That's a rolling budget that I have access to without having to submit pre-approved expenditures for. It's primarily used for replacing user PCs, phones, etc, which is why I mentioned it here.
You cannot forecast when to replace PC's? And you have 160+ users?
Huh? Huh?
Even at 100+ users, we lease our workstations and replace them every 3 years. It's a known cycle and they're under warranty. Not to mention that there aren't any surprises for Accounting for the next 3 years.
Ah, yes, the hubris of the OSS community... forgot to mention that.
Yeah, maybe you could just answer the question, okay?
Apache can "fail" for many reasons.
Yeah, maybe you could just answer the question, okay?
Your excessively technical question suggests to me that you're not very involved in the business.
Yeah, the question, care to answer it?
Regardless of why apache "fails" - be it because of some flaw in the program or because of a simple hardware failure - if apache is new apache is blamed.
How would they KNOW it was Apache? You haven't answered that question, either.
This is just how it is, unfair as it may be.
I didn't ask if it was "unfair". I asked how Apache would "fail" and how they'd even know that it was Apache.
You have not answered either of those questions.
I inherited IIS from my predecesor (who was, admittedly, clueless) and I won't risk my job switching to apache.
Seeing as how you cannot answer either of those questions and you think $60,000 is a lot of money for a business and you cannot even forecast workstation purchases.....
I've been deploying Linux throughout the company I work at. And no one can tell the difference. As long as the service is available, they're happy.
Here's a free clue. Hardware fails. Real professions know this and have already taken steps to mitigate such failures. If a drive dies on your Apache server, the end users should not ever know about it.
If you're claiming that they'll be complaining about running Apache when that happens... you've already failed at your job.
I have no way of proving it one way or another, but I'll say it again: I make buying decisions. I have access to two $25,000 lines of credit and one $10,000 line of credit and I make purchasing decisions for a 164 employee company (primarily related to replacing user PCs and web/database/file servers).
So, $60,000. For 164 person company.
We're a little over a 100 people and we spend over $500,000 a year on a single contract.
Every time I chicken out because the simple fact is, as much as I like Apache and OOo, I won't get blamed when IIS or Office fail.
Why would Apache "fail"?
And why would anyone not directly involved in it even know what you're running?
Like I said elsewhere in this thread, until I get to hire/fire the guy who makes the buying decisions, I can't really influence it all that much.
But you said, and I quote "I make buying decisions".
Five years ago I had a high profile account here where I supported OOS, but now that I'm in IT management, I realize that it's the non-technical executives that are really holding OSS back. It's sad, but it's true.
Noooooo...... What is "holding OSS back" is the fact that all those companies have LARGE investments in their current systems.
It takes a LONG time for companies to migrate from something that is working TODAY that they know how to support TODAY and that has been paid for TODAY.
Regardless of the internal quibbling at MS or other closed corps, they're established, and that carries and awful lot of weight, as unfair as it may be.
That depends upon what you mean by "established".
Microsoft has a MONOPOLY. Therefore, they are going to be around for a LONG time.
People will continue to buy from Microsoft because it is what they know and what they use and what works.
Free software (as in speech) will be taken up by non-US governments and such. It's easier to pitch a change there when you can show $X (or whatever the local medium of exchange is) being sent to Redmond, Washington, USofA instead of into the local economy.
Rodgers said the core question in the legal battle is whether a plaintiff in a lawsuit can "strip" a blogger of anonymity merely by filing a lawsuit. Without some higher standard to prove a lawsuit has merit, he said, defamation lawsuits could have a chilling effect on Internet free speech.
Can someone file a lawsuit and have your anonymity removed... just because they filed a lawsuit?
A judge will have to "judge" whether the statements are libel or not.
But when so much data is processed so rapidly, the effect is oracular and almost opaque.
As you've demonstrated, the "oracular" part is badly mistaken.
Amazon almost NEVER guesses something I'd buy.
If I buy a new DVD, I am instantly bombarded with ads for EVERY new DVD. I buy the new Terry Pratchett book and I'm bombarded with EVERY book by him or co-authored by him or licensed by him or whatever. I don't want derivatives.
I picked up the "V" comic book (graphic novel) and now I'm bombarded with every comic book they have.
As relates to your post, you can't be the only techo neo-pagan out there. But they just cannot fit you to that group, can they? Although it should be very, very easy to do so.
