Doubtful. They'd just organize it as a 'government regulated monopoly' in the best interest of the viewers. Then they could make sure that we only get the news we need.
The whole point of this 'cloud gaming' thing is that you don't need a powerful graphics card to run games. It's essentially a streaming video of the game from a server that does have the hardware to run the game. Sort of like OnLive.
Although I agree nothing is going to come of this, I'm pretty sure there have been a dozen "WoW on the iPhone!" stories too.
This just in! A group of car insurance companies just sued several state governments because they have allowed drivers to operate vehicles at unauthorized speeds, which led to accidents and higher insurance costs! Insurance companies know this because bicyclists have been watching how fast cars go, and they go way too fast!
Wait a minute, you can actually prove tangible losses from people speeding. That would make this lawsuit a little more feasible than what AFACT wants.
Global climate change is true. Even if it's not true causing pollution is not good. Hopefully these logs will provide support for global climate change but if not it could be argued that reporting techniques of the time were crude.</quote>
I like this train of thought. You can't lose. "Hey, if this supports our theory, then it can be hailed as definitive proof. If it conflicts with our theory, well, they were wrong, and it'll be easy to discredit."
The way I see it, this has a very scary natural progression.
Military use: At first, it's only used to assist in very special cases. Eventually it's perfected and every infantryman has one! Well, that's great. But one day, some 'genius' general is going to say, "Hey, what if we had the suits continue working even AFTER the soldier has died? That'll scare the bejesus out of the enemy!" And he'll get a medal, and some room full of programmers will work on making the suit controllable remotely, with simple commands that allow to act somewhat autonomously. (Stuff like... "Is the soldier dead? Okay, rush the bad guys and scare them")
It works so well, that soon they don't even take the dead soldiers out of the suits until they start to smell pretty bad, which gives away their position. The suit would dig a grave, drop its soldier in it, and run back to base.
Eventually that autonomy will prove so effective, they start allowing portions of it to activate even if the soldier is still alive. ("Not moving fast enough? Here, I'll help." "Hey, orders said go down this street, not that one. Let me help!" "Why aren't you shooting the small people with things shaped like grenades? Let me take care of that for you.") The soldiers will follow orders MUCH more effectively. And even if the suits walk them into death, well, the suits are more durable, and the enemy is more scared of dead walking soldiers, so... yeah.
Corpse armies will soon become the norm, and instead of enlisted soldiers, we'll just start tossing criminals into the suits. Inevitably the criminals would disobey an order (probably given an impossible order right away) and lose 100% control, and just be slaves to the suit until they got shot in combat.
So now we have robot zombie armies fighting each other with reckless disregard, since nobody's really getting killed anyway.
Remember that pile of crap I left on your doorstep a year ago? Remember that? Yeah?
Well guess what! I crapped a little extra and put that ON TOP of the old pile of crap! Why don't you come take another look? It's way more awesome, I promise!
There's wackos from every religion/ideology. A few nutjobs that makes everybody in that group look bad.
I'd say the Islamic militant extremists are their side of the examples you just listed, but for the most part, the "Christians and Americans and Brits" aren't blowing themselves up to kill their enemies.
This could turn into a ridiculously long debate. As terrible as it is, even suicide bombers are people. And there's a reason they believe that blowing themselves up is a good idea.
Severe poverty (nothing we in the western world could even imagine) combined with a promise of paradise and lots of virgins in a culture where polygamy is common, leaving the poorest and most destitute unable to find even one woman since a man who provides well can have many wives, as opposed to the monogamous western world you're basically guaranteed a mate as long as you give even the tiniest bit of effort and can fill out a basic form to get a welfare check.
I can't sympathize with people who kill women and children indiscriminately. But there's got to be a reason that there are many people willing to die to kill their hated enemies (be it Israelis, westerners, or simply an opposing faction of Islam) when even the worst of those idiots you listed aren't even simple murderers. Just moronic loudmouths.
Well for the most part currently it's reactionary, not proactive.
Think of two different areas of law enforcement - the patrol officers and the detectives.
The patrol officers actively police everything that's in their line of sight. Traffic, crime, etc. It's proactive / preventative.
Detectives investigate a crime after it's been perpetrated. That's reactive.
Currently most of our government meddling (not meant in an ENTIRELY negative way...) with the Internet is reactive, like a detective. A crime has been committed, possibly reported to them by the ISP noticing fishy activity, word of mouth, etc. They go and investigate.
