Myst is a puzzle/adventure game - but the fact is the game never stops you from playing once you achieve what can be considered the end goal. The story will not progress anymore, at all, but they let you wander around around and revisit places you've already visitted.
So - when we vote, inform, raise awareness, and debate the issues, and the only thing we can't do is Lobby because we don't have the money to contend with the *IAAs, where does that leave us?
Still Illegal? Probably.
We're not out of touch if we don't see what we're doing is illegal, its a matter of principle. There are a number of people who choose to file only a portion of their taxes - and then get audited the next year, and their explanation is usually along the lines of "I paid the taxes for roads, schools, welfare, health care. I didn't pay the taxes for the military, national defense, body scanners at the airport, and corporate bailouts. I'm not stealing from the government, I just didn't pay the full amount based on principle" (Yes I stole most of that from a movie, but it does an excellent job of summing it up).
I think you are the one who is out of touch if you don't see the problem. The laws are governed more by who has the most money - not by raising awareness - not by debating. Look at Proposition 19 in California (I'd rather not have THIS topic spur into another debate, I feel just bringing it up will result in a flood of replies about it). If you don't have the money, you don't make the laws. So even if a majority of the population does it, it can still be considered illegal.
That doesn't seem a bit wacky to you? A government run BY THE PEOPLE is essentially banning an activity that A MAJORITY of THE PEOPLE partake in? Seems entirely undemocratic.
There is no way to win the game. The only point is to get the best gear and achievements and then sit as 'King of the Hill' until someone else comes along and knocks you off, or you get bored and quit.
Seriously, who over the age of 25 has 5-10 hours a day to spend playing a video game?
I see this said a lot. I really don't get why people bring this up, open ended games have been around for a while. (Myst, being the first one I can think of). Oblivion is another one. Point is, there is no way to "Win" these games either. And those ones aren't even multiplayer. Yet I know people who have played Oblivion past the final story arc multiple times through, different characters and all that.
World of Warcraft HAS story in it. You just ignore it. Most people ignore it. They are so wrapped up in trying to get the best gear that they don't read the quest log. There is an insane amount of writing in amongst all the quest data. On the Alliance side, you can actually play all the way through to level 60 as if it were one massive chain quest - it will direct you to the next zones when you are ready (usually via another quest) and then finally it'll send you back to Stormwind and you can start the annoying Behemoth that is the Onyxia tuning, and then downing her.
When the game was still young- that was considered the end. If you downed her, you won.
As for the time spent playing a game - my girlfriend is out of town, as a result, I have around 4 hours a day monday through friday and 15 hours on the weekend where I have essentially "Free" time, if I wanted to play WoW I could.
I just don't find it as entertaining as it used to, things have gotten too easy.
That brings up a good point. How come all the successful botnets and viruses have pretty easy and also socially friendly names? 'Darkness', 'Illusion', 'Black Energy', 'Stuxnet', 'Conficker'
Where's the f*cksh*tc*nt*ssb*tchp*ssylol Botnet - and why don't I get to hear it on the news every other week?
The way they discovered it was a gardener simply stepping in some reside, and it blowing up.
Wow - then thats worse than what the summary had led me to believe (They seem to be aware of a few different products, as if they had inspected the place)
It just seems like there is a WHOLE LOT of effort that would have to go into a controlled demolition of this sort (what with chemicals and all that) - so... why can't the same amount of effort go into removing them slowly, 1 at a time?
Now authorities face the risky task of getting rid of the explosives. The property is so dangerous and volatile that they have no choice but to burn the home to the ground this week in a highly controlled operation involving dozens of firefighters, scientists and hazardous material and pollution experts
So you've determined whats in the house, conclusively taken an inventory of it all, yet its too dangerous to handle...
Is this like SAW where everything has some tripwire booby trap hooked up to it - or are we just too afraid to pick up the stuff that we've been within 5 feet of?
I am more intrigued by this story than it actually lets on. Something about the whole "It's so dangerous we can't go one step further than what we've already done" really captivates me. There must be more to it than just what they're saying.
