If it were a mistake, then they are not "failing to do the right thing", are they? They noticed the mistake and are taking measures to determine what happened. Until we know why this happened, and if any actual damage was done (such as data collected being used for illicit purposes) then they are doing just fine.
At some point mistakes have to be acceptable, otherwise nothing would ever get done for fear of failure. Unless you can say Google was reckless, malicious, or has a poor response once aware of their mistake, it's difficult to label this as unacceptable.
Because it is basic game theory? You want the little hamster to continue running around the little wheel you give him a cookie to work for. If he gets little nibbles of the cookie he'll work HARDER trying to get more cookie, thus giving you more work. Hell nobody is saying they have to give them the actual recorded data in real time, just throw the monkey a reward for pushing the button. Maybe something that ONLY shows how you are doing? Surely that would discourage the cranks while giving the hamster a reason to keep running the wheel.
Galazy Zoo, which pioneered this kind of crowd-sourced classification, seems to disprove that need. Most of the people are astronomy fans, and the joy of looking at raw telescope pictures was reward enough. Eventually they did add a list of previously viewed galaxies, and let you mark your favorites for later viewing. Besides, it had 250,000 users. Get each person to look at 20 galaxies on average (just a few minutes time, easy to do) and you have 5 people looking at each of 1 million galaxies.
In other words, crowd-sourcing this kind of stuff either provides its own reward (pretty pictures) or needs no continued participation (because the work can be done by lots of people instead of people spending lots of time).
The fact that Netflix has done just fine so far shows that they could continue just fine if Amazon were to fold or shutter this service. Similarly, they could change payment processors or shipping providers if needed and continue to provide nearly identical services. Heck, they can even roll their own software or hosting services due to their size.
However, if you are a 'Twitter ad agency', then you're boned when Twitter changes the rules to push you out. One should at least be a 'social-networks ad agency', which while still BS, can spread the risk and not be beholden to a single corporation. This would be the equivalent of being a Netflix for Disney movies only, where if Disney brings the axe down you've lost ALL of your revenue.
If your business model is entirely dependant upon another company's service (Twitter, Facebook, Paypal, eBay, etc), then you have no guarantee that your business model will exist tomorrow. Not the best way to run a business.
True, but I doubt they'll be able to add anything to the defensive capabilities.
Perhaps not, or maybe just not yet. In any case, it's certainly one of the primary goals, even if it ends up impossible.
That said, I expect this will end up more of a system-wide defence (similar to a beach head or AA-batteries), rather than trying to reinforce individual corporations.
In this last post you state that a feature designed around locking people out of the game up does not lock out people.
Thanks for the discussion but this has reached troll level.
Not trying to troll, honestly. I said there wasn't recourse, if designed properly. One wouldn't be stuck with not being able to play for two weeks, he could make another sacrifice instead. Hence, I feel like it would add an interesting gameplay mechanic.
Rather than continuing to debate details, would it suffice to compromise? I agree that such a feature probably isn't in Eve's best interests. Can you agree that CCP probably could manage to design such a feature in a reasonable fashion, if they so choose?
It's called SIPRNet. There are others too, JWICS, NSANet, and so on. They are internets (small i) in every way. However, they don't interact with the public Internet (big I). It is how they keep classified data separate. It seems to work quite well. At the very least there's never been a break in to them that has been revealed.
However, that doesn't mean there's nothing of importance on the Internet. It's not all just geeks chattering and LOLcat pictures. For example ATMs operate on the Internet these days. Heavily encrypted to be sure, but still. Companies make use of it for important business reasons. There are probably control systems for infrastructure on the net, and so on.
So, the government has an interest in making sure it work well. That would include being able to deal with a cyber attack. After all, protecting classified data does little good if the the infrastructure of the US is taken out. The government itself is only useful in so much as it can govern and protect the country.
Agreed. Have people forgotten how important naval blockades on commerce (much of it in the private sector) have been in nearly every naval war? Or how important disruption of supply, information, and production lines is? How crippled would our economy (or that of any other industrialized nation) be if there were a disruption to their automated supply systems? Whether it's a man or machine, a business or an individual ordering parts, they're almost certainly doing so via the internet. To need to go back to telephone, fax, and mail would deal a huge blow to a nation. One could create as much damage economically as a naval blockade or factory bombings used to, purely through digital means nowadays. It's worth being prepared for.
To be fair, publicly appointing a general in charge of it IS a milestone, even though other nations have almost certainly made similar appointments. Similarly, the Trinity explosion was still a large milestone in the nuclear age, even though we had been researching and developing such a weapon (in secret) for years.
