were sold to chimney sweeping companies by their poor parents for less than a month's wages. Older, bigger kids couldn't fit in chimneys, so they had to use little ones (often as young as 2). If a child got stuck inside a chimney they'd just turn the furnace on. Children were cheap, and the poor kept having more. Don't believe me? Here's one source; a Google search turns up more.
This is industry unchecked: a machine with no regard for humanity. Corporations are smarter now, but don't believe for a second that they're any more concerned about human welfare. Nor are they obligated to be. Only one organization has a publicly and legally recognized obligation in this arena, and that's a government.
Most reading this in the US had an opportunity to vote several months ago. Maybe half of you did. If you don't like the President's technical advisor, get off your ass and vote next time
question: is control controlled by its need to control? answer: yes
On the lighter side, this must really tweak the folks at the Honeypot Project. "Dammit - just when we got the network nice and insecure, those cheese bastards fixed it! Where's that RH6.0 CD?" They'll be in the unenviable position of having to protect their systems against worms just so that they can be 0wn3d by script kiddies.
On the darker side, this reminds me of the "toner wars" in Diamond Age, where good and evil nanites ("mites") battled in the air, and the carnage was horrific. Going outside during a toner war was like breathing straight graphite powder. Is this the future of security? The future battleground for white hats and black hats?
It's a cute idea, really, but it has to stop. All property rights aside, we cannot afford to fight this war in this arena. The point of having an army (if I may carry the analogy a little farther) is to keep the enemy away from civilization. But in some ways the battleground already is the property we need to protect; worms are in a real way terrorist rather than military. What's to be done? Education, and lots of it. Hope it's enough.
question: is control controlled by its need to control? answer: yes
Yes, people will always write cheats, but how often does J03 Hax0r write a driver-level cheat?
It would have been better if ASUS had released some sort of aim-bot, because that kind of thing can be detected by the game. How's a game supposed detect if your drivers are cheating?
question: is control controlled by its need to control? answer: yes
No conspiracies here ... move along now ...
on
The DNA Bomb
·
· Score: 2
From the story:
More realistic, argues Dr. George M. Church, director of the Lipper Center, would be a pathogen that targeted people with shared lifestyle traits.
*cough*AIDS*cough*
question: is control controlled by its need to control? answer: yes
then what makes you think RIAA / MPAA can succeed by persuading congress with the argument that the latest movies are being copied illegaly?
Sorry to say this, but they're not using arguments, they're using MONEY, which is the most persuasive argument of all for a Congresscritter. The Intelligence agencies et al were relying on old-fashioned arguments and words and things, and most Representatives can't sit still long enough to listen. Money, however, speaks very fast and in very small words (like "one" and "zero" - lots and lots of "zeros").
question: is control controlled by its need to control? answer: yes
Wow - you seem pretty sensitive about this, 'specially since it was sarcasm. But hey, I've got enough time to pester you.
Old, incredibly tired class-warfare bullshit.
Old = "started before I was born so I can't be bothered"
tired = "my attention span's too short"
bullshit = "I don't agree with you"
Preach your shit when you manage to come up with something that actually works better than capitalism.
Preach your shit = "I don't agree with you"
when you manage to come up with something that actually works better than capitalism = "if you can't single-handedly solve the most vexing problem in human history you're disqualified from commenting on it."
HTH:)
question: is control controlled by its need to control? answer: yes
Slashdot Mirror
"We all say so, so it must be true!"
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 2:48 AM
To: pnetcust_serv@phoenix.com; pnet_tech_sppt@phoenix.com; public_relations@phoenix.com
Cc: robert.blincoe@theregister.co.uk; editors@tomshardware.com; news@arstechnica.com; henry.kuo@anandtech.com
Subject: re: PhoenixNet BIOS - backdoor whether I like it or not?
Phoenix,
I certainly hope that the information about PhoenixNet on your site [http://home.phoenixnet.com/about/index.html] is incomplete, or that I'm misinterpreting it.
My interpretation is that there is no way for me to disable PhoenixNet on a hardware level, that the program will run in Windows whether I like or not.
I consider this an unconscionable invasion of my privacy and a theft of my computing resources. I think that you're going to get lots of backlash and bad press, and you'll deserve all of it.
I for one will never buy a motherboard equipped with a PhoenixNet BIOS, nor will I install one in any of the dozens of PCs I manage.
Yours,
/me
"We all say so, so it must be true!"
Check the link, dude. Also, I pretty clearly said that IE6 urinates copiously on Mozilla for cookie-handling. IE5 is not as good, but even so, I'm right now (with IE5) staring at an Explorer window showing me cookie name, domain, expiration date, modified date, and last accessed date in sortable columns. So :P
question: is control controlled by its need to control?
answer: yes
Microsoft has an article, Privacy in Internet Explorer 6 that should answer your questions.