The government has comparatively fewer 'patrol officers' for the Internet, that we know about. If the government controls the Internet, it'd be very easy for them to implement 'patrol officers' all over the place to legally sniff out and read EVERY bit of web-based traffic, looking for keywords or specific patterns.
Not to mention government blacklisting of websites...
I know this is an old post and probably won't get noticed, but the only issue I see with that is that government road infrastructure gives government the right to police those roads - with a good reason, the physical safety of the masses. Imagine roads as busy as they are with no rules or laws being enforced? Mayhem. (And fun, for those with F350's or bigger)
I would not be entirely surprised if government were to handle the Internet infrastructure, they would give themselves the same right. Active policing of the infrastructure - not just reactive policing due to a warrant/arrest.
Sure, it would go under the guise of "protect the children!", but it would likely be extended to copyright "laws".
Wow, I could go nuts on this analogy! Wouldn't it be fun to surf around and see "100Kb/s School Zone" speed limit signs every now and then, if the infrastructure goes by an elementary school?
Step #1: Install Linux. Step #2: Set up a virtual box with a Windows XP installation on it, obviously with no access to the network. (And that's the ONLY thing his account has access to) Step #3: Schedule that virtual box to re-image to the original once a week.
Step #4: Kid learns to circumvent all of this, and grows up to become a successful hacker, learning at a young age that Windows is something to 'circumvent' and Linux is where the power is.
How are those demands any different than what we already demand of developers? (And even though we haven't 'paid' for development yet, our potential dollars are enough to justify that sort of I pay your salary attitude)
Although it might just be me, I find that I'm more attentive if I'm on a hands free set as opposed to holding the phone.
Reasons:
1) Having a hands free conversation (I feel) is no different than having a conversation with whoever is in your car. Should that be illegal? Talking in cars banned?
2) I listen to audio books (having a lengthy commute to work), which I get more deeply involved in than the average cell phone conversation. Should audio books be banned?
3) When not listening to audio books, I listen to talk radio/news radio. Again, this generally requires more attention than simply talking. Maybe we should ban radios from cars.
Holding the phone is a problem for me, comparatively. It's not about the conversation - which, unless you're unable to talk to somebody in your car and drive at the same time, in which case I would advise you to avoid chewing gum if you plan on walking - it's about holding the phone uncomfortably. I generally drive with one hand anyway, but my other hand is resting somewhere that can grab the wheel quickly. Not so with the phone.
Hand-held cellphones, sure, ban it. You should have both hands available for driving. That means no shaving, no doing your hair, no doing your makeup, or for a scenario that the average Slashdotter is likely to encounter, no having a wank when you drive by that Victoria's Secret billboard.
However, if it becomes widespread, it could potential turn into something that's NOT optional - and probably on a federal level. Take a look at car emissions/mileage standards... used to be a power of the states, but no longer... Yeah, I'm a libertarian (for the most part, I am a proponent of a strong national defense - note: not offense) and I want the government involved in my personal life as little as possible.
You can dismiss this as fear mongering or alarmism, but if you look through history, as soon as you give the government the tools and authority to do something (despite many claims of 'oh no that would never happen'), they generally do it. Usually under the guise of 'terrorism!' or 'economic collapse!' or 'think of the children!'
Why should the anybody else dictate when and where I can use my appliances, with electricity that I am paying for with my hard earned cash? (What portion of it I'm allowed to keep of it after the government takes its cut, that is) What if I am happy doing my laundry in three huge loads once a week? Or if I'm only home and awake for an hour a day, which is a peak hour?
I don't see why they keep pushing this stuff, when nuclear energy is a (relatively) clean alternative, and very safe. It's like nuclear energy is just being dismissed as dangerous and does not warrant further investigation - you'd think we're living in the fifties with nuclear mutant scares. (Well, maybe it'd have some credibility of being scary if The Happening had been a success)
Yes, dating with standards is incredibly hard. (Although my standards are different than yours - age does not matter, political ideology and religion do not matter as long as they do not try to shove it down your throat) but we have the same problems.
Luckily I just chanced upon somebody perfect while not looking, but yeah, trying to find the perfect match is nigh impossible.
Give and take though - a hundred years or so ago, you were limited to who you could walk to for the most part.
There's a difference between time sinks and solo play. Unfortunately, most 'solo play' is just a poorly disguised time sink.
When done right though, solo play is great for those of us with long hours, or on-call jobs. We can do the multiplayer portion during our time off - but I can't rightly join a group of people when I have no idea how long I'm going to be able to play, or when I can only log on for a half hour.