Basically, this is probably about doing low level nasty things when the situation doesn't call for an all out shooting war, and making sure an enemy can't trust his networked computer systems in case of an all out war. I'm pretty sure the US isn't the only one doing this.
And, equally or more importantly, defending the US from attack. How exactly they might do so is another matter, but the defense and disruption is equally important as the offensive capabilities.
As such, I can almost guarantee that they will be operating on US soil, similarly to how infantry divisions would be expected to should there be a physical invasion of US soil.
To the GP, Fort Meade is more than just the NSA headquarters. It's a significant portion, but not the entirity of operations. Parent is right though, it makes sense to headquarters your warfare branch nearby to your intelligence branch.
Electronic warfare (EW) refers to any action involving the use of the electromagnetic spectrum or directed energy to control the spectrum, attack an enemy, or impede enemy assaults via the spectrum. The purpose of electronic warfare is to deny the opponent the advantage of, and ensure friendly unimpeded access to, the EM spectrum.
In other words, radar jamming, at its simplest. It's the analog version of the digital Cyber Warfare that he's now heading up.
Why appoint him? Probably because nobody has specifically trained for cyber war, at least not in the military. Think of the early days of computer programming: you went for the people with math and physics degrees (Alan Turing, anyone?), because there were few people with Computer Science degrees, since it was brand new. This guy is obviously well trained and involved in controlling communication channels, now he's just going to be overseeing it over IP instead of EM. The guy clearly knows his fundamentals, and how to run an organization such that he need not know every minute technical detail in order to be effective.
I mean seriously, someone point out a piece of software that would likely be released that this license would make sense for. That is to say, Software that, while safe/legal to release to the general public, could be used to harm people/animals. I really can't think of anything at the moment.
As I said, where does the line get drawn as far as 'harming' animals. I might suspect PETA would consider cooking an animal to be 'harming' it, because the animal needed to be killed first. The fact that the line is (or could be) incredibly fuzzy, particularly with unauthorized user actions.
But anything as simple as a timer could be used in that oven that cooks animals, in the factory the slaughters them, the taser for police use, or (alternatively) in a tofu machine.
If your big counter is they can pod themselves then just have concord pod them. Why the need for a game mechanic that PREVENTS YOU FROM PLAYING THE GAME?
Do you honestly not see the problem with designing a game that you can't play?
I'll leave that up to CCP to decide. I see no reason to dismiss ideas off-hand before CCP gets a hold of them, as you seem to advocate.
I'd say the big purpose of the jail is to allow the player to choose their punishment. They can sacrifice their clone, they can pay the corporation off (pay them more than the bounty, and they return the bounty), or if you're that bad-ass of a pirate you get your buddies to raid the prison and bust you out.
I disagree that this prevents you from playing the game. It simply shifts the game fully into the meta-arena. It's a game mechanic that just allows kidnapping (perhaps only under certain circumstances).
Again, I think it's feasible, as long as it would be implemented well by CCP, and doesn't lock players out with no recourse.
The thing is; I like to eat meat. And pizza. And hamburgers. And hot dogs. And sausages. On a sunny day I love to grill some good beef and take a sip of my beer.
And thus the reason why OSS isn't open if its use has conditions laid on it by end-use. How do you know if your software will violate them?
Could you use HPL software to create an oven? Is the potential that a delicious steak be cooked in that oven considered to be causing harm? Can the oven only be used for 'humanely raised' beef, pork, and poultry? How would it be enforced? And, most importantly, how do you know if you are infringing by yourself, without contacting the license owners?
While this license may be free-as-in-Willy, it isn't free-as-in-speech.
Same as that for any other detrimental feature in Eve. The ability to die, losing significant progress in the character or money, as well as player run scams and backstabbing, seem relatively similar.
As I said, if the option becomes a meta-game it would add to the depth. Think of it as capturing the player. They can sacrifice that clone and its implants to be resurrected as normal, or they can wait to be rescued or ransomed, or just wait it out because they wouldn't be logging on for 2 weeks anyway. It adds depth to the game, and CCP still gets paid.
But while this member's idea for execution is terrible, CCP can still see it as a diamond in the rough and heavily modify it.
It's alright for the CSM to promote stupid ideas, as long as CCP is smart enough to sort out the BS, the good ideas, and those that need a heavy coat of polish.
Sure. But you shouldn't be able to explain Photoshop or vi to a 5 year old, either.
Sure I can. Photoshop lets you paint on pictures, and Vi is like a piece of paper that you can write on.