Who in their right mind feels more secure about it though?
Having nude pictures taken or having my junk felt up makes me feel quite INsecure.
If its really about security, and the junk must be fondled, than I want to have the right to fondle everyone on the same flight as me, attendants and pilots included, all the passengers, and they should all have the same right to fondle everyone else. With any luck, the procedure will simply take too long to be practical or in semi-rare cases break out into an orgy. Having never taken part in one I can't say I wouldn't relish the opportunity.
I don't think its as far a leap as you might make it sound. If "Pre-Emptive" action gets too comfortable with internet laws, its not a far step to getting around regular warrant procedures.
One thing I've been curious is that CNN and Fox and Every news outlet seems to love to point out that the US government wants him arrested, Interpol wants him arrested, and a slew of other places want him arrested, but they never seem to bring up the charges. (I don't actually watch the news but from the 2 blurbs I've seen, thats exactly what happened)
What crime has he committed exactly? He didn't hack into anything to get the information, it was supplied to him. The charges of Rape are a matter in Sweden and should only really be dealt with under their jurisdiction (and if they want to get interpol involved that should be up to Sweden and totally their call to make).
So... I don't understand - under what pretenses are they claiming they have the right to arrest him - given that he's not even an American Citizen nor on American Soil. Nor is he British, or on their land (or so I am led to believe).
If you think a UI change is what spurs the growth - you are quite foolish.
No, I think Facebook would be just as successful today with its original UI. They could have spent that engineering time actually building more interesting apps and tie ins to other websites, which would have had a more profound effect. No, instead, they moved the logout button 2 or 3 times.
My first thought was of browser hi-jacking, like when you get a nasty piece of Malware that turns all your redirects your google search links to their advertisements.
I would think - that "History Hijacking" would mean gaining control over whats in your history - which seems ultimately useless unless you were aiming to embarass someone on false pretenses...
They really shouldn't use the word "hijacking" out of its real context. Just "reading information" does not constitute hijacking. Even stealing doesn't constitute Hijacking.
If the data and backend systems are logically designed then this redesign should be very easy. So either these "engineers" are low skilled or their systems are a mess.
Even if its a mess - moving one link to another place is incredibly trivial - I can't imagine needing more than 2 people for a job like this, how they even managed to have 12 is absolutely beyond me. I work at a company where we deal with more complicated Data than Facebook, our backend is a bit of a mess, and we only have 5 programmers (one of which who acts as DBA, sometimes) to handle it all.
Seriously - it didn't cross the minds of 12 engineers that everyone who uses facebook has hated every single one of the UI changes - and they still continue to do it?
I think I could train a single monkey to do a better job than these guys. Simply because if I hand a monkey a computer, it'll take him a really long time to figure out how to publish any changes.
It's been scientifically proven that statistically men have better 3D perceptualization than women - yes some women are better at it than men, but when you plot it all out you get the regular bell curves, and men typically have higher preforming scores.
So it's not like jokes revolving around a woman's ability to park a car, or judging how far away an object is, or any of the things that seem to be related to navigation - they do have SOME foundation to it. (if you don't believe me, Google "Women's Depth Perception")
Much in the same way that colourblindness is strictly a male thing - if a woman is colourblind, it typically means that some dominant male gene actually took control when their eyes developed, which is quite rare in women. But also in Women its rare that they sometimes get a 4th "cone" in their eye that helps identifying in colours. This is why women tend to be better at items like interior design and Fashion, so the jokes about how "Men can't dress themselves" also have a good foundation. Like before, "some men are better than women at that sort of stuff" - but statistically speaking, this is a good strong point for women.
So - now that the science is out of the way - what does this have to do with Offensive jokes? That's the thing, they are just jokes. I mean in it in a light tone and while some might take it as derogatory, there are any number of things someone could make fun of me for (as you might have pointed out, my apparent lack of tact and manners!).
It boils down to this: do I value a good joke over someone elses potential feelings? Personally, I do enjoy a good joke. I think that the enjoyment it brings to me and others outweighs the possible negative feelings that a small contingent might actually feel - after all not ALL women are offended by such jokes.