Having the ability to advance my character, or at least get the illusion I'm not stagnating without being forced to group is nice.
Dude, you'd better be careful with this stuff. I know a guy named Jack who got "disappeared" in Alaska recently after posting some controversial stuff on/.
Science is no more incompatible with say, Christianity, than Buddhism is with Judaism. Or cars are with submarines.
People are incompatible. There is no scientific proof (that I know of) that proves there is a god or that there is no god. There is no reason that I cannot believe in evolution and still believe in a god, or believe that we have souls.
Yes, it is a belief, it is not the proof/fact of evolution, it is STILL referred to as the Theory of Evolution. Not getting into that debate, even though a theory does have a lot of evidence, unless it's provable it's still a theory and it takes a belief system to have an infallible trust in something that is a theory. (Yes, some aspects of evolution are considered fact by the scientific community, but not the retarded monkey fish frog aspect)
I think the major incompatibilities come when trying to force a belief on somebody. It is no more right to force a theory as fact as it is right to force your god on me.
Frankly, I think it's our right to believe that the earth is flat, gravity is caused by invisible silly putty, and Slashdot is a place to get reliable and up to date unbiased news.
However, it is insulting to people when instead of just saying "I believe this", you say "I believe this so your belief is wrong" - which both sides of the debate do. Just let people be... you'll never change them.
While I agree that graphics do add a certain level of immersion, I believe that they can also take away from an imaginative person's level of immersion.
Simple example - book versus movie made from the book. Many who read the book first prefer it because the movie does not match up with what they have imagined in their head. (Regardless of the fact that most books are better than the movies that come later)
Some of the people who get MOST immersed in their 'games' are people who roleplay, either in text based games, table top, or in graphical simulations. These people get far more immersed than almost anybody who plays Crysis.
Realism and/or suspension of disbelief are paramount to immersion. The environment may look real, but if your belief is not suspended it's impossible to be immersed.
Slashdot Mirror
Doubtful. They'd just organize it as a 'government regulated monopoly' in the best interest of the viewers. Then they could make sure that we only get the news we need.
Although I agree nothing is going to come of this, I'm pretty sure there have been a dozen "WoW on the iPhone!" stories too.
Toronto... Toronto... so is that a small town just outside of Phoenix? I can't think of a Toronto where you can die from heat exhaustion.
Mexico, is that you?
You've never worked under any sort of middle or upper management, have you...
This just in! A group of car insurance companies just sued several state governments because they have allowed drivers to operate vehicles at unauthorized speeds, which led to accidents and higher insurance costs! Insurance companies know this because bicyclists have been watching how fast cars go, and they go way too fast!
Wait a minute, you can actually prove tangible losses from people speeding. That would make this lawsuit a little more feasible than what AFACT wants.
Global climate change is true. Even if it's not true causing pollution is not good.
Hopefully these logs will provide support for global climate change but if not it could be argued that reporting techniques of the time were crude.</quote>
I like this train of thought. You can't lose. "Hey, if this supports our theory, then it can be hailed as definitive proof. If it conflicts with our theory, well, they were wrong, and it'll be easy to discredit."
Boy, I'd hate to be on your network and have to do some research on irritable bowel syndrome.
The way I see it, this has a very scary natural progression.
Military use:
At first, it's only used to assist in very special cases. Eventually it's perfected and every infantryman has one! Well, that's great. But one day, some 'genius' general is going to say, "Hey, what if we had the suits continue working even AFTER the soldier has died? That'll scare the bejesus out of the enemy!" And he'll get a medal, and some room full of programmers will work on making the suit controllable remotely, with simple commands that allow to act somewhat autonomously. (Stuff like... "Is the soldier dead? Okay, rush the bad guys and scare them")
It works so well, that soon they don't even take the dead soldiers out of the suits until they start to smell pretty bad, which gives away their position. The suit would dig a grave, drop its soldier in it, and run back to base.
Eventually that autonomy will prove so effective, they start allowing portions of it to activate even if the soldier is still alive. ("Not moving fast enough? Here, I'll help." "Hey, orders said go down this street, not that one. Let me help!" "Why aren't you shooting the small people with things shaped like grenades? Let me take care of that for you.") The soldiers will follow orders MUCH more effectively. And even if the suits walk them into death, well, the suits are more durable, and the enemy is more scared of dead walking soldiers, so... yeah.
Corpse armies will soon become the norm, and instead of enlisted soldiers, we'll just start tossing criminals into the suits. Inevitably the criminals would disobey an order (probably given an impossible order right away) and lose 100% control, and just be slaves to the suit until they got shot in combat.
