2. Does anybody know of a Space trading game like Eve, that is free to play? Even a well done single player game would be cool. I've tried a lot, and Starknights and a 1 year old shareware game are the best I've found.
I think you missed the point. He's saying that it should be possible to group with higher level characters (who don't have their stats adjusted) for the purpose of adventuring, not leveling.
True, I was just nitpicking that CoH did it first.
There is one game where high level characters can group with low level characters and neither party gets their stats adjusted... ToonTown. The game doesn't really have levels, its more skills based. But there aren't any restrictions on who can group with who. One does need to complete some "quests" to gain access to certain areas, tho.
The game isn't bad and it entertained me for a while. It is geared more towards a gamer parent and his/her child but it still well done.
In all the games today the focus is generally to aquire levels and to aquire loot (not including pvp related stuff). We have enough of those games. Wouldn't it be great to have a game where those goals were secondary to simply having fun and adventuring in the old fashion PnP style? There are some people who try to play WoW that way, but the experience is not very rewarding because all the content is designed for the other type of player; the one who just wants loot and xp.
"Adventuring" can be a vague word, "fun" even more so. And that's the rub when creating a MMORPG. Creating a "fun adventure" that someone will be willing to pay a monthly subscription for it. Its easier to point out problems, than find solutions.;)
For me adventuring in a MMORPG generally means exploring a new region/dungeon. Usually killing stuff along the way but sometimes the adventure is just reaching a "high level" town without getting killed along the way. Or maybe getting an ingredient needed for crafting. Those tend to be solo adventures but sometimes I can recuit help to kill the monsters.
WoW's world is much too small for anything other than xp grinding. The original Asheron's Call had a much bigger world and provided more than few exploration adventures for me & friends. Anarchy Online's world is pretty big too but doesn't random abandoned castles(filled with mobs to kill) that AC has. AO does have guided tours of areas, which are kinda neat. No level restrictions and you get some back story from a live human(the guide).
Regardless of the world's size, eventually one runs out of places to explore.... at least until an expansion pack is released. But basically the virtual world is finite in size. AO does have dynamically created dungeons but they don't really count, its just a random generated floor plan.
Not sure a MMORPG will ever really capture the fun and adventuring in the old fashion PnP style simply because the environment is too different. e.g. there is always a new area to explore. I agree that NWN(or Torque) are the best bet because the content is player created.
You might want to check out A Tale in the Desert. They offer a free trial and both windows & linux clients.
It is a completely different kind of MMORPG. It has a really strong and involved community. For example they(the players) are able to pass laws that affect the virtual world. There is no combat; just exploring, building stuff and completing trials. And for a twist it has an end. I played a bit in the "First Telling", while the eye candy isn't much it is an interesting game.
In the end the real trick is finding like-minded adventurers and being able to all get online at the same time. After that its just making the most of what that virtual world has to offer. If that world doesn't have much to offer, then move on there's a ton of mmorpgs out there.
I played/sampled the D&D beta and was completely unimpressed. And I've played a wide variety of mmorpg and some real B grade ones at that. To me it came off as a cross of AC2 & Guild Wars. Guild Wars is better.
Grouping up with a high level was added to EQ2 with the high level then lowering his level to yours but it is a pain. You got to find a really nice person who is willing to help you level up and that is exactly what they will be doing, trying to get you to level up as fast as possible.
Actually City of Heroes was the first to have this feature. If I'm remembering right, originally it allowed lower level toons to be a higher level toon's sidekick, artifically inflating the lower level's fighting abilities while near-by the high level character. Later they added the "reverse" sidekick/mentor option, allowing a high level character to be a low level character's sidekick and thus reducing the higher level's fighting abilities & available skills.
Will it avoid the level grinding trap of other MMORPG games or will it to have endless walktrhoughs for levelling up the fastest
I think levels in MMORPGs are here to stay, even if the game is more skills based(e.g. Asheron's Call) than level based(e.g Everquest). The levels are goals, something to be accomplished and from a publisher's point of view a reason to charge a monthly fee. It is also a "hook"... so close to leveling, must stay awake.
FPS(e.g. Quake) don't charge a monthly fee to play. Well, maybe do now... I haven't played a FPS regularly since the FvF mod for Quake.
Comparing FPS to MMORPG isn't really an apples-to-apples comparsion. MMORPG are basically graphical muds or at least that is how they started. Today's call for more PvP is moving MMORPG closer to FPS. The most interesting FPS+MMORPG hybrid I've played was Endless Ages. It was point&shoot combat, not point&click. A lvl 1 player could beat a lvl 10 player.
On the crafting front, the biggest problem I've seen is the crafter is rarely able to make stuff usable(or desirable to use) at his level and/or better than loot drops. Crafting always seems to be an after-thought and no dicussion with loot devs. Haven't played enough Eve to comment on its crafting.