With an API the difference is that you should be able to assume that your user will have a common lower bound on their knowledge. If your API deals with multi-threading, to be effective you probably need to assume your user knows the fundamentals of multi-threaded programming. Or, at least that the user has some base level of knowledge in computer science.
Attempting to over-simplify a concept to a child limits our ability to develop for things that aren't simple to begin with.
ALL of it is user facing. That's the very point of an API. The user is the developer.
In which case, being able to explain it to a 5-year old child is pointless, since that's nowhere near the lowest common denominator for software development.
Perhaps it should be explainable to a CS undergrad, but not a child.
Your position is not consistent with the candidate and former CSM member I am speaking of. They want to eliminate PvP. The problem is even the PvE people who hate PvP require it for their parts of the game to work.
Right, but I wasn't talking about that case. My point was that jail could work in the game, as long as it's done right.
Regardless jail time can't work. You're proposing a game mechanic which forces people not to play your game?
There's already a mechanic to allow player death/cloning. While in jail you could commit suicide (and lose implants) and go back to your clone. Or, you could bribe/pay your way out of jail. Or your corporation could bust in and break you out.
In a universe like Eve's, I think there would be many ways to avoid serving a full jail sentence.
If you want to say something, just fucking say it. If you're in a position where saying something is illegal (e.g. criminal libel), why should you expect to be protected by the law?
That's essentially the rule. Free speech can have a reasonable expectation of privacy. However libel, slander, violating gag orders, revealing sensitive information, and other actions are not free speech, and thus don't have any of these protections.
In cases like this, where the illegality of the speech is determined by the identity of the author (if they are a juror speaking of a case, it is illegal, but not if they are a random dude) it should be up to a judge to weight the burden of prosecution if they are acting illegaly, with the reasonable protection of someone who wasn't involved's privacy. That's why the users have the chance to file a counter-motion.
Slashdot Mirror
If it were a mistake, then they are not "failing to do the right thing", are they? They noticed the mistake and are taking measures to determine what happened. Until we know why this happened, and if any actual damage was done (such as data collected being used for illicit purposes) then they are doing just fine.
At some point mistakes have to be acceptable, otherwise nothing would ever get done for fear of failure. Unless you can say Google was reckless, malicious, or has a poor response once aware of their mistake, it's difficult to label this as unacceptable.
Netscape and Windows are products, not services.
Because it is basic game theory? You want the little hamster to continue running around the little wheel you give him a cookie to work for. If he gets little nibbles of the cookie he'll work HARDER trying to get more cookie, thus giving you more work. Hell nobody is saying they have to give them the actual recorded data in real time, just throw the monkey a reward for pushing the button. Maybe something that ONLY shows how you are doing? Surely that would discourage the cranks while giving the hamster a reason to keep running the wheel.
Galazy Zoo, which pioneered this kind of crowd-sourced classification, seems to disprove that need. Most of the people are astronomy fans, and the joy of looking at raw telescope pictures was reward enough. Eventually they did add a list of previously viewed galaxies, and let you mark your favorites for later viewing. Besides, it had 250,000 users. Get each person to look at 20 galaxies on average (just a few minutes time, easy to do) and you have 5 people looking at each of 1 million galaxies.
In other words, crowd-sourcing this kind of stuff either provides its own reward (pretty pictures) or needs no continued participation (because the work can be done by lots of people instead of people spending lots of time).
Yeah, that's actually a pretty good example. Of course, it's also mitigated somewhat because the developer could switch to Android or Blackberry.
The fact that Netflix has done just fine so far shows that they could continue just fine if Amazon were to fold or shutter this service. Similarly, they could change payment processors or shipping providers if needed and continue to provide nearly identical services. Heck, they can even roll their own software or hosting services due to their size.
However, if you are a 'Twitter ad agency', then you're boned when Twitter changes the rules to push you out. One should at least be a 'social-networks ad agency', which while still BS, can spread the risk and not be beholden to a single corporation. This would be the equivalent of being a Netflix for Disney movies only, where if Disney brings the axe down you've lost ALL of your revenue.
If your business model is entirely dependant upon another company's service (Twitter, Facebook, Paypal, eBay, etc), then you have no guarantee that your business model will exist tomorrow. Not the best way to run a business.
True, but I doubt they'll be able to add anything to the defensive capabilities.
Perhaps not, or maybe just not yet. In any case, it's certainly one of the primary goals, even if it ends up impossible.
That said, I expect this will end up more of a system-wide defence (similar to a beach head or AA-batteries), rather than trying to reinforce individual corporations.