So now we have robot zombie armies fighting each other with reckless disregard, since nobody's really getting killed anyway.
Wow, I just had an awesome idea for a novel.
Remember that pile of crap I left on your doorstep a year ago? Remember that? Yeah?
Well guess what! I crapped a little extra and put that ON TOP of the old pile of crap! Why don't you come take another look? It's way more awesome, I promise!
There's wackos from every religion/ideology. A few nutjobs that makes everybody in that group look bad.
I'd say the Islamic militant extremists are their side of the examples you just listed, but for the most part, the "Christians and Americans and Brits" aren't blowing themselves up to kill their enemies.
This could turn into a ridiculously long debate. As terrible as it is, even suicide bombers are people. And there's a reason they believe that blowing themselves up is a good idea.
Severe poverty (nothing we in the western world could even imagine) combined with a promise of paradise and lots of virgins in a culture where polygamy is common, leaving the poorest and most destitute unable to find even one woman since a man who provides well can have many wives, as opposed to the monogamous western world you're basically guaranteed a mate as long as you give even the tiniest bit of effort and can fill out a basic form to get a welfare check.
I can't sympathize with people who kill women and children indiscriminately. But there's got to be a reason that there are many people willing to die to kill their hated enemies (be it Israelis, westerners, or simply an opposing faction of Islam) when even the worst of those idiots you listed aren't even simple murderers. Just moronic loudmouths.
Well for the most part currently it's reactionary, not proactive.
Think of two different areas of law enforcement - the patrol officers and the detectives.
The patrol officers actively police everything that's in their line of sight. Traffic, crime, etc. It's proactive / preventative.
Detectives investigate a crime after it's been perpetrated. That's reactive.
Currently most of our government meddling (not meant in an ENTIRELY negative way...) with the Internet is reactive, like a detective. A crime has been committed, possibly reported to them by the ISP noticing fishy activity, word of mouth, etc. They go and investigate.
The government has comparatively fewer 'patrol officers' for the Internet, that we know about. If the government controls the Internet, it'd be very easy for them to implement 'patrol officers' all over the place to legally sniff out and read EVERY bit of web-based traffic, looking for keywords or specific patterns.
Not to mention government blacklisting of websites...
I know this is an old post and probably won't get noticed, but the only issue I see with that is that government road infrastructure gives government the right to police those roads - with a good reason, the physical safety of the masses. Imagine roads as busy as they are with no rules or laws being enforced? Mayhem. (And fun, for those with F350's or bigger)
I would not be entirely surprised if government were to handle the Internet infrastructure, they would give themselves the same right. Active policing of the infrastructure - not just reactive policing due to a warrant/arrest.
Sure, it would go under the guise of "protect the children!", but it would likely be extended to copyright "laws".
Wow, I could go nuts on this analogy! Wouldn't it be fun to surf around and see "100Kb/s School Zone" speed limit signs every now and then, if the infrastructure goes by an elementary school?
The way I'd deal with this...
:D
Step #1: Install Linux.
Step #2: Set up a virtual box with a Windows XP installation on it, obviously with no access to the network. (And that's the ONLY thing his account has access to)
Step #3: Schedule that virtual box to re-image to the original once a week.
Step #4: Kid learns to circumvent all of this, and grows up to become a successful hacker, learning at a young age that Windows is something to 'circumvent' and Linux is where the power is.
Hopefully.
We got our System Shock 'reboot' already with Bioshock.
Which was just another no strategy required shoot 'em up with magic. (Renamed of course)
How are those demands any different than what we already demand of developers? (And even though we haven't 'paid' for development yet, our potential dollars are enough to justify that sort of I pay your salary attitude)
Although it might just be me, I find that I'm more attentive if I'm on a hands free set as opposed to holding the phone.
Reasons:
1) Having a hands free conversation (I feel) is no different than having a conversation with whoever is in your car. Should that be illegal? Talking in cars banned?
2) I listen to audio books (having a lengthy commute to work), which I get more deeply involved in than the average cell phone conversation. Should audio books be banned?
3) When not listening to audio books, I listen to talk radio/news radio. Again, this generally requires more attention than simply talking. Maybe we should ban radios from cars.
Holding the phone is a problem for me, comparatively. It's not about the conversation - which, unless you're unable to talk to somebody in your car and drive at the same time, in which case I would advise you to avoid chewing gum if you plan on walking - it's about holding the phone uncomfortably. I generally drive with one hand anyway, but my other hand is resting somewhere that can grab the wheel quickly. Not so with the phone.
