Yes, this is a worrying trend. Already "Email" for most people has been replaced by "Facebook messages" which is fine except the client sucks, there's only one and it's all totally under control of that company. It seems like more and more "facebook apps" are being created that slurp up functionality that previously has been done on top of open protocols... and all because the integration and easy "installation" makes people like to use it.
One day there may be no email, usenet, IM, IRC, or anything else. It could all be HTTP traffic to one of a handful of service providers like facebook who then do everything internally and, like AOL of old, fight to keep users and developers inside their walled garden.
I'm so glad you don't have exactly the same needs, wants and desires as everyone else in the universe. It's more fun when life is diverse. Can you accept that someone, such as the OP, probably has some good reason why he wants GPT and can't be convinced that "You don't need it because I can live without it" is an acceptable alternative?
Is it technically permitted for someone to read Slashdot and not know what Rogue is?
I'll define Roguelike for you: "You have died. Would you like to play again?" There's no other definition which is short and adequate to summarize the roguelike experience.
I disagree. It is entirely possible to win nethack without ever reading a guide or cheating, it just requires repetition. I know these day's it's considered horrifically bad if you can't win a game the first time you play through it but, thankfully, this poison has not spread to most roguelikes. Go, play, die. Keep learning, keep repeating until you understand what to do and what not to do and can survive to the end.
If you didn't want to play that kind of game I can recommend a number of fluffy web games with just enough difficulty to require you to sometimes pause before you click a button.
Except for "hack and slash" none of those have any relation to roguelikes. In fact it's ridiculously hard to define roguelikes briefly, which is part of why they're still called roguelikee.
I added Around the World in 80 Days to my cart one day and forgot about it. Later in the week I went back and saw a notice that the price of an item in my cart had changed. When I looked I found that the movie had gone from a modest ~20USD to over 800USD. I let it sit there and a few days later it changed again, this time to ~18USD. I bought it immediately before it could get worse again.
Even as an ardent socialist I cannot help but agree. This is the kind of government we don't need. If the federal government wants to propose a standard protocol for identity and authentication, that I would support. Proposing that any one entity, especially the government, be in control of this is insane. Microsoft Passport, anyone? The problem there wasn't the idea, it was one entity in control.
The problem isn't ignorance, the problem is teaching people to reject reason in favor of faith. Faith is all well and good but it does not build bridges or cure diseases (apocryphal stories to the contrary notwithstanding). Teaching children that rejecting reason is okay is always a recipe for disaster
You're out of line. Whilst is not nearly as archaic as your other examples and is still often found used for artistic or stylistic purposes, especially in formal contexts.
What you just did was either deliberate or innocent but it is certainly confusing the issue. GP: "Foo is bad, we don't want foo. Bar has foo, so we don't want bar." You: "But Foo has Baz! Baz is great, why wouldn't you want baz?" Don't do this, it makes you look like a troll.
The service that Steam provides is nice: online backups of games, easy reinstallation, etc.. That's a great service that any gamer should have the ability to opt in to for any game. I'd pay good money for that!
But DRM is just plain evil and no amount of it is acceptable. Online activation? Validity checks? Today maybe it's not too bad, but one day someone *will* go all Kindle on me and delete my game from my account and then remotely wipe it from my computer, because the copyright holder said so. "Jim, we're simply not selling enough copies of Superior KillZone 7. I think too many people are still playing Superior KillZone 6! Do a remote update and replace the game with an offer to upgrade to 7. Offer a 5$ discount." This isn't just possible, it's certain.
I do not want to be 'managed' by the game publisher. You take my money, I take your game. After that I never want to hear from you again until *I* decide to contact *you*. You don't deserve any information about me or what I do with your game or whether I install it once or a hundred times.
It's not unconstitutional. It's grade A dickery, but sure as hell it is constitutional. The constitution likely didn't intend for this sort of thing to happen but it was written in what we today would consider a very lax style that allows for a lot of wiggle room.
I'm very confused by all this. Are we talking about "Federated authentication" or "universal third-party login"? If we're talking about universal third-party login then what you say makes sense: we're arguing about who the third party is. If we're talking about federated authentication then what you say makes no sense.