In this last post you state that a feature designed around locking people out of the game up does not lock out people.
Thanks for the discussion but this has reached troll level.
Not trying to troll, honestly. I said there wasn't recourse, if designed properly. One wouldn't be stuck with not being able to play for two weeks, he could make another sacrifice instead. Hence, I feel like it would add an interesting gameplay mechanic.
Rather than continuing to debate details, would it suffice to compromise? I agree that such a feature probably isn't in Eve's best interests. Can you agree that CCP probably could manage to design such a feature in a reasonable fashion, if they so choose?
A poor craftsmen blames his tools.
PEBKAC
It's called SIPRNet. There are others too, JWICS, NSANet, and so on. They are internets (small i) in every way. However, they don't interact with the public Internet (big I). It is how they keep classified data separate. It seems to work quite well. At the very least there's never been a break in to them that has been revealed.
Yup.
However, that doesn't mean there's nothing of importance on the Internet. It's not all just geeks chattering and LOLcat pictures. For example ATMs operate on the Internet these days. Heavily encrypted to be sure, but still. Companies make use of it for important business reasons. There are probably control systems for infrastructure on the net, and so on.
So, the government has an interest in making sure it work well. That would include being able to deal with a cyber attack. After all, protecting classified data does little good if the the infrastructure of the US is taken out. The government itself is only useful in so much as it can govern and protect the country.
Agreed. Have people forgotten how important naval blockades on commerce (much of it in the private sector) have been in nearly every naval war? Or how important disruption of supply, information, and production lines is? How crippled would our economy (or that of any other industrialized nation) be if there were a disruption to their automated supply systems? Whether it's a man or machine, a business or an individual ordering parts, they're almost certainly doing so via the internet. To need to go back to telephone, fax, and mail would deal a huge blow to a nation. One could create as much damage economically as a naval blockade or factory bombings used to, purely through digital means nowadays. It's worth being prepared for.
To be fair, publicly appointing a general in charge of it IS a milestone, even though other nations have almost certainly made similar appointments. Similarly, the Trinity explosion was still a large milestone in the nuclear age, even though we had been researching and developing such a weapon (in secret) for years.
Basically, this is probably about doing low level nasty things when the situation doesn't call for an all out shooting war, and making sure an enemy can't trust his networked computer systems in case of an all out war. I'm pretty sure the US isn't the only one doing this.
And, equally or more importantly, defending the US from attack. How exactly they might do so is another matter, but the defense and disruption is equally important as the offensive capabilities.
As such, I can almost guarantee that they will be operating on US soil, similarly to how infantry divisions would be expected to should there be a physical invasion of US soil.
To the GP, Fort Meade is more than just the NSA headquarters. It's a significant portion, but not the entirity of operations. Parent is right though, it makes sense to headquarters your warfare branch nearby to your intelligence branch.
I do not think that Electronic Warfare means what you think it means:
Electronic warfare (EW) refers to any action involving the use of the electromagnetic spectrum or directed energy to control the spectrum, attack an enemy, or impede enemy assaults via the spectrum. The purpose of electronic warfare is to deny the opponent the advantage of, and ensure friendly unimpeded access to, the EM spectrum.
In other words, radar jamming, at its simplest. It's the analog version of the digital Cyber Warfare that he's now heading up.
Why appoint him? Probably because nobody has specifically trained for cyber war, at least not in the military. Think of the early days of computer programming: you went for the people with math and physics degrees (Alan Turing, anyone?), because there were few people with Computer Science degrees, since it was brand new. This guy is obviously well trained and involved in controlling communication channels, now he's just going to be overseeing it over IP instead of EM. The guy clearly knows his fundamentals, and how to run an organization such that he need not know every minute technical detail in order to be effective.
I mean seriously, someone point out a piece of software that would likely be released that this license would make sense for. That is to say, Software that, while safe/legal to release to the general public, could be used to harm people/animals. I really can't think of anything at the moment.
As I said, where does the line get drawn as far as 'harming' animals. I might suspect PETA would consider cooking an animal to be 'harming' it, because the animal needed to be killed first. The fact that the line is (or could be) incredibly fuzzy, particularly with unauthorized user actions.
But anything as simple as a timer could be used in that oven that cooks animals, in the factory the slaughters them, the taser for police use, or (alternatively) in a tofu machine.
If your big counter is they can pod themselves then just have concord pod them. Why the need for a game mechanic that PREVENTS YOU FROM PLAYING THE GAME?
Do you honestly not see the problem with designing a game that you can't play?
