Going too fast around a corner? Don't be stupid and you won't be too fast.
Underestimating your speed at a corner? Stop being stupid and don't estimate incorrectly.
These things are preventable by being observant and experienced. A salient argument would be "Someone pops out from a blind corner and dashes in to the road! You were going above the posted speed limit and cannot avoid hitting him, or avoid it only to drive your vehicle into an immobile object and do harm to yourself." This is the kind of objection I expected someone to make! Of course it's a slippery slope since there are many speeds at which you have insufficient time to react to many things and part of knowing how to drive is choosing the risk-to-speed ratio that is most appropriate at any given time. It is certainly nice to have some posted guidelines, but the posted speed is also not a magic talisman that prevents risk. All driving has risk and it is the driver's responsibility, not the signmaker's, to decide how fast is too fast.
Your only sound argument is "The faster you go, the less control you have." Everything else you say backs up my assertion: Speeding doesn't kill anyone, being stupid behind the wheel kills a lot of people.
As for your sound argument I can only say that there is a line between acceptable an unacceptable risk (else no one would be permitted to driver over 10mph, or at all). Where that line lies varies by condition, vehicle, driver, and other things. No posted speed can possibly be correct.
The best thing you can do to be safe on the road is to know your own limits, know your vehicle's capabilities and to pay attention. Don't be stupid! While doing that you can drive any speed you like with a high degree of safety.
The first 15-30 minutes would be the setup and everything going wrong, the rest would be the lone protagonist blowing away demons and trying to get to safety. The end would be when he gets to safety. The result would be part horror/suspense and part action/gore and would probably be quite enjoyable to people who like that sort of movie. Remember Killdozer? Now there was a movie that was light on story, and yet it worked. Maybe *you* wouldn't like to sit through an hour of running, shooting, wading through blood and corpses and highly unrealistic body counts but I sure would.
Very much this! The people making the movies don't care for the original. Even when they profess to do so you still get horrors like "Scooby Do." My suggestion to any studio looking to have a film of a game created: Get it in the contract that your people get to approve the final script, the director and retain creative control. Get people on board who understand your game. If possible retain some financial control of production, that always makes people pay attention.
Oh I think they've played the games and realised how utterly paper thin, stupid, derivative, repetitive or outright silly most game plots are.
I rather see that as a good thing for movie adaptations. This isn't like a novel where every scene description and line of dialog must be preserved to avoid angering fans. The fact that the plots are thin means that you have a lot of room to add meat in between. If you're seriously complaining about the plots being derivative, repetitive or silly I recommend you go and watch the movies that Hollywood makes that are not based on games!
Thin plots can be fleshed out, stupid parts can be massaged, the rest is par for the course. What I don't want to see is some moron of a scriptwriter "reinterpreting" the game plot for the screen. "We'll add some characters, change the names of others, change the setting, change some genders around, change the hero's goal, change his motivations and add in some kid-friendly talking animal!" If you're doing that why not write your own damn movie since you clearly did that anyway?
On a totally related note I really want to see the original Commander Keen as a movie. It doesn't take much to make it work, just take the 'plot outline' that is the game plot and craft a movie that tells a similar story.
The sad thing, actually, is that Doom could have worked very well as a movie. The original game had not much in the way of plot with plenty of room to maneuver and create something compelling. All you needed to do was have a science experiment on mars go wrong and have everyone die and have our isolated hero desperately try to survive. You can throw in as much mindless violence and gore as you like, at that point. The genre of a Doom movie should be Action-Horror!
But what did we get instead? A team of people, a love interest (?), no demons, not very good monsters. The whole film would be worthless except for the last 15 minutes or so where we get to see some FPS action (it wasn't necessary but it worked well) and some friends-turned-bad angst. Oh, and gore, and berserk rage. It wasn't great, but it had the flavor of Doom.
An actual Doom-like movie would be so *easy* and fun, too, without pissing off fans or moviegoers. It wouldn't be art, it wouldn't meet all of the standard cliches, but not all films must! But, unfortunately, the people who make movies are largely braindead beancounters who have no concept of what they're doing.
Thank you for this. I find it all very fascinating and am glad other nerds have done the tests that local cops would certainly prevent me from completing. I know my peak efficiency is far above the 50-70mph speeds that I can safely get up to on local roads. My car is a 2003 Crystler Pt Cruiser GT and likely peaks a little past 100mpg, from what I've read and what I see at 85mph (when I can go that fast!) They rate it as 24 highway and yet I always get at least 26 with a mix of city and highway driving. I expect the official numbers for highway driving are based on being under federal speed limits.