A wise man once said... well I can't remember the exact words, but it was something along the lines of "Wisdom starts with humility". If you can't laugh at yourself than thats something you should work on. Recognising your shortfalls is the first step to overcoming them.
Now - the biggest problem I have with people is when they can't seperate Discrimination, prejudice, or harassment from humour. Like when you're at an Open source conference, and you're a women, like the article you linked. Guys taking upskirt photos of women? Yeah sexual harassment. Ignoring females because they are believed to be non-technical? Yeah discrimination. A picture of a girl in a Bikini during a slide show to say "That was just to get your attention" - Thats humour! It's meant in light fun, I bet if you had enough girls around you'd find them chuckling at the idea as well.
Point is - people need to lighten up. If more people could understand the difference between humour and harassment - the world would be a much better, and funnier place.
A 30-year-old game featured AI more sophisticated than what you'll find in most games today.
In defense of games today, things where a whole lot easier when you were on a strictly 2D, non-altering, fully 100% visible plane, and where an AI that knows your exact position regardless of things like noise and line of sight wasn't considered unfair, and where the only abilities an AI had to worry about were "Move My XY coordinates to = Player XY Coordinates" -
No one works with raw data, because there is often so much noise in data that it is impossible to compare it to anything else.
Incorrect - and there's no reason the data provided can't be raw data either.
In the sense of climate data, we wouldn't throw out 1 value because it seemed "Off" - when you WORK with the raw data, like making a report, THATS when you filter out the noise and outlying results.
But to say that you don't work with the raw data is just silly. The filtering is the work!
Slashdot Mirror
Myst is a puzzle/adventure game - but the fact is the game never stops you from playing once you achieve what can be considered the end goal. The story will not progress anymore, at all, but they let you wander around around and revisit places you've already visitted.
I think in that case my defense would be that I too was under the influence and they took just as much advantage of me as I did of them.
So - when we vote, inform, raise awareness, and debate the issues, and the only thing we can't do is Lobby because we don't have the money to contend with the *IAAs, where does that leave us?
Still Illegal? Probably.
We're not out of touch if we don't see what we're doing is illegal, its a matter of principle. There are a number of people who choose to file only a portion of their taxes - and then get audited the next year, and their explanation is usually along the lines of "I paid the taxes for roads, schools, welfare, health care. I didn't pay the taxes for the military, national defense, body scanners at the airport, and corporate bailouts. I'm not stealing from the government, I just didn't pay the full amount based on principle" (Yes I stole most of that from a movie, but it does an excellent job of summing it up).
I think you are the one who is out of touch if you don't see the problem. The laws are governed more by who has the most money - not by raising awareness - not by debating. Look at Proposition 19 in California (I'd rather not have THIS topic spur into another debate, I feel just bringing it up will result in a flood of replies about it). If you don't have the money, you don't make the laws. So even if a majority of the population does it, it can still be considered illegal.
That doesn't seem a bit wacky to you? A government run BY THE PEOPLE is essentially banning an activity that A MAJORITY of THE PEOPLE partake in? Seems entirely undemocratic.
There is no way to win the game. The only point is to get the best gear and achievements and then sit as 'King of the Hill' until someone else comes along and knocks you off, or you get bored and quit.
Seriously, who over the age of 25 has 5-10 hours a day to spend playing a video game?
I see this said a lot. I really don't get why people bring this up, open ended games have been around for a while. (Myst, being the first one I can think of). Oblivion is another one. Point is, there is no way to "Win" these games either. And those ones aren't even multiplayer. Yet I know people who have played Oblivion past the final story arc multiple times through, different characters and all that.
World of Warcraft HAS story in it. You just ignore it. Most people ignore it. They are so wrapped up in trying to get the best gear that they don't read the quest log. There is an insane amount of writing in amongst all the quest data. On the Alliance side, you can actually play all the way through to level 60 as if it were one massive chain quest - it will direct you to the next zones when you are ready (usually via another quest) and then finally it'll send you back to Stormwind and you can start the annoying Behemoth that is the Onyxia tuning, and then downing her.