There is a myth that seems to infest these new fangled security organisations, that if only they can gather sufficient data they will be able to identify and prevent bad things happening. They cannot, but are willing to spend huge amounts of money in the attempt.
The companies making the products often hire politicians who voted to purchase those products to fight [crime|terrorism|kiddie_porn].
Because you can't say that a given license is either more or less permissive than any other.
Yes you can. Public Domain is less restrictive than just about anything else.
Take GPLv2 and GPLv3 for example. If either of them were strictly more permissive, you would be able to relicense from one to the other.
Yes, IF "either of them were strictly more permissive".
But they're not. Nor did I say they were. In a chart, they would be lateral to each other. The same licenses (such as Public Domain) that were acceptable to the GPLv2 would be acceptable to the GPLv3. But that does not mean that the GPLv2 is acceptable to the GPLv3.
Neither can be said to be "more permissive", because they require and allow different things.
Again, I did not say they were. In a chart they would be side by side. They have restrictions, but they have different restrictions. Anything BELOW them would have to have the SAME restrictions but FEWER of them.
Slammer was embarassing, but that one was hardly Microsoft's fault (although they do share some blame). They had released a patch for that vulnerability six months before the attack occurred.
Yes, they had.
But the problem was that that port was left OPEN on machines that DID NOT NEED IT OPEN.
With security, you CANNOT rely upon the end user to keep current on patches. Your system HAS to be able to defend itself WITHOUT those patches.
And the simple way to do that is to not have ANY open ports by default.
Security isn't just something you can pin on the software vendor and expect them to solve all your problems. It takes good system admins to keep the systems up-to-date with security patches and have them on a network that is designed for security.
Security is a process. You are arguing about the high end, theoretical levels... meanwhile Microsoft systems are still at the very lowest end and every day more zombies are added.
Exactly. The only people who have anything to worry about from the cameras are the "law abiding" people who do not support the current government and are willing to be seen protesting.
It's been a while since balanced reporting that explores both sides of an issue outsold a one-sided rant. He's a professional, which basically means he does this to make money, so his first concern is selling the story with some truthiness on the side.
Naw. Lots of professions have ethical standards for their professionals.
Being a "professional" doesn't mean that you just do it for money. Although it can be used that way.
Being a "professional" also means that you follow the ethical standards of your profession. Otherwise your behaviour is "unprofessional".
The word you're thinking of is "whore" or "prostitute". One who sells one's abilities, talent, or name for an unworthy purpose.
Congratulations! Indeed when his buddy was standing upon the gallows, only then did he cry (and loudly) about how evil his buddy had been for deceiving him and abusing his naive trust.
It shows his true character.
If Microsoft ever files a patent suit against Linux, do you believe that Lyons will not be the first and one of the loudest proclaiming the righteousness of Microsoft's claim?
He made up his mind that SCO was right... and then he actively opposed any facts contradicting him.
He belittled Groklaw and PJ (and he is still doing so) for digging up the real facts while he kept repeating the "smoking gun" claim of SCO as a "fact".
I could have accepted that INITIALLY, but as Groklaw collected more and more facts from the EXPERTS (the people who WROTE *nix) there is no way anyone who didn't have an agenda could have still believed that SCO had a case.
Yet he kept right on supporting SCO... until they filed for bankruptcy and received a delisting letter.
You can counteract this then by hopping in and out of throw range until the enemy runs out of grenades.
Yeah... if he's out of bullets already. Otherwise you're hopping back and forth within his range of fire. Looks like you died, again.
Also, what if there are multiple players, some in range of the grenades and some outside grenade range but within weapons range.
I would guess that the app would shoot the players until one got within grenade range and then it would throw a grenade at that player.
When that player dies from the grenade, the app would switch to rifle and shoot the other players.
Plus, what about novel tactics?
There aren't any novel tactics. It's shoot, move, in the open, concealment, cover, communicate.
Retreating out of a room and tossing a grenade behind you? Effective use of smoke grenades instead of just frags?
You're talking about extreme edge cases. If you cannot kill him in a room before he can retreat, you've already lost due to the other tactics.
So then a player can simply negate grenade wielding enemies by retreating into the art museum?
No. That was an example of how stupid the question was. If the DESIGNER is trying to encode those limits into his game, the DESIGNER is an idiot.