I disagree. Using liters would be a harder sell in theory but in practice no one will care. "N out of X, smaller N is better" is all anyone will learn whether the N and X are liters and kilometers or gallons and miles. In fact, if you introduces the measurement as N/X without any units specified and labeled it generically as an "gas efficiency rating" then it would be easy to sell and those in the know would be able to tell what it really meant.
In fact you'd be better to express it as 100 - N so that higher is better. "88.24 efficiency rating? Your car isn't as good as mine, I get 95.3!"
Should someone be able to say whatever she likes? Yes. Should there be no negative consequences? Yes. In the real world is this the case? No. Was she aware of the risk she was running? Probably not. Should she be aware? Yes. Should the risk exist? No. Does the risk exist? Yes.
Do you see what I am getting at here? I am describing reality, not telling anyone not to exercise their freedoms. Go ahead! Be controversial. I approve. be aware that not everyone likes it, though, and that you are running a risk. If you don't like that risk then being anonymous is a good way to avoid it. If you aren't sure if you want to take such risks then perhaps you should be anonymous by default and not anonymous only when you're sure you want it to be on permanent record. Posting remarks you wouldn't want everyone to know about you forever is stupid; you should have not associated those remarks with yourself if you didn't want everyone to know about them forever,or you should have said nothing. I'm not saying not to post, I am saying you should know what you're doing and what you're agreeing to when you do so.
People curb their right to free expression constantly. I avoid swearing at work whenever possible, for example, and could be reprimanded or even terminated if I didn't and someone complained. What one says on the Internet is said at work, at home, and to everyone who has read access. You can choose to accept the risk that certainly exists and say anything you like. In fact if you do this I applaud you for it. What I want to do is make people aware that there is a risk that is being run. If you don't mind... good. They might. She likely did.
Sadly though, America has gone stupid and you, like so many others in this country, think the delicate sensibilities of political correctness must be maintained at every moment, applied to every person, and in every situation.
I said nothing of the kind and I think nothing of the kind. I am all in favor of anyone saying anything at any time to any one for any reason, and to hell with what you, I, or anyone thinks! If you want to call your boss a motherfucker I support your right to do so. If you want to go to court and prove that free speech means that you can say that and he can't fire you for it, good! I support your right to do that, too.
I doubt the lady in the article intended to engage in such a suit. If you post something on the internet with the assumption that it's private or temporary and find later that it's public and permanent you may have inadvertently put yourself in a position of being required to defend your rights against unreasonable attack. People seem to be blind about this; I was merely attempting to inform people of what they are really doing when they are posting on the internet.
A good workaround for not altering your behavior and not becoming a target is to simply post under one or more aliases. In fact, last I knew this was still recommended by every privacy group who has a policy about this sort of thing.
I disagree with your conclusion. Hell-tinted classes, as you say, will not necessarily result in these two outcomes. Should these outcomes be the only ones I don't agree that these two outcomes are bad.
First, amorality is not necessarily psychologically damaging. To those who are suited to it, it is likely to be less damaging than other options. Some anecdotal evidence that some people cannot handle it is not significant.
Paranoia, even more so, is something that depends on your personality. A little paranoia is healthy and it only becomes damaging when taken to extremes. If possible I choose my seat in a restaurant so that I have my back to the wall and a view of the door. Is this paranoia? Technically yes, but it is harmless at worst since I am not greatly bothered if I cannot do it. Maintaining a level of paranoia above your comfortable norm is what will wreck your nerves and such is hardly necessary most of the time.
In my experience society is mostly lawful neutral, tending toward lawful evil. I don't feel that this view has caused me the slightest trouble in life or in psyche.
If you don't like these facts, and think one should be able to say anything with one's name attached without any chance of things like this happening, then good! So do I. Your average non-geek doesn't think twice about topics like this which is why there is not likely to be any change this generation. More people are going to keep getting burned by this. The best advice I can give is to educate people: Writing on the internet isn't like a letter to grandma, or like talking in a bar with your friends. It's different. I can't change society but I can (maybe) educate someone enough to save himself from the kind of wrongheaded notion about what the internet is that leads to unfortunate situations like this.
HP laser printers are workhorses and IMO the gold standard in affordable printing. I remember one ancient Laserjet 4 that was still chugging along after a decade of use and this is by no means atypical. Most people would rather buy a cheap $50 inkjet then spend $500 on a decent laser model, even though the lifetime costs are far, far less.