It is a relatively modern Idea that Freedom is equal to Privacy. While the truth they are rather disjunct concepts. You still have the right of free speech you can still say whatever you want and just as long as it doesn't cause direct harm, (Like yelling Fire in a crowded room) you have the right to say it. But just recently the right of privacy seems to be implicit to your freedom of speech. With freedom of speech (At least the American ideal) you should be able to state your views without getting arrested for it. But it doesn't state that you can say it without anyone knowing that you said it.
False.
You should revisit American history around the time of the American Revolution. The Federalist Papers were written under a pen name by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. Hoping you have heard of at least one of those.
The pamlets supporting the idea of breaking away from Britian were written under pen names to protect the lives of the authors. The idea of anonymous speech dates back to the birth of the USA. The US Supreme Court has upheld that anonymous speech is a corner stone of free speech. Without anonymous speech, one does *not* have free speech.
You should read at least Amendment 9 of the Bill of Rights.
Please yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre using your free will.
Why, would I want do that? Free will does allow me do that action. However it would be in bad form and it has generally been agreed upon that there are consequences to be paid when exercising one's free will in that manor. Along with free will is a thing called self-restraint. The ying to free will's yang, if you will. Or to nab a quote from Spiderman..." with great power, comes great responsibility".
Secondly, you missed my point. Any person that disagrees with this school's policy can remove their child. Any person 18 or older can remove themselves. Freedom of speech doesn't apply, this school is not the government.
You're right that I did pretty much skip pass your point. I disagree. I believe Freedom of speech does apply. A person regardless of age has freedom of speech. See Tinker v. Des Moines
While do I believe that kids shouldn't being posting personal details willy-nilly on the 'net, they shouldn't also be completely banned from posting and interacting with people on the internet. The level of interaction is upon to the child's parent(s).
I also find it kinda of ironic that a Catholic high school would attempt to take away "god" given rights.
The constitution doesn't grant us the right of free speech, it merely attempts to protect it.
You almost got it right. You left off three words: "... from the government." My reference to the constitution was because the person I was replying to was implying this was a free speech matter. "Free speech" is a reference to the Constitution.
"... from the government"? Again, I would have to disagree. The constitution is there to protect us from any & all that would infringe upon our rights. For example "Freedom of Religion" in the workplace. Businesses are not allow to discrimnate against you because of your religion.
Just because an entity isn't connected to the government doesn't mean it can ignore the constitution. The constitution is the highest law of the land it trumps all other law, whether they are federal, state or local. Look at the Civil Rights Movement of the 50's & 60's. Look at Rosa Parks, was the bus company a government entity?
Banning a group of people(high school students) from posting on the internet isn't a freedom of speech issue? The princpal is attempting to control the speech of others that takes place off campus and in a public forum. I don't understand how it is not a free speech issue.
Also, freedom of speech is not a human right, it's a constitutional right
How about free will? Doesn't having free will also mean you have freedom of speech, regardless of what any law might or might not say? "Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges!"
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their CREATOR, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
The constitution doesn't grant us the right of free speech, it merely attempts to protect it.
Your post is a troll. It is unsettling that your comment was rated "5: Informative".
The Constitution in the law of the land. It reins supreme over Federal, State & Local law. The Constitution describes the structure of the government and what powers it has. It also lists important rights of the citizens. From this foundation comes Federal, State & Local law.
Yes, the Judical branch of the US Government does get to review & approve/disapprove all school rules, employee handbooks and shopping mall rules. Maybe you heard of a little thing back in the 50's & 60's called the Civil Rights Movement? Maybe you heard of Rosa Parks? The Federal Government decided "rules" & laws enacted in the South weren't so hot.
I think the following from the US Declaration of Independance needs repeating here...
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their CREATOR, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
We don't have Free Speech because the First Amendment grants it to us, we have free speech because our creator gave it to us; one of many unalienable Rights.
The First Amendment simply spells out this right of free speech, so the government or others wouldn't get "confused" and say we don't have that right. Indeed its the government duty to protect our rights. If our right to free speech is impedied, it is the goverment job to see our rights restored.
--That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta told the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9/11 Commission) Friday that, prior to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, aviation security officials had not considered that a hijacker might commandeer an airplane for any reason other than taking hostages.
"I don't think we ever thought of an airplane being used as a missile," Mineta declared. Link to story
What's the very worst that can happen if the Internet goes down?
I don't know. But during times of extreme emergency, the internet seems to be the best way of communicating. Look at Katrina and 9-11. In both cases the 'net was invaluable. If the 'net goes down, you lose an extermely useful tool. Call me selfish but like I have as many tools available as possible.
If the worst thing that they can do is to steal your identify and money online, then you're "safe" in that it won't kill you or physically cripple you.