Namely, even on the "High" security setting, IE6 will accept 3rd-party cookies that have an "acceptable" P3P policy ("acceptable" is defined). If you'd read that document, it looks like they're implementing this rather well. They've made intelligent exceptions (e.g. "Special Provision for Legacy Opt-Out Cookies"), and they're very clear about IE6's behavior.
Now, I don't particularly like P3P, nor do I like feeling that M$ is shoving it down my throat. Is it the best possible solution? Perhaps not, but what else is there?
An earlier linked article at EPIC complains about how difficult most users find changing their cookie preferences and how confusing privacy is. Their solution? A "tools" page with 62 bloody links on it, to proxies, cookie managers, filters, PGP, SSH, anonymizers - most Windows users would have a heart attack just trying to understand the acronyms. That's supposed to be easier?? This is precisely the problem Microsoft is trying to address.
I hate to be an IE apologist, but IE6 kicks the shit out of Mozilla at cookie-handling. This is classic Microsoft strategy: move into a market space that has no standards and leverage their monopoly to say, "From now on, you're doing it our way." I don't like their monopoly powers, but no one else was even doing a half-assed job at this. What's the leading contender to P3P? There isn't one. You can install the something from EPIC's page (as far beyond the reach of most Windows users as recompiling a kernel), but I bet none of these have even 2% market penetration.
The only reason Microsoft could adopt P3P and take over this privacy space so easily is that the rest of the 'net has done such a piss-poor job of it for the last 10 years.
question: is control controlled by its need to control?
answer: yes
question: is control controlled by its need to control?
answer: yes
Obvious to whom? Under what circumstances? I knew people who would argue literally to the death that those were 7 24-hour days, just like days are now. Such arguments are pointless, because the Christian has his world-view, his sense of self, wrapped up in the argument: once he admits that some of the Bible might not be true, doubt creeps in. "Did Elijah the prophet really have control over bears? Did he really use that control to kill 42 little kids who were mocking him? Was that very nice? Aren't we supposed to turn the other cheek?" [2 Kings 2:23-24]
The Bible is not internally consistent, and you'd look like a raving lunatic to claim so. Thus your point of view: "Um
The Bible is a great book, but so is The Lord of the Rings. It doesn't make sense to get science, or a template for your life, from either of them.
question: is control controlled by its need to control?
answer: yes
- Graceful Degradation of Scalable Internet Services, from October 1999, calls WAP the Wrong Approach to Portability and generally trashes the idea that cell phones as we know them will ever be productive 'net access devices.
- In WAP Backlash, from July 2000, he says "skip the current generation of WAP" and trashes it some more. Plus he says "I told you so" a couple times.
- WAP Field Study Findings, December 2000; good quote: "Considering that WAP users pay for airtime by the minute, one of our users calculated that it would have been cheaper for her to buy a newspaper and throw away everything but the TV listings than to look up that evening's BBC programs on her WAP phone." Trashes WAP some more, says "I told you so" a couple more times (God, he loves saying that
;).
Anyway, good stuff if you want a user-centric view of why WAP tanked.question: is control controlled by its need to control?
answer: yes
Further evidence, if we needed it, that most posters don't RTFAs.
question: is control controlled by its need to control?
answer: yes
I went in for carpal tunnel testing last year, and this is exactly what it was like. They put sensors in various places on my forearm and upper arm, then shot electricity through my finger-tips to measure the nerves' resistance. Fucking hurt, too, and I couldn't pick anything up for the rest of the day.
... maybe once these things come out, some enterprising /. reader can reverse-engineer it (ala :::Cue:::Cat:::) to be a carpal tunnel testing device.
Hmmm
I got my ass kicked at Quake last night, but that damn Mad Catz controller said my nerve conduction was at 87% nominal. I don't understand it, man - I've been ice-packing for days just trying to get it over 85%, but it didn't help my game at all!"
Then we could create a mod to show nerve conduction next to ping. There'll be a black market in Multiple Schlerosis drugs and horse steroids as kids everywhere strive to get their conduction up 5%. FanBoi magazines will run articles, and for the first time in history vitamins will become popular amongst pasty white teenage game geeks, "This B6 complex increased my conduction, like, 1% last month, d00d! I'm saving up to buy the d-Alpha Tocopherol E next, man, that cut-rate d1-Alpha doesn't help much at all."
question: is control controlled by its need to control?
answer: yes
- We're a startup, and we're being very agressive about containing costs. Money saved in salary is money we can put towards product development or marketing, which will increase the [potential] value of the company and, thus, my options.
- I'm being compensated at about 80% of what I would be in a different environment, but there are other factors which IMHO more than make up for that. Even so, the money's more than enough to live comfortably.
- The work is hard to classify: I'm gaining valuable experience in many areas simultaneously, and will be more valuable when I leave the company than when I started work.