Ridiculous. When I finally got around to signing up for Facebook I used a fake name. It's not false information, it's just not my legal name. Everyone is free to do the same thing. If this does not add value to Facebook because Facebook cannot use this to track down my associates... I weep very little for Facebook.
I don't agree that her remarks, joke or not, merit termination, but I do agree that her behavior was stupid.
People need to learn this and learn it well: Whatever you post on the internet is forever and irrevocably attached to you and will be used against you in every way possible. This is not like other, earlier forms of communication because in other, earlier forms of communication remarks were not preserved and were mostly limited to a small set of known recipients.
This is why your internet handle should not be your name. This is why routine anonymity is a good thing for everyone. Yes, her employer acted badly and yes, whoever reported her is a humorless jerk. You cannot build a society on the assumption that there are no jerks and everyone has truth and justice as their primary motive!
Don't post anything on facebook, or any other site, unless you want it to be known by all future employers, the police, all future boy- and girl-friends, your mother, your current or future children, historians attempting to demonize you, etc., etc.. It is no exaggeration to say that what she did was stupid and that she, and everyone, ought to know better. A joke among friends is one thing, a joke to your boss's face is quite another; and (like it or not) when you post on facebook you are talking directly to your boss, and your mother, and the cops, and so forth and so on.
Yes, this is a bit like copyleft... and that's why it's a good idea. This is better than the public domain because the public domain doesn't restrain bad actors.
1: current automatic copyright system but only for a very limited time, say less than a year. 2: if you want longer protection you have to register it by giving a full clean, unencrypted copy to something like the british library- a legal deposit library, it receives copies of all books produced in the United Kingdom.
This sounds good, especially if the initial registration is cheap and copyright extensions are available but require increasingly crushing fees.
Always provide two options, one so hideously awful that he won't ever pick it, and the other being the one you want.
That said if my boss told me "I don't believe you, prove it" I'd have just told him "You are paying me because of my knowledge and experience. My knowledge and experience tell me that this is the correct answer. You can either rely on the expertise you hired and take my recommendation or you can fire me and I'll go work for someone who doesn't second guess experts."
Slashdot Mirror
Mod parent up.
AOL is trying to say that providing a compatible implementation that is open source is against their license.
Your story intrigues me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Too bad they didn't go with NetBSD (portability, or something).
Antivirus would be an optional feature sold and installed by the dealer.
...for a mere $500 extra.
Going too fast around a corner? Don't be stupid and you won't be too fast.
Underestimating your speed at a corner? Stop being stupid and don't estimate incorrectly.
These things are preventable by being observant and experienced. A salient argument would be "Someone pops out from a blind corner and dashes in to the road! You were going above the posted speed limit and cannot avoid hitting him, or avoid it only to drive your vehicle into an immobile object and do harm to yourself." This is the kind of objection I expected someone to make! Of course it's a slippery slope since there are many speeds at which you have insufficient time to react to many things and part of knowing how to drive is choosing the risk-to-speed ratio that is most appropriate at any given time. It is certainly nice to have some posted guidelines, but the posted speed is also not a magic talisman that prevents risk. All driving has risk and it is the driver's responsibility, not the signmaker's, to decide how fast is too fast.
Your only sound argument is "The faster you go, the less control you have." Everything else you say backs up my assertion: Speeding doesn't kill anyone, being stupid behind the wheel kills a lot of people.
As for your sound argument I can only say that there is a line between acceptable an unacceptable risk (else no one would be permitted to driver over 10mph, or at all). Where that line lies varies by condition, vehicle, driver, and other things. No posted speed can possibly be correct.
The best thing you can do to be safe on the road is to know your own limits, know your vehicle's capabilities and to pay attention. Don't be stupid! While doing that you can drive any speed you like with a high degree of safety.
Exactly. This is why I said "Being stupid" did kill people.
The first 15-30 minutes would be the setup and everything going wrong, the rest would be the lone protagonist blowing away demons and trying to get to safety. The end would be when he gets to safety. The result would be part horror/suspense and part action/gore and would probably be quite enjoyable to people who like that sort of movie. Remember Killdozer? Now there was a movie that was light on story, and yet it worked. Maybe *you* wouldn't like to sit through an hour of running, shooting, wading through blood and corpses and highly unrealistic body counts but I sure would.
Very much this! The people making the movies don't care for the original. Even when they profess to do so you still get horrors like "Scooby Do." My suggestion to any studio looking to have a film of a game created: Get it in the contract that your people get to approve the final script, the director and retain creative control. Get people on board who understand your game. If possible retain some financial control of production, that always makes people pay attention.