OpenID or something like it is absolutely what we need. We need a system whereby I trust one or more providers who provide each one or more identities that I configure to one or more sites that I choose. Each site needs only to rely on authenticity and not identification. If the government wants to set up some kind of identification protocol which can be used to verify that a given Open ID identity corresponds to a given other identity (e.g., to a given citizen) then that's a reasonable service they can opt to provide. For most purposes the mere fact that the site can verify that the identity is authorized is more than sufficient.
Authentication matters, identification does not. As long as I can prove that I'm the same identity each time I don't need to prove who that is and that goes for financial transactions of all kinds.
I am mystified as to why the Japanese nuclear issues of today are being taken as a sign that nuclear is unsafe instead of being taken as the opposite.
Shall we review some facts? Using an old design that is less safe than what would be built today the Japan nuclear plants were built and maintained for decades without adverse effects on the population. It was only in the event of a "perfect storm" of disasters chained together that the plant failed: an earthquake and a tsunami and a failure of the backup generators. While the long term consequences, if any, are still being sorted out the focus should be on the story so far: All of the safety mechanisms worked as designed even in this fairly ridiculous scenario. To the extent that radiation was released it was a relatively minor amount that is not cause for immediate concern.
Why is the headline not "Thousands dead in Japan but not one due to nuclear disaster."? Despite all of the fear mongering going on I have yet to see any credible evidence that the amount of radiation released is capable of causing harm. This is an enormous vindication of nuclear energy!
Furthermore, to the extent that safety systems failed they failed in ways which would not be possible with newer plant designs. At the worst the headline should be "30 year old nuclear plants should have been replaced with modern designs before disaster struck."
Jackson's LotR films are far from perfect, having crap added and a lot of good things cut, but they are far, far closer to perfect than I ever expected to see from a Hollywood film based on the books. I mean, after all these years we *still* haven't got a halfway decent Alice in Wonderland, have we? A film based on a good book tends to be horrible, but at least LotR came pretty close. Sometimes you could squint and it would be just fine! If we can get a Hobbit that's as close I'll be contented enough.
This brings up an important--and dreadful--point: Where's the love interest? Neither LotR nor The Hobbit had one, really, but Jackson managed to read one in to LotR in a way which was palatable if not very smooth. In The Hobbit are there even [b]any[/b] girls? Certainly Bilbo can't have a love interest, so who? One of the dwarves? Gandalf? What exactly is Jackson going to do given that Hollywood has a formula for movies which demands a love interest?
Weighting is irrelevant. I didn't try to suggest that a harmful outcome is *probable*, only possible. It is up to you to weigh the benefit vs the cost and decide what to do. As I said, for me not using Facebook is very easy so it's easy to choose this option. In Pascal's wager I choose to risk hell for the same reasons: I weigh the cost and benefit of my choice against all (known) possible outcomes and come to the opposite conclusion. Your conclusion is up to you.
Personally I think the whole "information is power" thing is on its way out.
You could be right.
Let's do a quick cost/benefit analysis.
Scenario 1: You're right and you divulge possible-sensitive information via Facebook. Scenario 3: You're right and you don't divulge possible-sensitive information via Facebook. Scenario 2: You're wrong and you divulge possible-sensitive information via Facebook. Scenario 4: You're wrong and you don't divulge possible-sensitive information via Facebook.
Where HA=Harmless and DE=Detrimental please consult the following matrix of outcomes and tell me what you think.
S1 S2 S3 S4 HA HA DE HA
Now tell me: Which scenario is best to avoid?
There is no disadvantage to being right and safe except that you don't have the dubious privilege of using Facebook. I can live with that.
Slashdot Mirror
Scoff all you like, this kind of thing will be invaluable for space travel.
Yes, this is a worrying trend. Already "Email" for most people has been replaced by "Facebook messages" which is fine except the client sucks, there's only one and it's all totally under control of that company. It seems like more and more "facebook apps" are being created that slurp up functionality that previously has been done on top of open protocols... and all because the integration and easy "installation" makes people like to use it.