You ever play a multiplayer game? Your buddy next to you with the Rocket Launcher dies, you have an SMG and you're fighting a Tank.
Again, that's a problem with the DESIGNER. It is acceptable for a HUMAN to face that decision. But if the HUMAN player is running over AI's with a tank, the DESIGNER is an idiot.
Conversely, what if he had a Sniper rifle? It's normally a superior weapon, but is it still superior in that particular situation?
What if he did.
In the real world, that sniper rifle would be adjusted for him. Not for you. Taking up someone else's weapon means that you'd have to adjust it. You usually don't have time for that. Which is why you only grab his weapon when your weapon is empty.
If the DESIGNER has written the game such that the enemies weapons are not sufficient, the DESIGNER is an idiot.
But they're really not.
Yes, they are. The guy who ran at you throwing grenades last time is now hiding behind a tree and shooting at you.
If the enemy picks one of two options regardless of what you do, you only need to learn a counter for each of the two options.
4 items, 2 options each gives a total of 10 different INDIVIDUAL tactics. And that's just the BASICS. Multiply that by the number of enemies you'll be facing at any one time (say 5) and you'll have FIFTY different scenarios. For each scene.
That's not counting specialized options that the designer puts in for a particular scene.
Adding just 1 addition option to those 4 gives you over a hundred different scenarios for each scene.
That's re-play-ability. Even at the most basic, 5 enemies in 5 scenes means that you'll have 250 different scenarios. Even taking just 2 plays to "master" a scenario gives you 500 complete playings.
Now, if you're crouched in cover with a Shotgun, you have the charge covered, so you only have to worry about when they take cover as well.
Unless they charge and throw grenades. In which case, you die.
Or if they advance towards you using cover. In which case, you die.
And that is the point here. The DESIGNER can easily pick the options that will defeat any particular defense. Once you enter their zone, if their randomly chosen attack defeats your static defense, then you die.
Instead of trying to learn the moves of the enemy, you'll need to master the controls of the game. You're focusing on claiming that you can learn the moves. Yes, you ca
How do you teach the AI to prioritize area effect weapons?
If yes then when enemy is in throw range throw grenades until grenades == 0 or enemy == 0.
What if the AI's in a place where he's not supposed to damage the enviroment?
If you've gotten to the point where you have to ask that, you've already too far. Ask yourself why you as the designer are giving grenades to the guards inside the art museum.
How does the AI decide if his dead teammate's weapon is better than his current one?
Why would he need to decide that? He'd use his weapon until it was empty or the enemy were all killed. Then the decision comes in to look for other weapons or to play dead.
Especially when the two weapons are extremely similar (2 different SMGs), what does the AI do then?
Again, he'd use his weapon until it was empty or there were no enemies. Then either look for another weapon or play dead.
Does the AI base it's decision to charge or cover on what the PC is using?
Nope.
Does the AI base it's decision to charge or cover on what the PC is using? If not then the AI's gonna be pathetic when the PC's taking cover with a shotgun.
Nope and that's the point. The tactics the PLAYERS will use will have to CHANGE each time they play because the tactics the enemy will use will have changed.
On top of that your sequence misses out on one of the best parts of modern AIs, in effect it's dumber than some current AIs. When an AI flanks you and you start taking fire from a direction you thought was safe it can be extremely surprising, and being surprised in a game is one of the best parts.
Why do you think that isn't possible in my scenario?
AIs need to advance because the smarter the AI the more options are available for the game.
The same can be said of processors and video cards.
For example, old games tend to have the enemies be a lot stronger that you and outnumber you because they're so dumb they need that to stand a chance (for a modern example think the brutes in Halo 2. Simple AI but they can take and deal a lot of damage).
Nope. That's just because it was easier to write them like that. That way there's no way for the players to "get lucky" and get through a level easily. The players have to gain "levels" and "equipment" to beat the "boss" monsters.
As AI's get smarter and smarter they can get closer and closer to the player's stats, until the AI and the player both are equal in terms of stats and ability.
Nope. Because the computer will always be able to process faster than the player. The computer will know exactly how far you are from it and which weapon will do the maximum damage at that range. And instantly switch to that weapon.