Lack of money can kill you. Just ask that guy holding the "will work for food" sign. Other examples: No cash to get out of a hurricane's way. No cash to get the meds you need; maybe something as simple as an ephren(sp?) shot for an allergic reaction to a bee sting or just insulin or even just penicillin. Maybe that stolen identity incident completely fubar'd your medical records or medical insurance. That too could kill you. Fubar'd medical records, maybe you got the wrong blood type during a transfusion or got a medication you are allergic to. The world is a deadly place, you'll never get out alive.;)
I agree that if it doesn't need 'net access it shouldn't have it. But that doesn't stop it from happening. Employees at Nuclear Plants are going to have email access. Probably even web access. I'll even venture as far as to say some have laptops which are used outside of the plant. There are plenty of vectors for bad code to get at something. The "industrial west" is an information society, moving bits from point A to B as quickly as possible is the primary moviator, security is an after-thought at best.
The "cybersecurity czar"(what is the with the nazi sounding Homeland Security dept and a russian nobility title? Is someone taunting us?) doesn't really have any power. It is just a nice title to make people feel safe, knowing they have someone to blame when it all goes to crap. Nuclear plants are private industry. Only Congress thru an act of law can force them to do or not do something.
I'm writing a book myself, so I can understand the concerns these authors have.
First let me start by thanking you to take the time & effort to produce a book and add to human culture & knowledge.
Would you have written the book if copyrights didn't exist?
Whereas Google's usage might ultimately prove beneficial, the authors were never even asked about it. They have been treated as if their rights are meaningless.
The same could be said of producers in regards to consumer's rights under copyrights. e.g. DRM, cease&desist lawsuits over fair-use(think blackboxvoting and Diebold).
Copyrights in the US were designed to promoted the Arts & Sciences. They are granted by the US Gov't in exchange for the author agreeing to let the work enter the public domain after the copyright term expires. Original term was 14 years aka a *temporary* right.
This is basically a social contract between the author and the general public. The public("We the people") agree to grant the author exclusive rights to the work for the first few years of its life to re-coup production costs in exchange for open & free access to the work a few years down the road.
Today's copyrights last life of the author plus 70 years or 95 years for a corporation. Odds are good that this will be extended again, mostly likely when Mickey is about to become public domain.
Under current copyright law, since RMS is around 45, Emacs won't enter the public domain until some time after 2100.
The social contract on which copyrights are based has been perverted. The public no longer receives a benefit from granting a copyright; open & free access to the work, a continuely growing public domain.
In this context copyrights are meaningless to the public. They are not receiving their end of the social contract. Why should they uphold their end of the contract?
/rant
If Google is allowed to proceed unchallenged, it will set a precedent, which will pretty much eliminate copyright as a way for work to be protected.
Why/how would it elimate copyright? Google isn't providing whole works for download. They are just providing the ability to search.
What if it was the Library of Congress that was doing this instead of Google?
What if Google was doing this under contract for the Library of Congress?
Obviously, those works whose copyrights have expired are fair game.
In Citan's goodbye post he suggest people view the special credits by holding down the Ctrl+Alt keys while clicking the Credits button.
I did this and wow! The team was as cynical and depressed as many of those who complained about the game. You don't want to miss this. If you have access to the game, take a look. You have to wade through a lot of credits before you get to the team comments, but I'm so amazed this is in there. Here is an example from memory...not a direct quote:
"Pissing off players is what we do best. Best to stick to our strengths"
There are many other comments that just vent frustrations.
Silly me, I thought the kernel talks to the hardware. And the OS talks to hardware thru the kernel./shrug what do I know.;)
What makes an OS is up for debate. Prior to your post I replied that in the case of FreeBSD it was everything in/usr/src. Visit freebsd.org and checkout their cvs tree to see what all is in there.
I'm not sure I understand what point you are trying to make. I don't like how linux defaults to installing everything in/usr versus *BSD defaulting to/usr/local. I wasn't making a statement about "what an OS is", just that I prefered *BSD behavior and that it has saved me time when cleaning up after others.
Perhaps this will ignite an argument among Unix people versus non-Unix people (it would really be between multi-user systems people and single-user systems people) over whether all users should gain the functionality of a package installed by one particular user
It boils down to a trust issue. Can another user of the multi-user system trust an app installed by another non-root user? Can the admin of said system trust the non-root users to install "safe" programs for everyone's use?
It a large multi-user environment the answer is usually "no". For a home machine the answer is probably "yes". In the case of the home machine, give local users write permissions to/usr/local and install the apps there.
What is the OS? Is up for debate. I'll say kernel, basic network stuff(e.g. ssh, telnet, ping, etc), init scripts and logging facilities(i.e. a syslog daemon). Granted most distros include more this(e.g. sendmail).