I'll leave that up to CCP to decide. I see no reason to dismiss ideas off-hand before CCP gets a hold of them, as you seem to advocate.
I'd say the big purpose of the jail is to allow the player to choose their punishment. They can sacrifice their clone, they can pay the corporation off (pay them more than the bounty, and they return the bounty), or if you're that bad-ass of a pirate you get your buddies to raid the prison and bust you out.
I disagree that this prevents you from playing the game. It simply shifts the game fully into the meta-arena. It's a game mechanic that just allows kidnapping (perhaps only under certain circumstances).
Again, I think it's feasible, as long as it would be implemented well by CCP, and doesn't lock players out with no recourse.
The thing is; I like to eat meat. And pizza. And hamburgers. And hot dogs. And sausages. On a sunny day I love to grill some good beef and take a sip of my beer.
And thus the reason why OSS isn't open if its use has conditions laid on it by end-use. How do you know if your software will violate them?
Could you use HPL software to create an oven? Is the potential that a delicious steak be cooked in that oven considered to be causing harm? Can the oven only be used for 'humanely raised' beef, pork, and poultry? How would it be enforced? And, most importantly, how do you know if you are infringing by yourself, without contacting the license owners?
While this license may be free-as-in-Willy, it isn't free-as-in-speech.
Same as that for any other detrimental feature in Eve. The ability to die, losing significant progress in the character or money, as well as player run scams and backstabbing, seem relatively similar.
As I said, if the option becomes a meta-game it would add to the depth. Think of it as capturing the player. They can sacrifice that clone and its implants to be resurrected as normal, or they can wait to be rescued or ransomed, or just wait it out because they wouldn't be logging on for 2 weeks anyway. It adds depth to the game, and CCP still gets paid.
But while this member's idea for execution is terrible, CCP can still see it as a diamond in the rough and heavily modify it.
It's alright for the CSM to promote stupid ideas, as long as CCP is smart enough to sort out the BS, the good ideas, and those that need a heavy coat of polish.
Right, but I wasn't talking about that case. My point was that jail could work in the game, as long as it's done right.
Yes but I was. If you want a new subject then start your own thread. Please don't take mine offtopic.
You said "Yeah because the consequences of jail time for in game murders is both sane and good for the player base" and I responded to it.
If you wanted to talk about eliminating PvP, you should have been more specific to begin with.
Sure. But you shouldn't be able to explain Photoshop or vi to a 5 year old, either.
Sure I can. Photoshop lets you paint on pictures, and Vi is like a piece of paper that you can write on.
With an API the difference is that you should be able to assume that your user will have a common lower bound on their knowledge. If your API deals with multi-threading, to be effective you probably need to assume your user knows the fundamentals of multi-threaded programming. Or, at least that the user has some base level of knowledge in computer science.
Attempting to over-simplify a concept to a child limits our ability to develop for things that aren't simple to begin with.
The da Vinci Code begs to differ.
Sorry, but we're talking about things that are real, here.
ALL of it is user facing. That's the very point of an API. The user is the developer.
In which case, being able to explain it to a 5-year old child is pointless, since that's nowhere near the lowest common denominator for software development.
Perhaps it should be explainable to a CS undergrad, but not a child.
Your position is not consistent with the candidate and former CSM member I am speaking of. They want to eliminate PvP. The problem is even the PvE people who hate PvP require it for their parts of the game to work.
Right, but I wasn't talking about that case. My point was that jail could work in the game, as long as it's done right.
Regardless jail time can't work. You're proposing a game mechanic which forces people not to play your game?
There's already a mechanic to allow player death/cloning. While in jail you could commit suicide (and lose implants) and go back to your clone. Or, you could bribe/pay your way out of jail. Or your corporation could bust in and break you out.
In a universe like Eve's, I think there would be many ways to avoid serving a full jail sentence.
I wasn't aware that the definition of "free speech" included "the right to remain anonymous".
It is, in certain cases. Here are several examples.
If you want to say something, just fucking say it. If you're in a position where saying something is illegal (e.g. criminal libel), why should you expect to be protected by the law?
That's essentially the rule. Free speech can have a reasonable expectation of privacy. However libel, slander, violating gag orders, revealing sensitive information, and other actions are not free speech, and thus don't have any of these protections.
In cases like this, where the illegality of the speech is determined by the identity of the author (if they are a juror speaking of a case, it is illegal, but not if they are a random dude) it should be up to a judge to weight the burden of prosecution if they are acting illegaly, with the reasonable protection of someone who wasn't involved's privacy. That's why the users have the chance to file a counter-motion.