In addition smarter AIs make for awesome boss fights as the tired old strategy of 'the boss has 3x normal health and damage' can be retired and the boss can instead be more intelligent then the other characters but no stronger, which is both more realistic and fun.
You're falling back into the "boss" monster mentality. Why does the "boss" need to PERSONALLY be stronger, faster, smarter, etc?
Again, that's a holdover from the old 8-bit games. Kill the minions, kill the boss, grab the treasure, check xp to see if you gained a level, turn in the key, get better equipment, start the next level.
You don't need AI for that pattern. As I've demonstrated. The problem set is already defined by what equipment the players can have, what level they'll be (which yields hit point ranges and spell options) and the room.
With that, you could handle the boss simply by having a few more scripts he would use based upon the possible options I've listed. Of course, if you're still focused on the "boss" monster concept, then giving him a few more scripts makes more sense.
But is good AI really needed in games? Wouldn't it be enough to give the enemy AI's a few basic styles/options and what to do when they run out of ammo?
#1. Team options - how well do they operate together?
#2. Seek cover/concealment vs charge!
#3. Prioritize area effect weapons vs others (grenades vs pistol).
#4. Play dead vs pick up comrade's weapon.
You enter their zone, they have high team operations so they'll ALL have the same reactions. They ALL take cover and throw grenades at you.
You enter their zone, they have low team operations so they'll ALL be decided individually. "A" charges, firing his pistol as he runs. "B" ducks behind a tree and throws grenades until he's out then he fires until he's out and then he plays dead. "C" ducks behind a tree, shoots his pistol and then tries to move to a tree closer to you. When he's out of ammo, he grabs what he can off of "A"'s corpse and keeps fighting.
With a few options, each game will be very different.
Remember, this isn't about liking her. This is about poisoning their databases. For the best effect, purchase it on your credit card with the highest balance.
When they start cross-referencing those databases, the poison will just confirm itself and become "fact".
Some tend to confuse US citizens and residents with everyone else on the planet, and pretend that the Constitution actually applies to everyone on Earth (which it doesn't), or that it should (which it shouldn't - perhaps in an idealized world, someday, everyone can expect and enjoy such a baseline of freedoms and rights).
Who are these "some" that you're talking about?
On top of all of this, to those that think that administration officials are going to lie and ignore any and all laws anyway, then what difference does any wording of any law really make?
If you have to ask that then there's no use explaining it to you.
The LAWS we pass are what defines our country. So the wording of those laws DOES matter, even if the law will be ignored.
Most everyone would be opposed to having a law that said that no Jews could hold public office. Even if that law was mostly ignored.
"It does bring attention to certain activities that maybe aren't so great," said the self-proclaimed "Luddite," who confessed she doesn't even have a computer at home. "In hindsight, maybe that's not such a bad thing."
And this person is in charge of copyrights?
You know, there's a HUGE difference between a book and a DVD.
McBride listed IBM, Red Hat, Microsoft, and Sun Microsystems as distributors of Linux or other software that is "aggressively taking market share away from Unix."
It costs the ISP's money to turn off a customer's account... and then deal with the customer calling and swearing that HIS computer is not the problem.
The ISP's are NOT going to spend the money UNLESS they're facing larger fines if they do not do so.
Not to mention that the ISP's usually don't hire the best and brightest out there. I don't believe they could tell the difference between the slashdot effect and a DDoS. How many of the people here would be happy to find out that their they've been cut off because their machines were participating in a "DDoS" of some website? When all they were doing is hitting a site with a story with HUGE graphics?
Just like 99.99% of current email users whose current bolted on choice is no encryption, but instead it would be a relatively small number.
There is nothing "bolted on" regarding encryption right now.
It is simple to add it. Very simple. And just as simple to change it.
You want it built in so that when a flaw is found, the subsystem is replaced and everyone upgrades. And those that don't are left behind.
You're contradicting yourself. If it is "everyone" then there is no one who is "left behind".
And that is the problem with your plan. It depends upon everyone doing something when the reality is that such will not happen.
A. If your system has a graceful failure to allow email to be transmitted even if the other side has not upgraded, you'll end up with the exact situation we have today. Because 99.9% of the people will stick with their current systems. Net result - no change.
B. If your system does NOT have a graceful failure, then no one will adopt it because it will not work with any of the established email systems. And your inability to send/receive email with them will be DIRECTLY attributed to your deployment of this "better" technology that just does not work. Net result - no change.