Apps like Apache, Nagios, X, etc, I don't consider part of the OS.
Ah, grasshopper... take a bath. Data hygiene is a good thing.
Funny, the default mixing of apps and OS in linux distros is what I dis-like the most about linux.
Keeping added apps seperate from the OS highlights the beauty of *nix over windows. With everything you installed after the OS in/usr/local, you can re-install the OS(e.g. partition corruption, junior admin fubar'ing, etc) without having to re-install your apps.
Trust me, I've been there. Windows admin hoses OS, I re-install OS and I'm done. The needed apps are already in place & configured./usr/local ,/opt is a good thing.
What I was alluding to in another post is absolutely true. There is nothing unconstitutional about this law, it is completely permitted under the powers granted to Congress in the Constitution. It is absolutely legal that the government do this.
Well, not extactly. The Fourth Amendment does apply. But it appears the Wire & Eletronic Communications Act and the Stored Communication Act provide the guidelines to what is "reasonable".
The following articles dicuss some related US Court rulings
This article dicusses random monitoring by ISPs.
AbstractThis article takes the position that the Wiretap Act and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) does little to provide protection against internet service providers (ISPs) that randomly monitor e-mails for the purpose of turning over evidence of criminal activities to law enforcement officials. The article provides a background to the special privacy issues that arise in the context of computer technology and ISPs. An analysis of the Wiretap Act, as amended by the ECPA, reveals that an implicit statutory prohibition against random surveillance by ISPs for the purpose of assisting law enforcement does in fact exist. Further, remedies for violations of this provision are deficient because of many exceptions, and because criminal sanctions and the exclusionary rule are not included. Recent court decisions are analyzed which collectively suggest that the Fourth Amendment does not protect against evidence obtained from ISP surveillance. Finally, the article concludes by providing suggestions as to how the public's privacy interests against random ISP monitoring can and should be protected.
In Councilman v. United States, the court considered precisely when the Wiretap Act forbids the interception of e-mail. The statute and prior judicial decisions made clear that electronic communications -- unlike wire communications such as telephone calls -- were not protected once the communication was complete and the message was in storage....
Councilman told the court to go further, ignoring whether a message was still in transit and asking only if it was obtained from computer memory or a hard drive.
Of course IANAL. So my reading could be completely off-base.
Twice, the Americans have voted into office GW Bush, and such can only be interpreted as support for his policies. That he won by a significant margin in 2004 is proof that the majority of Americans believe in what he is selling.
The phrase "Democracy just means you get the government you deserve" might be more fitting than "a majority believe what he's selling"
Our friends at BlackBoxVoting.org have uncovered some serious flaws with Diebold's optical scan machines, too.
"This is really the most important thing," Harris said. "Yes we can hack the poll tapes [and the central tabulator]. But what we've learned is there is a 'built-in' [on the individual machines] that provides the mechanism to hack any election on the poll tapes in the Diebold Optical Scan System."
"It is something that should be looked at in a congressional Investigation," Harris said.
"It's probably not an accident," Harris said, "because you can look back through the source code to see that [Diebold] went through some programming contortions to keep this thing there. It had to have been expensive for them, frankly."
"When we saw the way they designed it [the 'built-in']," Harris explained, "Harri [Hursti, computer expert] said, 'We have the Holy Grail.' The elections people are very concerned."
Hursti is said to have confirmed that the built-in hacking program 'lived' in the memory card of the "ballot box" on individual election machines, according to Harris. "What this means is that the program operates on the votes. You can change what's on there; it's just a disk," Harris said.
"So when the optical scan machine asks it to count the votes, instead of using its own program to count the vote, it asks the ballot box how it should count, and that is what's so bizarre," Harris explained.
SSH Tunnels for VOIP isn't a very workable solution. It requires me to establish an ssh session with every end-point I want to call or at least the point where my call leaves the 'net & enters the PSTN. This is a serious pain in the ass.
Perhaps a better solution would be something like x.509 certs. End points identify each other(could elimate caller id spoofing) and the end points generate a couple of random keys to use to encrypt the traffic. Hell, if you don't care about identifying the end-points just have the end points generate a couple of random keys and encrypt the traffic.
Basically, it is something that should be added to the protocol and done behind the scenes(so not to the bother the average end user). Maybe running VoIP over IPv6 would be the solution, as IPv6 has ipsec built-in.
The Planetary Society is probably one of the better places to send money for the advancement of space science. Charitable contributions to The Planetary Society are tax-deductible in the United States.
A donation of your time would also be very worthwhile. Tell your congress folk how you feel about Nasa's proposed plan. Also tell others you know(that don't read slashdot, e.g. parents) about Nasa's lame plan and suggest they drop a line to their congress folk.