When the game was still young- that was considered the end. If you downed her, you won.
As for the time spent playing a game - my girlfriend is out of town, as a result, I have around 4 hours a day monday through friday and 15 hours on the weekend where I have essentially "Free" time, if I wanted to play WoW I could.
I just don't find it as entertaining as it used to, things have gotten too easy.
That brings up a good point. How come all the successful botnets and viruses have pretty easy and also socially friendly names? 'Darkness', 'Illusion', 'Black Energy', 'Stuxnet', 'Conficker'
Where's the
f*cksh*tc*nt*ssb*tchp*ssylol Botnet - and why don't I get to hear it on the news every other week?
The way they discovered it was a gardener simply stepping in some reside, and it blowing up.
Wow - then thats worse than what the summary had led me to believe (They seem to be aware of a few different products, as if they had inspected the place)
It just seems like there is a WHOLE LOT of effort that would have to go into a controlled demolition of this sort (what with chemicals and all that) - so... why can't the same amount of effort go into removing them slowly, 1 at a time?
Now authorities face the risky task of getting rid of the explosives. The property is so dangerous and volatile that they have no choice but to burn the home to the ground this week in a highly controlled operation involving dozens of firefighters, scientists and hazardous material and pollution experts
So you've determined whats in the house, conclusively taken an inventory of it all, yet its too dangerous to handle...
Is this like SAW where everything has some tripwire booby trap hooked up to it - or are we just too afraid to pick up the stuff that we've been within 5 feet of?
I am more intrigued by this story than it actually lets on. Something about the whole "It's so dangerous we can't go one step further than what we've already done" really captivates me. There must be more to it than just what they're saying.
Who in their right mind feels more secure about it though?
Having nude pictures taken or having my junk felt up makes me feel quite INsecure.
If its really about security, and the junk must be fondled, than I want to have the right to fondle everyone on the same flight as me, attendants and pilots included, all the passengers, and they should all have the same right to fondle everyone else. With any luck, the procedure will simply take too long to be practical or in semi-rare cases break out into an orgy. Having never taken part in one I can't say I wouldn't relish the opportunity.
I don't think its as far a leap as you might make it sound. If "Pre-Emptive" action gets too comfortable with internet laws, its not a far step to getting around regular warrant procedures.
One thing I've been curious is that CNN and Fox and Every news outlet seems to love to point out that the US government wants him arrested, Interpol wants him arrested, and a slew of other places want him arrested, but they never seem to bring up the charges. (I don't actually watch the news but from the 2 blurbs I've seen, thats exactly what happened)
What crime has he committed exactly? He didn't hack into anything to get the information, it was supplied to him. The charges of Rape are a matter in Sweden and should only really be dealt with under their jurisdiction (and if they want to get interpol involved that should be up to Sweden and totally their call to make).
So... I don't understand - under what pretenses are they claiming they have the right to arrest him - given that he's not even an American Citizen nor on American Soil. Nor is he British, or on their land (or so I am led to believe).
If you think a UI change is what spurs the growth - you are quite foolish.
No, I think Facebook would be just as successful today with its original UI. They could have spent that engineering time actually building more interesting apps and tie ins to other websites, which would have had a more profound effect. No, instead, they moved the logout button 2 or 3 times.
#2
This proves, objectively, with 100% accuracy, that software piracy does zero economic harm and is actually beneficial to everyone involved.
(Man 4 million is going to take a while.)
That's probably the weakest excuse one could come up for it.
Avast has what they call a 'Free Trial Version' and going through a fileshare to get a license key might be actually more work to "demo" the software
If a forest of trees fall, but no one can report it, did it really happen?
That's a silly question, of course it did.
Thats what they want you to think...
My first thought was of browser hi-jacking, like when you get a nasty piece of Malware that turns all your redirects your google search links to their advertisements.
I would think - that "History Hijacking" would mean gaining control over whats in your history - which seems ultimately useless unless you were aiming to embarass someone on false pretenses...