Slashdot Mirror
You cannot forecast when to replace PC's? And you have 160+ users?
Huh?
Huh?
Even at 100+ users, we lease our workstations and replace them every 3 years. It's a known cycle and they're under warranty. Not to mention that there aren't any surprises for Accounting for the next 3 years.
Yeah, maybe you could just answer the question, okay?
Yeah, maybe you could just answer the question, okay?
Yeah, the question, care to answer it?
How would they KNOW it was Apache? You haven't answered that question, either.
I didn't ask if it was "unfair".
I asked how Apache would "fail" and how they'd even know that it was Apache.
You have not answered either of those questions.
Seeing as how you cannot answer either of those questions and you think $60,000 is a lot of money for a business and you cannot even forecast workstation purchases
I've been deploying Linux throughout the company I work at. And no one can tell the difference. As long as the service is available, they're happy.
Here's a free clue. Hardware fails. Real professions know this and have already taken steps to mitigate such failures. If a drive dies on your Apache server, the end users should not ever know about it.
If you're claiming that they'll be complaining about running Apache when that happens
So, $60,000. For 164 person company.
We're a little over a 100 people and we spend over $500,000 a year on a single contract.
Why would Apache "fail"?
And why would anyone not directly involved in it even know what you're running?
But you said, and I quote "I make buying decisions".
Noooooo...... What is "holding OSS back" is the fact that all those companies have LARGE investments in their current systems.
It takes a LONG time for companies to migrate from something that is working TODAY that they know how to support TODAY and that has been paid for TODAY.
That depends upon what you mean by "established".
Microsoft has a MONOPOLY. Therefore, they are going to be around for a LONG time.
People will continue to buy from Microsoft because it is what they know and what they use and what works.
Free software (as in speech) will be taken up by non-US governments and such. It's easier to pitch a change there when you can show $X (or whatever the local medium of exchange is) being sent to Redmond, Washington, USofA instead of into the local economy.
Can someone file a lawsuit and have your anonymity removed
A judge will have to "judge" whether the statements are libel or not.
As you've demonstrated, the "oracular" part is badly mistaken.
Amazon almost NEVER guesses something I'd buy.
If I buy a new DVD, I am instantly bombarded with ads for EVERY new DVD. I buy the new Terry Pratchett book and I'm bombarded with EVERY book by him or co-authored by him or licensed by him or whatever. I don't want derivatives.
I picked up the "V" comic book (graphic novel) and now I'm bombarded with every comic book they have.
As relates to your post, you can't be the only techo neo-pagan out there. But they just cannot fit you to that group, can they? Although it should be very, very easy to do so.
The companies making the products often hire politicians who voted to purchase those products to fight [crime|terrorism|kiddie_porn].
It's all an incestuous cycle.
Pop quiz, in the USofA are there:
#1. More terrorists?
#2. More crooked cops?
Now, which of these is this new surveillance technology supposed to protect you from and which ones will have it?
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/conductunbecoming/
Yes you can. Public Domain is less restrictive than just about anything else.
Yes, IF "either of them were strictly more permissive".
But they're not. Nor did I say they were. In a chart, they would be lateral to each other. The same licenses (such as Public Domain) that were acceptable to the GPLv2 would be acceptable to the GPLv3. But that does not mean that the GPLv2 is acceptable to the GPLv3.
Again, I did not say they were. In a chart they would be side by side. They have restrictions, but they have different restrictions. Anything BELOW them would have to have the SAME restrictions but FEWER of them.
Why isn't there a chart of the various licenses ranging from least restrictive to most restrictive?
That way it would be easy to show where a new license fit in and whether it was actually needed or whether it duplicated an existing one.
It would also show gaps where licenses do not exist right now.
And best of all, it would allow you to draw a line and say "anything below this line is compatible with the GPLv2 (or v3)".
As the various laws change, the chart would have to be updated. But it would solve this issue with Microsoft once and for all.
Don't confuse the two. There is nothing personality-wise that isn't shared by both genders.
On the other hand, he does kind of skip over the other professions that also discriminate against women. How about the military?
Yes, they had.
But the problem was that that port was left OPEN on machines that DID NOT NEED IT OPEN.