Section 102 allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive laws without Judical review. That strikes me as *way* worst then a huge database filled with non-verified DMV data.
From thomas.loc.gov SEC. 102. WAIVER OF LAWS NECESSARY FOR IMPROVEMENT OF BARRIERS AT BORDERS.
Section 102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1103 note) is amended to read as follows:
`(c) Waiver-
`(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section.
`(2) NO JUDICIAL REVIEW- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court shall have jurisdiction--
`(A) to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1); or
`(B) to order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision.'. ### end quote ###
Gee, sounds like he can suspend pretty much anything without review. He just has to "say" it is related to building a barrier or road.
Example: Labor laws governing the production of materials for the barriers or roads? Nah, they'll just get in the way, we're going to "suspend" those.
OR
What Endangered Species Act? Never heard of it, keep laying down the asphalt.
It sounds like IPSec. One can setup an ipsec tunnel using X.509 certs to authenticate the end-points and dynamic(disposable) keys to encrypt the traffic.
Slashdot Mirror
2. Does anybody know of a Space trading game like Eve, that is free to play? Even a well done single player game would be cool. I've tried a lot, and Starknights and a 1 year old shareware game are the best I've found.
You could try out Starport: Galactic Empires.
I think you missed the point. He's saying that it should be possible to group with higher level characters (who don't have their stats adjusted) for the purpose of adventuring, not leveling.
;)
True, I was just nitpicking that CoH did it first.
There is one game where high level characters can group with low level characters and neither party gets their stats adjusted... ToonTown. The game doesn't really have levels, its more skills based. But there aren't any restrictions on who can group with who. One does need to complete some "quests" to gain access to certain areas, tho.
The game isn't bad and it entertained me for a while. It is geared more towards a gamer parent and his/her child but it still well done.
In all the games today the focus is generally to aquire levels and to aquire loot (not including pvp related stuff). We have enough of those games. Wouldn't it be great to have a game where those goals were secondary to simply having fun and adventuring in the old fashion PnP style? There are some people who try to play WoW that way, but the experience is not very rewarding because all the content is designed for the other type of player; the one who just wants loot and xp.
"Adventuring" can be a vague word, "fun" even more so. And that's the rub when creating a MMORPG. Creating a "fun adventure" that someone will be willing to pay a monthly subscription for it. Its easier to point out problems, than find solutions.
For me adventuring in a MMORPG generally means exploring a new region/dungeon. Usually killing stuff along the way but sometimes the adventure is just reaching a "high level" town without getting killed along the way. Or maybe getting an ingredient needed for crafting. Those tend to be solo adventures but sometimes I can recuit help to kill the monsters.
WoW's world is much too small for anything other than xp grinding. The original Asheron's Call had a much bigger world and provided more than few exploration adventures for me & friends. Anarchy Online's world is pretty big too but doesn't random abandoned castles(filled with mobs to kill) that AC has. AO does have guided tours of areas, which are kinda neat. No level restrictions and you get some back story from a live human(the guide).
Regardless of the world's size, eventually one runs out of places to explore.... at least until an expansion pack is released. But basically the virtual world is finite in size. AO does have dynamically created dungeons but they don't really count, its just a random generated floor plan.
Not sure a MMORPG will ever really capture the fun and adventuring in the old fashion PnP style simply because the environment is too different. e.g. there is always a new area to explore. I agree that NWN(or Torque) are the best bet because the content is player created.
You might want to check out A Tale in the Desert. They offer a free trial and both windows & linux clients.
It is a completely different kind of MMORPG. It has a really strong and involved community. For example they(the players) are able to pass laws that affect the virtual world. There is no combat; just exploring, building stuff and completing trials. And for a twist it has an end. I played a bit in the "First Telling", while the eye candy isn't much it is an interesting game.
In the end the real trick is finding like-minded adventurers and being able to all get online at the same time. After that its just making the most of what that virtual world has to offer. If that world doesn't have much to offer, then move on there's a ton of mmorpgs out there.
I played/sampled the D&D beta and was completely unimpressed. And I've played a wide variety of mmorpg and some real B grade ones at that. To me it came off as a cross of AC2 & Guild Wars. Guild Wars is better.
Grouping up with a high level was added to EQ2 with the high level then lowering his level to yours but it is a pain. You got to find a really nice person who is willing to help you level up and that is exactly what they will be doing, trying to get you to level up as fast as possible.
Actually City of Heroes was the first to have this feature. If I'm remembering right, originally it allowed lower level toons to be a higher level toon's sidekick, artifically inflating the lower level's fighting abilities while near-by the high level character. Later they added the "reverse" sidekick/mentor option, allowing a high level character to be a low level character's sidekick and thus reducing the higher level's fighting abilities & available skills.