One day there may be no email, usenet, IM, IRC, or anything else. It could all be HTTP traffic to one of a handful of service providers like facebook who then do everything internally and, like AOL of old, fight to keep users and developers inside their walled garden.
I'm so glad you don't have exactly the same needs, wants and desires as everyone else in the universe. It's more fun when life is diverse. Can you accept that someone, such as the OP, probably has some good reason why he wants GPT and can't be convinced that "You don't need it because I can live without it" is an acceptable alternative?
Is it technically permitted for someone to read Slashdot and not know what Rogue is?
I'll define Roguelike for you: "You have died. Would you like to play again?" There's no other definition which is short and adequate to summarize the roguelike experience.
(If you're at a loss here the answer is YES.)
I disagree. It is entirely possible to win nethack without ever reading a guide or cheating, it just requires repetition. I know these day's it's considered horrifically bad if you can't win a game the first time you play through it but, thankfully, this poison has not spread to most roguelikes. Go, play, die. Keep learning, keep repeating until you understand what to do and what not to do and can survive to the end.
If you didn't want to play that kind of game I can recommend a number of fluffy web games with just enough difficulty to require you to sometimes pause before you click a button.
Except for "hack and slash" none of those have any relation to roguelikes. In fact it's ridiculously hard to define roguelikes briefly, which is part of why they're still called roguelikee.
I added Around the World in 80 Days to my cart one day and forgot about it. Later in the week I went back and saw a notice that the price of an item in my cart had changed. When I looked I found that the movie had gone from a modest ~20USD to over 800USD. I let it sit there and a few days later it changed again, this time to ~18USD. I bought it immediately before it could get worse again.
Perception affects funding. If you care about the experiment you should care about how it looks.
Even as an ardent socialist I cannot help but agree. This is the kind of government we don't need. If the federal government wants to propose a standard protocol for identity and authentication, that I would support. Proposing that any one entity, especially the government, be in control of this is insane. Microsoft Passport, anyone? The problem there wasn't the idea, it was one entity in control.
The problem isn't ignorance, the problem is teaching people to reject reason in favor of faith. Faith is all well and good but it does not build bridges or cure diseases (apocryphal stories to the contrary notwithstanding). Teaching children that rejecting reason is okay is always a recipe for disaster
You're out of line. Whilst is not nearly as archaic as your other examples and is still often found used for artistic or stylistic purposes, especially in formal contexts.
What you just did was either deliberate or innocent but it is certainly confusing the issue. GP: "Foo is bad, we don't want foo. Bar has foo, so we don't want bar." You: "But Foo has Baz! Baz is great, why wouldn't you want baz?" Don't do this, it makes you look like a troll.
The service that Steam provides is nice: online backups of games, easy reinstallation, etc.. That's a great service that any gamer should have the ability to opt in to for any game. I'd pay good money for that!
But DRM is just plain evil and no amount of it is acceptable. Online activation? Validity checks? Today maybe it's not too bad, but one day someone *will* go all Kindle on me and delete my game from my account and then remotely wipe it from my computer, because the copyright holder said so. "Jim, we're simply not selling enough copies of Superior KillZone 7. I think too many people are still playing Superior KillZone 6! Do a remote update and replace the game with an offer to upgrade to 7. Offer a 5$ discount." This isn't just possible, it's certain.
I do not want to be 'managed' by the game publisher. You take my money, I take your game. After that I never want to hear from you again until *I* decide to contact *you*. You don't deserve any information about me or what I do with your game or whether I install it once or a hundred times.
It's not unconstitutional. It's grade A dickery, but sure as hell it is constitutional. The constitution likely didn't intend for this sort of thing to happen but it was written in what we today would consider a very lax style that allows for a lot of wiggle room.
The slashdot thing was pretty bad, yeah, but at the time such a compromise was not nearly as ridiculous as it is to have one now.
I'm very confused by all this. Are we talking about "Federated authentication" or "universal third-party login"? If we're talking about universal third-party login then what you say makes sense: we're arguing about who the third party is. If we're talking about federated authentication then what you say makes no sense.