With security, you CANNOT rely upon the end user to keep current on patches. Your system HAS to be able to defend itself WITHOUT those patches.
And the simple way to do that is to not have ANY open ports by default.
Security is a process. You are arguing about the high end, theoretical levels
Exactly. The only people who have anything to worry about from the cameras are the "law abiding" people who do not support the current government and are willing to be seen protesting.
Not that your analogy is bad ... it just doesn't have the visceral impact.
http://linux.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=304087&cid=20688963
Yeah, it's mod'ed "flamebait" at the moment.
Naw. Lots of professions have ethical standards for their professionals.
Being a "professional" doesn't mean that you just do it for money. Although it can be used that way.
Being a "professional" also means that you follow the ethical standards of your profession. Otherwise your behaviour is "unprofessional".
The word you're thinking of is "whore" or "prostitute". One who sells one's abilities, talent, or name for an unworthy purpose.
Congratulations!
Indeed when his buddy was standing upon the gallows, only then did he cry (and loudly) about how evil his buddy had been for deceiving him and abusing his naive trust.
It shows his true character.
If Microsoft ever files a patent suit against Linux, do you believe that Lyons will not be the first and one of the loudest proclaiming the righteousness of Microsoft's claim?
He made up his mind that SCO was right ... and then he actively opposed any facts contradicting him.
... until they filed for bankruptcy and received a delisting letter.
He belittled Groklaw and PJ (and he is still doing so) for digging up the real facts while he kept repeating the "smoking gun" claim of SCO as a "fact".
I could have accepted that INITIALLY, but as Groklaw collected more and more facts from the EXPERTS (the people who WROTE *nix) there is no way anyone who didn't have an agenda could have still believed that SCO had a case.
Yet he kept right on supporting SCO
Yeah ... if he's out of bullets already. Otherwise you're hopping back and forth within his range of fire. Looks like you died, again.
I would guess that the app would shoot the players until one got within grenade range and then it would throw a grenade at that player.
When that player dies from the grenade, the app would switch to rifle and shoot the other players.
There aren't any novel tactics. It's shoot, move, in the open, concealment, cover, communicate.
You're talking about extreme edge cases. If you cannot kill him in a room before he can retreat, you've already lost due to the other tactics.
No. That was an example of how stupid the question was. If the DESIGNER is trying to encode those limits into his game, the DESIGNER is an idiot.
Again, that's a problem with the DESIGNER. It is acceptable for a HUMAN to face that decision. But if the HUMAN player is running over AI's with a tank, the DESIGNER is an idiot.
What if he did.
In the real world, that sniper rifle would be adjusted for him. Not for you. Taking up someone else's weapon means that you'd have to adjust it. You usually don't have time for that. Which is why you only grab his weapon when your weapon is empty.
If the DESIGNER has written the game such that the enemies weapons are not sufficient, the DESIGNER is an idiot.
Yes, they are. The guy who ran at you throwing grenades last time is now hiding behind a tree and shooting at you.
4 items, 2 options each gives a total of 10 different INDIVIDUAL tactics. And that's just the BASICS. Multiply that by the number of enemies you'll be facing at any one time (say 5) and you'll have FIFTY different scenarios. For each scene.
That's not counting specialized options that the designer puts in for a particular scene.
Adding just 1 addition option to those 4 gives you over a hundred different scenarios for each scene.
That's re-play-ability. Even at the most basic, 5 enemies in 5 scenes means that you'll have 250 different scenarios. Even taking just 2 plays to "master" a scenario gives you 500 complete playings.
Unless they charge and throw grenades. In which case, you die.
Or if they advance towards you using cover. In which case, you die.
And that is the point here. The DESIGNER can easily pick the options that will defeat any particular defense. Once you enter their zone, if their randomly chosen attack defeats your static defense, then you die.
Instead of trying to learn the moves of the enemy, you'll need to master the controls of the game. You're focusing on claiming that you can learn the moves. Yes, you ca
If yes then when enemy is in throw range throw grenades until grenades == 0 or enemy == 0.
If you've gotten to the point where you have to ask that, you've already too far. Ask yourself why you as the designer are giving grenades to the guards inside the art museum.
Why would he need to decide that? He'd use his weapon until it was empty or the enemy were all killed. Then the decision comes in to look for other weapons or to play dead.