They really shouldn't use the word "hijacking" out of its real context. Just "reading information" does not constitute hijacking. Even stealing doesn't constitute Hijacking.
I wonder if they had ever once just prompted the user to update the information, whether that would have worked as well.
If the data and backend systems are logically designed then this redesign should be very easy. So either these "engineers" are low skilled or their systems are a mess.
Even if its a mess - moving one link to another place is incredibly trivial - I can't imagine needing more than 2 people for a job like this, how they even managed to have 12 is absolutely beyond me. I work at a company where we deal with more complicated Data than Facebook, our backend is a bit of a mess, and we only have 5 programmers (one of which who acts as DBA, sometimes) to handle it all.
Seriously - it didn't cross the minds of 12 engineers that everyone who uses facebook has hated every single one of the UI changes - and they still continue to do it?
I think I could train a single monkey to do a better job than these guys. Simply because if I hand a monkey a computer, it'll take him a really long time to figure out how to publish any changes.
It's been scientifically proven that statistically men have better 3D perceptualization than women - yes some women are better at it than men, but when you plot it all out you get the regular bell curves, and men typically have higher preforming scores.
So it's not like jokes revolving around a woman's ability to park a car, or judging how far away an object is, or any of the things that seem to be related to navigation - they do have SOME foundation to it. (if you don't believe me, Google "Women's Depth Perception")
Much in the same way that colourblindness is strictly a male thing - if a woman is colourblind, it typically means that some dominant male gene actually took control when their eyes developed, which is quite rare in women. But also in Women its rare that they sometimes get a 4th "cone" in their eye that helps identifying in colours. This is why women tend to be better at items like interior design and Fashion, so the jokes about how "Men can't dress themselves" also have a good foundation. Like before, "some men are better than women at that sort of stuff" - but statistically speaking, this is a good strong point for women.
So - now that the science is out of the way - what does this have to do with Offensive jokes? That's the thing, they are just jokes. I mean in it in a light tone and while some might take it as derogatory, there are any number of things someone could make fun of me for (as you might have pointed out, my apparent lack of tact and manners!).
It boils down to this: do I value a good joke over someone elses potential feelings? Personally, I do enjoy a good joke. I think that the enjoyment it brings to me and others outweighs the possible negative feelings that a small contingent might actually feel - after all not ALL women are offended by such jokes.
A wise man once said... well I can't remember the exact words, but it was something along the lines of "Wisdom starts with humility". If you can't laugh at yourself than thats something you should work on. Recognising your shortfalls is the first step to overcoming them.
Now - the biggest problem I have with people is when they can't seperate Discrimination, prejudice, or harassment from humour. Like when you're at an Open source conference, and you're a women, like the article you linked. Guys taking upskirt photos of women? Yeah sexual harassment. Ignoring females because they are believed to be non-technical? Yeah discrimination. A picture of a girl in a Bikini during a slide show to say "That was just to get your attention" - Thats humour! It's meant in light fun, I bet if you had enough girls around you'd find them chuckling at the idea as well.
Point is - people need to lighten up. If more people could understand the difference between humour and harassment - the world would be a much better, and funnier place.
A 30-year-old game featured AI more sophisticated than what you'll find in most games today.
In defense of games today, things where a whole lot easier when you were on a strictly 2D, non-altering, fully 100% visible plane, and where an AI that knows your exact position regardless of things like noise and line of sight wasn't considered unfair, and where the only abilities an AI had to worry about were "Move My XY coordinates to = Player XY Coordinates" -
Well I think you're getting the picture...
Then you'll get one kid who goes "Aww man. I totally thought this was Ms Pacman! I built it with no sense of direction whatsoever!"
f*ckin' magnets...
Writing a Pac Man MAN algorithm would be better.
No one works with raw data, because there is often so much noise in data that it is impossible to compare it to anything else.
Incorrect - and there's no reason the data provided can't be raw data either.
In the sense of climate data, we wouldn't throw out 1 value because it seemed "Off" -
when you WORK with the raw data, like making a report, THATS when you filter out the noise and outlying results.
But to say that you don't work with the raw data is just silly. The filtering is the work!