Will it avoid the level grinding trap of other MMORPG games or will it to have endless walktrhoughs for levelling up the fastest
I think levels in MMORPGs are here to stay, even if the game is more skills based(e.g. Asheron's Call) than level based(e.g Everquest). The levels are goals, something to be accomplished and from a publisher's point of view a reason to charge a monthly fee. It is also a "hook"... so close to leveling, must stay awake.
FPS(e.g. Quake) don't charge a monthly fee to play. Well, maybe do now... I haven't played a FPS regularly since the FvF mod for Quake.
Comparing FPS to MMORPG isn't really an apples-to-apples comparsion. MMORPG are basically graphical muds or at least that is how they started. Today's call for more PvP is moving MMORPG closer to FPS. The most interesting FPS+MMORPG hybrid I've played was Endless Ages. It was point&shoot combat, not point&click. A lvl 1 player could beat a lvl 10 player.
On the crafting front, the biggest problem I've seen is the crafter is rarely able to make stuff usable(or desirable to use) at his level and/or better than loot drops. Crafting always seems to be an after-thought and no dicussion with loot devs. Haven't played enough Eve to comment on its crafting.
It is a relatively modern Idea that Freedom is equal to Privacy. While the truth they are rather disjunct concepts. You still have the right of free speech you can still say whatever you want and just as long as it doesn't cause direct harm, (Like yelling Fire in a crowded room) you have the right to say it.
But just recently the right of privacy seems to be implicit to your freedom of speech. With freedom of speech (At least the American ideal) you should be able to state your views without getting arrested for it. But it doesn't state that you can say it without anyone knowing that you said it.
False.
You should revisit American history around the time of the American Revolution. The Federalist Papers were written under a pen name by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. Hoping you have heard of at least one of those.
The pamlets supporting the idea of breaking away from Britian were written under pen names to protect the lives of the authors. The idea of anonymous speech dates back to the birth of the USA. The US Supreme Court has upheld that anonymous speech is a corner stone of free speech. Without anonymous speech, one does *not* have free speech.
You should read at least Amendment 9 of the Bill of Rights.
You are in need of training. Please head to nearest video store and get a copy of the training film titled "Office Space".
After that, head out to SourceForge.net or volunteer at local church/school.
Please yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre using your free will.
Why, would I want do that? Free will does allow me do that action. However it would be in bad form and it has generally been agreed upon that there are consequences to be paid when exercising one's free will in that manor. Along with free will is a thing called self-restraint. The ying to free will's yang, if you will. Or to nab a quote from Spiderman..." with great power, comes great responsibility".
Secondly, you missed my point. Any person that disagrees with this school's policy can remove their child. Any person 18 or older can remove themselves. Freedom of speech doesn't apply, this school is not the government.
You're right that I did pretty much skip pass your point. I disagree. I believe Freedom of speech does apply. A person regardless of age has freedom of speech. See Tinker v. Des Moines
While do I believe that kids shouldn't being posting personal details willy-nilly on the 'net, they shouldn't also be completely banned from posting and interacting with people on the internet. The level of interaction is upon to the child's parent(s).
I also find it kinda of ironic that a Catholic high school would attempt to take away "god" given rights.
You almost got it right. You left off three words: "... from the government." My reference to the constitution was because the person I was replying to was implying this was a free speech matter. "Free speech" is a reference to the Constitution.
"... from the government"? Again, I would have to disagree. The constitution is there to protect us from any & all that would infringe upon our rights. For example "Freedom of Religion" in the workplace. Businesses are not allow to discrimnate against you because of your religion.
Just because an entity isn't connected to the government doesn't mean it can ignore the constitution. The constitution is the highest law of the land it trumps all other law, whether they are federal, state or local. Look at the Civil Rights Movement of the 50's & 60's. Look at Rosa Parks, was the bus company a government entity?
Banning a group of people(high school students) from posting on the internet isn't a freedom of speech issue? The princpal is attempting to control the speech of others that takes place off campus and in a public forum. I don't understand how it is not a free speech issue.
How about free will? Doesn't having free will also mean you have freedom of speech, regardless of what any law might or might not say? "Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges!"
The constitution doesn't grant us the right of free speech, it merely attempts to protect it.
Your post is a troll. It is unsettling that your comment was rated "5: Informative".
The Constitution in the law of the land. It reins supreme over Federal, State & Local law. The Constitution describes the structure of the government and what powers it has. It also lists important rights of the citizens. From this foundation comes Federal, State & Local law.
Yes, the Judical branch of the US Government does get to review & approve/disapprove all school rules, employee handbooks and shopping mall rules. Maybe you heard of a little thing back in the 50's & 60's called the Civil Rights Movement? Maybe you heard of Rosa Parks? The Federal Government decided "rules" & laws enacted in the South weren't so hot.