Hand-held cellphones, sure, ban it. You should have both hands available for driving. That means no shaving, no doing your hair, no doing your makeup, or for a scenario that the average Slashdotter is likely to encounter, no having a wank when you drive by that Victoria's Secret billboard.
At this point, yes, it is optional.
However, if it becomes widespread, it could potential turn into something that's NOT optional - and probably on a federal level. Take a look at car emissions/mileage standards... used to be a power of the states, but no longer... Yeah, I'm a libertarian (for the most part, I am a proponent of a strong national defense - note: not offense) and I want the government involved in my personal life as little as possible.
You can dismiss this as fear mongering or alarmism, but if you look through history, as soon as you give the government the tools and authority to do something (despite many claims of 'oh no that would never happen'), they generally do it. Usually under the guise of 'terrorism!' or 'economic collapse!' or 'think of the children!'
Why should the anybody else dictate when and where I can use my appliances, with electricity that I am paying for with my hard earned cash? (What portion of it I'm allowed to keep of it after the government takes its cut, that is) What if I am happy doing my laundry in three huge loads once a week? Or if I'm only home and awake for an hour a day, which is a peak hour?
I don't see why they keep pushing this stuff, when nuclear energy is a (relatively) clean alternative, and very safe. It's like nuclear energy is just being dismissed as dangerous and does not warrant further investigation - you'd think we're living in the fifties with nuclear mutant scares. (Well, maybe it'd have some credibility of being scary if The Happening had been a success)
Bleh.
Yes, dating with standards is incredibly hard. (Although my standards are different than yours - age does not matter, political ideology and religion do not matter as long as they do not try to shove it down your throat) but we have the same problems.
Luckily I just chanced upon somebody perfect while not looking, but yeah, trying to find the perfect match is nigh impossible.
Give and take though - a hundred years or so ago, you were limited to who you could walk to for the most part.
There's a difference between time sinks and solo play. Unfortunately, most 'solo play' is just a poorly disguised time sink.
When done right though, solo play is great for those of us with long hours, or on-call jobs. We can do the multiplayer portion during our time off - but I can't rightly join a group of people when I have no idea how long I'm going to be able to play, or when I can only log on for a half hour.
Having the ability to advance my character, or at least get the illusion I'm not stagnating without being forced to group is nice.
Dude, you'd better be careful with this stuff. I know a guy named Jack who got "disappeared" in Alaska recently after posting some controversial stuff on /.
Ok, perhaps the reporter of that story got a few of the facts wrong. (George W. Bush != John McCain)
Obama did not have to defeat McCain - or whatever Republican got the nomination, for that matter - he only needed to defeat Bush.
Oh I wish I had mod points... I actually laughed out loud.
Science is no more incompatible with say, Christianity, than Buddhism is with Judaism. Or cars are with submarines.
People are incompatible. There is no scientific proof (that I know of) that proves there is a god or that there is no god. There is no reason that I cannot believe in evolution and still believe in a god, or believe that we have souls.
Yes, it is a belief, it is not the proof/fact of evolution, it is STILL referred to as the Theory of Evolution. Not getting into that debate, even though a theory does have a lot of evidence, unless it's provable it's still a theory and it takes a belief system to have an infallible trust in something that is a theory. (Yes, some aspects of evolution are considered fact by the scientific community, but not the retarded monkey fish frog aspect)
I think the major incompatibilities come when trying to force a belief on somebody. It is no more right to force a theory as fact as it is right to force your god on me.
Frankly, I think it's our right to believe that the earth is flat, gravity is caused by invisible silly putty, and Slashdot is a place to get reliable and up to date unbiased news.
However, it is insulting to people when instead of just saying "I believe this", you say "I believe this so your belief is wrong" - which both sides of the debate do. Just let people be... you'll never change them.
While I agree that graphics do add a certain level of immersion, I believe that they can also take away from an imaginative person's level of immersion.
Simple example - book versus movie made from the book. Many who read the book first prefer it because the movie does not match up with what they have imagined in their head. (Regardless of the fact that most books are better than the movies that come later)
Some of the people who get MOST immersed in their 'games' are people who roleplay, either in text based games, table top, or in graphical simulations. These people get far more immersed than almost anybody who plays Crysis.
Realism and/or suspension of disbelief are paramount to immersion. The environment may look real, but if your belief is not suspended it's impossible to be immersed.