Oh I think they've played the games and realised how utterly paper thin, stupid, derivative, repetitive or outright silly most game plots are.
I rather see that as a good thing for movie adaptations. This isn't like a novel where every scene description and line of dialog must be preserved to avoid angering fans. The fact that the plots are thin means that you have a lot of room to add meat in between. If you're seriously complaining about the plots being derivative, repetitive or silly I recommend you go and watch the movies that Hollywood makes that are not based on games!
Thin plots can be fleshed out, stupid parts can be massaged, the rest is par for the course. What I don't want to see is some moron of a scriptwriter "reinterpreting" the game plot for the screen. "We'll add some characters, change the names of others, change the setting, change some genders around, change the hero's goal, change his motivations and add in some kid-friendly talking animal!" If you're doing that why not write your own damn movie since you clearly did that anyway?
On a totally related note I really want to see the original Commander Keen as a movie. It doesn't take much to make it work, just take the 'plot outline' that is the game plot and craft a movie that tells a similar story.
The sad thing, actually, is that Doom could have worked very well as a movie. The original game had not much in the way of plot with plenty of room to maneuver and create something compelling. All you needed to do was have a science experiment on mars go wrong and have everyone die and have our isolated hero desperately try to survive. You can throw in as much mindless violence and gore as you like, at that point. The genre of a Doom movie should be Action-Horror!
But what did we get instead? A team of people, a love interest (?), no demons, not very good monsters. The whole film would be worthless except for the last 15 minutes or so where we get to see some FPS action (it wasn't necessary but it worked well) and some friends-turned-bad angst. Oh, and gore, and berserk rage. It wasn't great, but it had the flavor of Doom.
An actual Doom-like movie would be so *easy* and fun, too, without pissing off fans or moviegoers. It wouldn't be art, it wouldn't meet all of the standard cliches, but not all films must! But, unfortunately, the people who make movies are largely braindead beancounters who have no concept of what they're doing.
Thank you for this. I find it all very fascinating and am glad other nerds have done the tests that local cops would certainly prevent me from completing. I know my peak efficiency is far above the 50-70mph speeds that I can safely get up to on local roads. My car is a 2003 Crystler Pt Cruiser GT and likely peaks a little past 100mpg, from what I've read and what I see at 85mph (when I can go that fast!) They rate it as 24 highway and yet I always get at least 26 with a mix of city and highway driving. I expect the official numbers for highway driving are based on being under federal speed limits.
I disagree. Using liters would be a harder sell in theory but in practice no one will care. "N out of X, smaller N is better" is all anyone will learn whether the N and X are liters and kilometers or gallons and miles. In fact, if you introduces the measurement as N/X without any units specified and labeled it generically as an "gas efficiency rating" then it would be easy to sell and those in the know would be able to tell what it really meant.
In fact you'd be better to express it as 100 - N so that higher is better. "88.24 efficiency rating? Your car isn't as good as mine, I get 95.3!"
Speeding never killed anyone. Being stupid behind the wheel of a car, however, has killed a lot of people.
Should someone be able to say whatever she likes? Yes. Should there be no negative consequences? Yes. In the real world is this the case? No. Was she aware of the risk she was running? Probably not. Should she be aware? Yes. Should the risk exist? No. Does the risk exist? Yes.
Do you see what I am getting at here? I am describing reality, not telling anyone not to exercise their freedoms. Go ahead! Be controversial. I approve. be aware that not everyone likes it, though, and that you are running a risk. If you don't like that risk then being anonymous is a good way to avoid it. If you aren't sure if you want to take such risks then perhaps you should be anonymous by default and not anonymous only when you're sure you want it to be on permanent record. Posting remarks you wouldn't want everyone to know about you forever is stupid; you should have not associated those remarks with yourself if you didn't want everyone to know about them forever,or you should have said nothing. I'm not saying not to post, I am saying you should know what you're doing and what you're agreeing to when you do so.
People curb their right to free expression constantly. I avoid swearing at work whenever possible, for example, and could be reprimanded or even terminated if I didn't and someone complained. What one says on the Internet is said at work, at home, and to everyone who has read access. You can choose to accept the risk that certainly exists and say anything you like. In fact if you do this I applaud you for it. What I want to do is make people aware that there is a risk that is being run. If you don't mind... good. They might. She likely did.
Sadly though, America has gone stupid and you, like so many others in this country, think the delicate sensibilities of political correctness must be maintained at every moment, applied to every person, and in every situation.