I think the following from the US Declaration of Independance needs repeating here...
We don't have Free Speech because the First Amendment grants it to us, we have free speech because our creator gave it to us; one of many unalienable Rights.
The First Amendment simply spells out this right of free speech, so the government or others wouldn't get "confused" and say we don't have that right. Indeed its the government duty to protect our rights. If our right to free speech is impedied, it is the goverment job to see our rights restored.
Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta told the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9/11 Commission) Friday that, prior to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, aviation security officials had not considered that a hijacker might commandeer an airplane for any reason other than taking hostages.
"I don't think we ever thought of an airplane being used as a missile," Mineta declared. Link to story
Planes as weapons, you say? Now that thar is a novel idea.
I don't know. But during times of extreme emergency, the internet seems to be the best way of communicating. Look at Katrina and 9-11. In both cases the 'net was invaluable. If the 'net goes down, you lose an extermely useful tool. Call me selfish but like I have as many tools available as possible.
Lack of money can kill you. Just ask that guy holding the "will work for food" sign. Other examples: No cash to get out of a hurricane's way. No cash to get the meds you need; maybe something as simple as an ephren(sp?) shot for an allergic reaction to a bee sting or just insulin or even just penicillin. Maybe that stolen identity incident completely fubar'd your medical records or medical insurance. That too could kill you. Fubar'd medical records, maybe you got the wrong blood type during a transfusion or got a medication you are allergic to. The world is a deadly place, you'll never get out alive. ;)
I agree that if it doesn't need 'net access it shouldn't have it. But that doesn't stop it from happening. Employees at Nuclear Plants are going to have email access. Probably even web access. I'll even venture as far as to say some have laptops which are used outside of the plant. There are plenty of vectors for bad code to get at something. The "industrial west" is an information society, moving bits from point A to B as quickly as possible is the primary moviator, security is an after-thought at best.
The "cybersecurity czar"(what is the with the nazi sounding Homeland Security dept and a russian nobility title? Is someone taunting us?) doesn't really have any power. It is just a nice title to make people feel safe, knowing they have someone to blame when it all goes to crap. Nuclear plants are private industry. Only Congress thru an act of law can force them to do or not do something.
Maybe try a Coral Cache url instead of linking directly to Hexis http://www.hexus.net.nyud.net:8090/content/static/ psu_roundup.html
First let me start by thanking you to take the time & effort to produce a book and add to human culture & knowledge.
Would you have written the book if copyrights didn't exist?
The same could be said of producers in regards to consumer's rights under copyrights. e.g. DRM, cease&desist lawsuits over fair-use(think blackboxvoting and Diebold).
Copyrights in the US were designed to promoted the Arts & Sciences. They are granted by the US Gov't in exchange for the author agreeing to let the work enter the public domain after the copyright term expires. Original term was 14 years aka a *temporary* right.
This is basically a social contract between the author and the general public. The public("We the people") agree to grant the author exclusive rights to the work for the first few years of its life to re-coup production costs in exchange for open & free access to the work a few years down the road.
Today's copyrights last life of the author plus 70 years or 95 years for a corporation. Odds are good that this will be extended again, mostly likely when Mickey is about to become public domain.
Under current copyright law, since RMS is around 45, Emacs won't enter the public domain until some time after 2100.
The social contract on which copyrights are based has been perverted. The public no longer receives a benefit from granting a copyright; open & free access to the work, a continuely growing public domain.
In this context copyrights are meaningless to the public. They are not receiving their end of the social contract. Why should they uphold their end of the contract?
/rant
Why/how would it elimate copyright? Google isn't providing whole works for download. They are just providing the ability to search.
What if it was the Library of Congress that was doing this instead of Google?
What if Google was doing this under contract for the Library of Congress?
Ummm, nothing copyrighted since 1923 will enter the public domain until 2019
From a thread on VNBoards.
Silly me, I thought the kernel talks to the hardware. And the OS talks to hardware thru the kernel. /shrug what do I know. ;)
/usr/src. Visit freebsd.org and checkout their cvs tree to see what all is in there.
/usr versus *BSD defaulting to /usr/local. I wasn't making a statement about "what an OS is", just that I prefered *BSD behavior and that it has saved me time when cleaning up after others.
What makes an OS is up for debate. Prior to your post I replied that in the case of FreeBSD it was everything in
I'm not sure I understand what point you are trying to make. I don't like how linux defaults to installing everything in
It boils down to a trust issue. Can another user of the multi-user system trust an app installed by another non-root user? Can the admin of said system trust the non-root users to install "safe" programs for everyone's use?
It a large multi-user environment the answer is usually "no". For a home machine the answer is probably "yes". In the case of the home machine, give local users write permissions to
In the case of FreeBSD it is the stuff that under /usr/src. See http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/ for what all is there.