Again, he'd use his weapon until it was empty or there were no enemies. Then either look for another weapon or play dead.
Nope.
Nope and that's the point. The tactics the PLAYERS will use will have to CHANGE each time they play because the tactics the enemy will use will have changed.
Why do you think that isn't possible in my scenario?
The same can be said of processors and video cards.
Nope. That's just because it was easier to write them like that. That way there's no way for the players to "get lucky" and get through a level easily. The players have to gain "levels" and "equipment" to beat the "boss" monsters.
Nope. Because the computer will always be able to process faster than the player. The computer will know exactly how far you are from it and which weapon will do the maximum damage at that range. And instantly switch to that weapon.
You're falling back into the "boss" monster mentality. Why does the "boss" need to PERSONALLY be stronger, faster, smarter, etc?
Again, that's a holdover from the old 8-bit games. Kill the minions, kill the boss, grab the treasure, check xp to see if you gained a level, turn in the key, get better equipment, start the next level.
You don't need AI for that pattern. As I've demonstrated. The problem set is already defined by what equipment the players can have, what level they'll be (which yields hit point ranges and spell options) and the room.
With that, you could handle the boss simply by having a few more scripts he would use based upon the possible options I've listed. Of course, if you're still focused on the "boss" monster concept, then giving him a few more scripts makes more sense.
Personally, I don't see the appeal in that.
Designing good AI is extremely difficult.
But is good AI really needed in games? Wouldn't it be enough to give the enemy AI's a few basic styles/options and what to do when they run out of ammo?
#1. Team options - how well do they operate together?
#2. Seek cover/concealment vs charge!
#3. Prioritize area effect weapons vs others (grenades vs pistol).
#4. Play dead vs pick up comrade's weapon.
You enter their zone, they have high team operations so they'll ALL have the same reactions. They ALL take cover and throw grenades at you.
You enter their zone, they have low team operations so they'll ALL be decided individually. "A" charges, firing his pistol as he runs. "B" ducks behind a tree and throws grenades until he's out then he fires until he's out and then he plays dead. "C" ducks behind a tree, shoots his pistol and then tries to move to a tree closer to you. When he's out of ammo, he grabs what he can off of "A"'s corpse and keeps fighting.
With a few options, each game will be very different.
Remember, this isn't about liking her. This is about poisoning their databases. For the best effect, purchase it on your credit card with the highest balance.
When they start cross-referencing those databases, the poison will just confirm itself and become "fact".
... of Ann Coulter's latest book and Atlas Shrugged.
Come on. What kind of bullshit is this? Wouldn't it be easier to be "classified" as "safe" just by carrying the right book?
Radical Muslim extremists could just walk through security with a copy of the Torah while wearing a kippah/yarmelke.
Who are these "some" that you're talking about?
If you have to ask that then there's no use explaining it to you.
The LAWS we pass are what defines our country. So the wording of those laws DOES matter, even if the law will be ignored.
Most everyone would be opposed to having a law that said that no Jews could hold public office. Even if that law was mostly ignored.
And this person is in charge of copyrights?
You know, there's a HUGE difference between a book and a DVD.
So
It costs the ISP's money to turn off a customer's account ... and then deal with the customer calling and swearing that HIS computer is not the problem.
The ISP's are NOT going to spend the money UNLESS they're facing larger fines if they do not do so.
Not to mention that the ISP's usually don't hire the best and brightest out there. I don't believe they could tell the difference between the slashdot effect and a DDoS. How many of the people here would be happy to find out that their they've been cut off because their machines were participating in a "DDoS" of some website? When all they were doing is hitting a site with a story with HUGE graphics?
There is nothing "bolted on" regarding encryption right now.
It is simple to add it. Very simple. And just as simple to change it.
You're contradicting yourself. If it is "everyone" then there is no one who is "left behind".
And that is the problem with your plan. It depends upon everyone doing something when the reality is that such will not happen.
A. If your system has a graceful failure to allow email to be transmitted even if the other side has not upgraded, you'll end up with the exact situation we have today. Because 99.9% of the people will stick with their current systems. Net result - no change.
B. If your system does NOT have a graceful failure, then no one will adopt it because it will not work with any of the established email systems. And your inability to send/receive email with them will be DIRECTLY attributed to your deployment of this "better" technology that just does not work. Net result - no change.