- My options are a certain percentage of company value at inception; they're 100% pegged to the company's success. If the company dives the options will be worthless; if the company completes its plan the options will be worth Real Money, more then compensating me for the lower salary.
- My labor will help influence, although not determine, the company's success. IOW, if we tank I'm not the fall guy ('less I really fuck up
;).
- We are not now, nor do we ever intend to be, publicly traded. This makes the options more risky but less volatile.
Yes, some companies can use options unethically, and employees should be much more careful about taking them as an alternative to cash compensation or benefits. But in many cases they can be win-win for employer and employee.question: is control controlled by its need to control?
answer: yes
Settle for a few grand per mile, then bitch when your long-distance and 'net fees double. Oops.
question: is control controlled by its need to control?
answer: yes
Katz sezs: These changes have made meatpacking -- once a highly skilled, well-paid trade -- into the most dangerous job in the U.S. ...
Ever heard of a little book called The Jungle?
You know, I don't want to jump on any anti-Katz bandwagon, but this illustrates his worst propensities: grandiose generalizations with no backup. Look, if your column is only available on the web, dammit, how about using some of that new-fangled hypertext to provide us with a link or two? There are two differences between journalism and unsupported opinion: the first relies on facts, and the second is worthless.
question: is control controlled by its need to control?
answer: yes
Back on track: yes, many of the coincidences that Mr. Wheat points out are applicable to 2001, but that in no way makes them allegorical. Of course, it's easier to sell books if you tell your audience, "I've discovered the true, shocking purpose behind X." rather than, "Here's some cool shit I made up that kinda fits with X."
question: is control controlled by its need to control?
answer: yes
You said, There's no need for 2 shift keys if a single one were properly placed somewhere more centrally.
This is incorrect, IMHO. Something I realized as I began to type faster is that my high school typing teacher's advice was right-on: never ever use the same hand for SHIFT and the key it's modifying. At high speed it's hard to time that SHIFT, especially when you're hand's already contorted to hit two keys. What often happens is that your other hand will hit a key before you let go of shift. By SHIFTing with the opposite hand you maintain a better cadence on the keys and are more efficient.
I also disagree that the CAPS LOCK key should be small. It's large for a reason - (i) for efficiency it has to be hit with your pinky, your least-coordinated digit, and (ii) depending upon the previous key press (e.g. 'G' ot 'T'), your finger might have a (relatively) substantial distance to travel. This interaction os governed by Fitt's Law : "The time to acquire a target is a function of the distance to and size of the target."
Now consider that the CAPS LOCK key, while rarely used, is critical. For instance, typing 'CAPS LOCK' without it would be slow and painful. But it's use is only justified if the extra acquisition time is less than the time it takes to use the SHIFT key (for short groups like 'RMS,' using SHIFT can be faster). So the faster you can hit the CAPS LOCK key, the more efficient you'll be in cases of long groups of capital letters. This doesn't happen often, but that's one reason why it's so important: you don't have much chance to practice.
I like your other ideas, though.
question: is control controlled by its need to control?
answer: yes
First, what the article said is that there's no proof at all that sex does sell games, or even help promote them. Like all those lame-ass dot-com hype parties in San Francisco and Seattle. Who gives a fuck what the product is? Where's the free booze and tote-bag? Most game companies would be better off having the booth babe beta their game for a day instead of waltzing around in butt-floss.
Second, to answer "why so many videogames rely on explicit violence," my HO is that most game companies have no bloody idea how to make a good game. You'd be hard-pressed to find a better-run or more talented game shop than id software, but they're still basically a technology shop. They build engines and write network code. Ever wonder why Nethack is more interesting to play than Quake3Arena? Because design and coding time went more towards gameplay than technology.
The gaming industry seems to be learning a few lessons lately: Half-Life and Thief were fascinating to play, and technologically advanced "enough." But in this industry, pre-release hype counts for not just a lot but nearly everything. With no hype you get no positioning on store shelves, no advance orders, no magazine covers. And what's easier to hype? A couple screen shots with bump-mapped water or a "gameplay features document" that puts most people to sleep?
Even Black & White was hyped mostly for its engine and AI. The gameplay, IMHO, is pretty stunningly boring. Like Starcraft, but with a sidekick; like Dungeon Keeper with a slightly smarter demon. I don't know what the solution is, or if there is one, but most games these days either put me to sleep or annoy me.
question: is control controlled by its need to control?
answer: yes
Maybe you should read the article before posting next time, Sparky. It's not about soft porn in games, but about real live soft porn at gaming trade shows. So yes, I find that much more concerning than pushing a button and causing a few pixels on screen to be reconfigured as I "kill" a "zombie."
question: is control controlled by its need to control?
answer: yes
Of course it's not just games. I find women beautiful, but I'm still sick and tired of seeing breasts everywhere as the primary focus of advertising. I fully support a women's right to celebrate her sexuality any way she chooses, for self-gratification, money, attention, or whatever. But I think it's sad that so often it's for the financial gain or prurient interest of emotionally-retarded men.