What is the OS? Is up for debate. I'll say kernel, basic network stuff(e.g. ssh, telnet, ping, etc), init scripts and logging facilities(i.e. a syslog daemon). Granted most distros include more this(e.g. sendmail).
Apps like Apache, Nagios, X, etc, I don't consider part of the OS.
Ah, grasshopper... take a bath. Data hygiene is a good thing.
/usr/local, you can re-install the OS(e.g. partition corruption, junior admin fubar'ing, etc) without having to re-install your apps.
/usr/local , /opt is a good thing.
Funny, the default mixing of apps and OS in linux distros is what I dis-like the most about linux.
Keeping added apps seperate from the OS highlights the beauty of *nix over windows. With everything you installed after the OS in
Trust me, I've been there. Windows admin hoses OS, I re-install OS and I'm done. The needed apps are already in place & configured.
The following articles dicuss some related US Court rulings This article dicusses random monitoring by ISPs.
And a more recent article Of course IANAL. So my reading could be completely off-base.The phrase "Democracy just means you get the government you deserve" might be more fitting than "a majority believe what he's selling"
When you get a chance give the following Greg Palast article a read: Florida's flawed "voter-cleansing" program
Additional articles related to questionable activities related to the 2000 & 2004 elections can be found at: Greg Palast columns
Also interesting is an article at Online Journal about Black Box Voting's finding of questionable code used in Diebold's optical scan voting machines.
Diebold was running an ftp server from which various items were freely available.
h tml 2 e
g +diebold+source+code&btnG=Search
http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~jones/voting/dieboldftp.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/10/1172/905
http://www.google.com/search?q=diebold+source+cod
And Slashdot related stories about Diebold
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aslashdot.or
I'm not familiar with certification process of voting machines but maybe the State also has a copy of the source code.
That is unless the Supreme Court decides there isn't a need for a hand recount ala Election 2000.
I believe the Green Party was trying to get a recount in Ohio for the 2004 Election. But I don't know what became of it.
Our friends at BlackBoxVoting.org have uncovered some serious flaws with Diebold's optical scan machines, too.
Full article is available at: Online Journal.org
The U.S.Gov't is already set to pass a National ID law. And as an added bonus our friends in Canada and Mexico will have free&easy access to it.
/ n ion/op-ed/25oped08plummer.txt
http://www.politechbot.com/2005/05/04/real-id-act
http://www.dcexaminer.com/articles/2005/04/07/opi
SSH Tunnels for VOIP isn't a very workable solution. It requires me to establish an ssh session with every end-point I want to call or at least the point where my call leaves the 'net & enters the PSTN. This is a serious pain in the ass.
Perhaps a better solution would be something like x.509 certs. End points identify each other(could elimate caller id spoofing) and the end points generate a couple of random keys to use to encrypt the traffic. Hell, if you don't care about identifying the end-points just have the end points generate a couple of random keys and encrypt the traffic.
Basically, it is something that should be added to the protocol and done behind the scenes(so not to the bother the average end user). Maybe running VoIP over IPv6 would be the solution, as IPv6 has ipsec built-in.
The Planetary Society is probably one of the better places to send money for the advancement of space science. Charitable contributions to The Planetary Society are tax-deductible in the United States.
A donation of your time would also be very worthwhile. Tell your congress folk how you feel about Nasa's proposed plan. Also tell others you know(that don't read slashdot, e.g. parents) about Nasa's lame plan and suggest they drop a line to their congress folk.
Section 102 allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive laws without Judical review. That strikes me as *way* worst then a huge database filled with non-verified DMV data.
From thomas.loc.gov
SEC. 102. WAIVER OF LAWS NECESSARY FOR IMPROVEMENT OF BARRIERS AT BORDERS.
Section 102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1103 note) is amended to read as follows:
`(c) Waiver-
`(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall have the authority to waive, and shall waive, all laws such Secretary, in such Secretary's sole discretion, determines necessary to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads under this section.
`(2) NO JUDICIAL REVIEW- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), no court shall have jurisdiction--
`(A) to hear any cause or claim arising from any action undertaken, or any decision made, by the Secretary of Homeland Security pursuant to paragraph (1); or
`(B) to order compensatory, declaratory, injunctive, equitable, or any other relief for damage alleged to arise from any such action or decision.'.
### end quote ###
Gee, sounds like he can suspend pretty much anything without review. He just has to "say" it is related to building a barrier or road.
Example: Labor laws governing the production of materials for the barriers or roads? Nah, they'll just get in the way, we're going to "suspend" those.
OR
What Endangered Species Act? Never heard of it, keep laying down the asphalt.
It sounds like IPSec. One can setup an ipsec tunnel using X.509 certs to authenticate the end-points and dynamic(disposable) keys to encrypt the traffic.