OpenID or something like it is absolutely what we need. We need a system whereby I trust one or more providers who provide each one or more identities that I configure to one or more sites that I choose. Each site needs only to rely on authenticity and not identification. If the government wants to set up some kind of identification protocol which can be used to verify that a given Open ID identity corresponds to a given other identity (e.g., to a given citizen) then that's a reasonable service they can opt to provide. For most purposes the mere fact that the site can verify that the identity is authorized is more than sufficient.
Authentication matters, identification does not. As long as I can prove that I'm the same identity each time I don't need to prove who that is and that goes for financial transactions of all kinds.
I am mystified as to why the Japanese nuclear issues of today are being taken as a sign that nuclear is unsafe instead of being taken as the opposite.
Shall we review some facts? Using an old design that is less safe than what would be built today the Japan nuclear plants were built and maintained for decades without adverse effects on the population. It was only in the event of a "perfect storm" of disasters chained together that the plant failed: an earthquake and a tsunami and a failure of the backup generators. While the long term consequences, if any, are still being sorted out the focus should be on the story so far: All of the safety mechanisms worked as designed even in this fairly ridiculous scenario. To the extent that radiation was released it was a relatively minor amount that is not cause for immediate concern.
Why is the headline not "Thousands dead in Japan but not one due to nuclear disaster."? Despite all of the fear mongering going on I have yet to see any credible evidence that the amount of radiation released is capable of causing harm. This is an enormous vindication of nuclear energy!
Furthermore, to the extent that safety systems failed they failed in ways which would not be possible with newer plant designs. At the worst the headline should be "30 year old nuclear plants should have been replaced with modern designs before disaster struck."
This is correct. If you can find an edition of The Hobbit without the later revisions you can sell it for quite a lot of money.
Jackson's LotR films are far from perfect, having crap added and a lot of good things cut, but they are far, far closer to perfect than I ever expected to see from a Hollywood film based on the books. I mean, after all these years we *still* haven't got a halfway decent Alice in Wonderland, have we? A film based on a good book tends to be horrible, but at least LotR came pretty close. Sometimes you could squint and it would be just fine! If we can get a Hobbit that's as close I'll be contented enough.
What if microsoft brought out an android knockoff with office connectivity, all the specs of the iPhone 4, and for $300.
They could. I wish they would. They won't.
If anyone could just knock off the iPhone then everyone would. It's not patents that hold them back, it's ability.
This brings up an important--and dreadful--point: Where's the love interest? Neither LotR nor The Hobbit had one, really, but Jackson managed to read one in to LotR in a way which was palatable if not very smooth. In The Hobbit are there even [b]any[/b] girls? Certainly Bilbo can't have a love interest, so who? One of the dwarves? Gandalf? What exactly is Jackson going to do given that Hollywood has a formula for movies which demands a love interest?
I can't decide whether to mod you +1 Funny or -100 AAAUGH, so I'm replying instead,
Uh, carry on.
Weighting is irrelevant. I didn't try to suggest that a harmful outcome is *probable*, only possible. It is up to you to weigh the benefit vs the cost and decide what to do. As I said, for me not using Facebook is very easy so it's easy to choose this option. In Pascal's wager I choose to risk hell for the same reasons: I weigh the cost and benefit of my choice against all (known) possible outcomes and come to the opposite conclusion. Your conclusion is up to you.
There is no line. Children have (almost) no rights, only their parents have rights.
puddipuddi, amirite?
On a similar note I'm for the return of forced anon. The tripfagging has gotten totally out of hand.
Personally I think the whole "information is power" thing is on its way out.
You could be right.
Let's do a quick cost/benefit analysis.
Scenario 1: You're right and you divulge possible-sensitive information via Facebook.
Scenario 3: You're right and you don't divulge possible-sensitive information via Facebook.
Scenario 2: You're wrong and you divulge possible-sensitive information via Facebook.
Scenario 4: You're wrong and you don't divulge possible-sensitive information via Facebook.
Where HA=Harmless and DE=Detrimental please consult the following matrix of outcomes and tell me what you think.
Now tell me: Which scenario is best to avoid?
There is no disadvantage to being right and safe except that you don't have the dubious privilege of using Facebook. I can live with that.