:/
I found the article's comparisons with porn interesting, but I don't agree with the author's premise that games are very far removed from Hollywood. Christ - Hollywood not exploit women? The difference here is audience, and it's a typical chicken-and-egg scenario.
Women go to see Hollywood movies all the time, and not always the notorious "chick flicks." Hollywood takes the female audience very seriously, and panders to it very successfully (just like it panders to everyone, of course; this isn't gender-specific). Porn and games, however, are consumed mostly by men, often young men, so these industries pander to that audience.
Is it lack of focus by game developers? Is it that men are more easily visually stimulated than women (porn), or more competitive (games)? In my experience, women are less apt to want to sit in front of a computer, for any reason. Dunno why
question: is control controlled by its need to control?
answer: yes
We've already given industry the chance to "sort it out themselves," and it wasn't exactly paradise. In England, at the start of the Industrial Revolution, there were no real restrictions on the behaviour of industry. Ever heard of chimney sweeps?
Contrary to what you've seen in Mary Poppins, chimney sweeps were not happy little boys and girls singing in the streets. They were sold to chimney sweeping companies by their poor parents for less than a month's wages. Older, bigger kids couldn't fit in chimneys, so they had to use little ones (often as young as 2). If a child got stuck inside a chimney they'd just turn the furnace on. Children were cheap, and the poor kept having more. Don't believe me? Here's one source; a Google search turns up more.
This is industry unchecked: a machine with no regard for humanity. Corporations are smarter now, but don't believe for a second that they're any more concerned about human welfare. Nor are they obligated to be. Only one organization has a publicly and legally recognized obligation in this arena, and that's a government.
Most reading this in the US had an opportunity to vote several months ago. Maybe half of you did. If you don't like the President's technical advisor, get off your ass and vote next time
question: is control controlled by its need to control?
answer: yes
On the lighter side, this must really tweak the folks at the Honeypot Project. "Dammit - just when we got the network nice and insecure, those cheese bastards fixed it! Where's that RH6.0 CD?" They'll be in the unenviable position of having to protect their systems against worms just so that they can be 0wn3d by script kiddies.
On the darker side, this reminds me of the "toner wars" in Diamond Age , where good and evil nanites ("mites") battled in the air, and the carnage was horrific. Going outside during a toner war was like breathing straight graphite powder. Is this the future of security? The future battleground for white hats and black hats?
It's a cute idea, really, but it has to stop. All property rights aside, we cannot afford to fight this war in this arena. The point of having an army (if I may carry the analogy a little farther) is to keep the enemy away from civilization. But in some ways the battleground already is the property we need to protect; worms are in a real way terrorist rather than military. What's to be done? Education, and lots of it. Hope it's enough.
question: is control controlled by its need to control?
answer: yes
Yes, people will always write cheats, but how often does J03 Hax0r write a driver-level cheat?
It would have been better if ASUS had released some sort of aim-bot, because that kind of thing can be detected by the game. How's a game supposed detect if your drivers are cheating?
question: is control controlled by its need to control?
answer: yes
From the story:
More realistic, argues Dr. George M. Church, director of the Lipper Center, would be a pathogen that targeted people with shared lifestyle traits.
*cough*AIDS*cough*
question: is control controlled by its need to control?
answer: yes
welcome back, 575
question: is control controlled by its need to control?
answer: yes
then what makes you think RIAA / MPAA can succeed by persuading congress with the argument that the latest movies are being copied illegaly?
Sorry to say this, but they're not using arguments, they're using MONEY, which is the most persuasive argument of all for a Congresscritter. The Intelligence agencies et al were relying on old-fashioned arguments and words and things, and most Representatives can't sit still long enough to listen. Money, however, speaks very fast and in very small words (like "one" and "zero" - lots and lots of "zeros").
question: is control controlled by its need to control?
answer: yes
a ban on all encrypted traffic for which no key is in escrow for easy policing.
...
Great idea! I know I've got a patent application around here somwhere
question: is control controlled by its need to control?
answer: yes
Old, incredibly tired class-warfare bullshit.
- Old = "started before I was born so I can't be bothered"
- tired = "my attention span's too short"
- bullshit = "I don't agree with you"
Preach your shit when you manage to come up with something that actually works better than capitalism.- Preach your shit = "I don't agree with you"
- when you manage to come up with something that actually works better than capitalism = "if you can't single-handedly solve the most vexing problem in human history you're disqualified from commenting on it."
HTHquestion: is control controlled by its need to control?
answer: yes