I said nothing of the kind and I think nothing of the kind. I am all in favor of anyone saying anything at any time to any one for any reason, and to hell with what you, I, or anyone thinks! If you want to call your boss a motherfucker I support your right to do so. If you want to go to court and prove that free speech means that you can say that and he can't fire you for it, good! I support your right to do that, too.
I doubt the lady in the article intended to engage in such a suit. If you post something on the internet with the assumption that it's private or temporary and find later that it's public and permanent you may have inadvertently put yourself in a position of being required to defend your rights against unreasonable attack. People seem to be blind about this; I was merely attempting to inform people of what they are really doing when they are posting on the internet.
A good workaround for not altering your behavior and not becoming a target is to simply post under one or more aliases. In fact, last I knew this was still recommended by every privacy group who has a policy about this sort of thing.
I disagree with your conclusion. Hell-tinted classes, as you say, will not necessarily result in these two outcomes. Should these outcomes be the only ones I don't agree that these two outcomes are bad.
First, amorality is not necessarily psychologically damaging. To those who are suited to it, it is likely to be less damaging than other options. Some anecdotal evidence that some people cannot handle it is not significant.
Paranoia, even more so, is something that depends on your personality. A little paranoia is healthy and it only becomes damaging when taken to extremes. If possible I choose my seat in a restaurant so that I have my back to the wall and a view of the door. Is this paranoia? Technically yes, but it is harmless at worst since I am not greatly bothered if I cannot do it. Maintaining a level of paranoia above your comfortable norm is what will wreck your nerves and such is hardly necessary most of the time.
In my experience society is mostly lawful neutral, tending toward lawful evil. I don't feel that this view has caused me the slightest trouble in life or in psyche.
If you don't like these facts, and think one should be able to say anything with one's name attached without any chance of things like this happening, then good! So do I. Your average non-geek doesn't think twice about topics like this which is why there is not likely to be any change this generation. More people are going to keep getting burned by this. The best advice I can give is to educate people: Writing on the internet isn't like a letter to grandma, or like talking in a bar with your friends. It's different. I can't change society but I can (maybe) educate someone enough to save himself from the kind of wrongheaded notion about what the internet is that leads to unfortunate situations like this.
HP laser printers are workhorses and IMO the gold standard in affordable printing. I remember one ancient Laserjet 4 that was still chugging along after a decade of use and this is by no means atypical. Most people would rather buy a cheap $50 inkjet then spend $500 on a decent laser model, even though the lifetime costs are far, far less.
Ridiculous. When I finally got around to signing up for Facebook I used a fake name. It's not false information, it's just not my legal name. Everyone is free to do the same thing. If this does not add value to Facebook because Facebook cannot use this to track down my associates... I weep very little for Facebook.
I don't agree that her remarks, joke or not, merit termination, but I do agree that her behavior was stupid.
People need to learn this and learn it well: Whatever you post on the internet is forever and irrevocably attached to you and will be used against you in every way possible. This is not like other, earlier forms of communication because in other, earlier forms of communication remarks were not preserved and were mostly limited to a small set of known recipients.
This is why your internet handle should not be your name. This is why routine anonymity is a good thing for everyone. Yes, her employer acted badly and yes, whoever reported her is a humorless jerk. You cannot build a society on the assumption that there are no jerks and everyone has truth and justice as their primary motive!
Don't post anything on facebook, or any other site, unless you want it to be known by all future employers, the police, all future boy- and girl-friends, your mother, your current or future children, historians attempting to demonize you, etc., etc.. It is no exaggeration to say that what she did was stupid and that she, and everyone, ought to know better. A joke among friends is one thing, a joke to your boss's face is quite another; and (like it or not) when you post on facebook you are talking directly to your boss, and your mother, and the cops, and so forth and so on.
Yes, this is a bit like copyleft... and that's why it's a good idea. This is better than the public domain because the public domain doesn't restrain bad actors.
1: current automatic copyright system but only for a very limited time, say less than a year.
2: if you want longer protection you have to register it by giving a full clean, unencrypted copy to something like the british library- a legal deposit library, it receives copies of all books produced in the United Kingdom.
This sounds good, especially if the initial registration is cheap and copyright extensions are available but require increasingly crushing fees.
Always provide two options, one so hideously awful that he won't ever pick it, and the other being the one you want.
That said if my boss told me "I don't believe you, prove it" I'd have just told him "You are paying me because of my knowledge and experience. My knowledge and experience tell me that this is the correct answer. You can either rely on the expertise you hired and take my recommendation or you can fire me and I'll go work for someone who doesn't second guess experts."
But yeah, I'd definitely be fired for that.