Except that the player that can read from the memory stick is intentionally crippled so that it can't play movies at the full resolution the PSP is capable of.
I've been working in IT, running big websites and webhosting for 11 years. I have also intereviewed dozens of candidates for various junior-, mid- and senior-level positions.
I've been a system administrator, programmer/analyst, tools developer, database administrator and senior-level security engineer. Soon I'll switch jobs again to application development (with some web stuff and operations thrown in). The fact is, what I've done has been driven by what I wanted to do--when you like doing something, you acquire deep and useful skills in it; if you acquire skills merely because you think they make you more valuable--well, hell, why do you want that job anyway?
I've never had an interest in working with Windows--the last time I used Windows was in 3.11 days. If I got myself a bunch of NT skills and some certifications, where's that going to get me? A job where I administer Windows? Write some Visual Basic scripts? No thanks.
There's a few things I hate when interviewing people for jobs, and people who have "checkbox" skills in subjects that don't interest them are one of them. You can always tell--they have experience or certifications working with a certain technology but no understanding of it--they can't "geek out" about it and learn intricacies if necessary.
Networking (the social kind, I mean) is huge, especially among people that can grasp your skill. All but one of my jobs have come from people I know (often former bosses) approaching me. When you work with stuff that you really like, that you can really understand deeply and use to deliver excellent work, you will shine like a star; and that star-power is what will get you jobs.
If you want to learn about and use Windows, then by all means do; and while you're at it, pick up a couple of certifications why not. But if you don't, no power in the world is going to make you good at it, or enjoy it; so the only consequence is possibly finding work that you're not good at and don't enjoy. Blech.
False. The military IS using computers to train their recruits, but it's purpose is not to break inhibitions but to train combat tactics, you know; so you can win with minimal casualties on both sides.
I suspect that this is true; because the military has other techniques for breaking down a soldier's reluctance to kill, and has been using them for years. It's actually quite difficult, and it is a big part of combat training.
I think it's probably telling that they don't use video games to make recruits more willing to kill; it implies that it isn't very effective for that purpose.
You think the problem today is the graphics? I had photorealistic violence. I had the real deal. I stood there with a twelve-gauge and put a steer's brains out through the back of its head. It rattled me at first, doesn't anymore.
Actually I think the (perceived) problem is that what would normally be a revulsion against violent acts can be desensitized out, which is rather supported by your story.
Now, those who eat meat probably think it's rather a good and necessary thing that at least somme people are desensitized to killing animals; that's a reasonable argument to make. It's probably not a good idea to desensitize people to killing other people.
Is it possible that that's what videogames do, or can do? That's the central question here, I think--I admit I don't know the answer.
What gets me is every time a thread like this comes up we hear "but parents have to be responsible for raising their children," as if somehow parents have some kind of absolute control over their children and the world they inhabit.
And when anyone suggests mechanisms that, in fact, allow a parent to exert some control over what goes into raising their kid, we get the outcry that "how dare you require parents' permission for M-rated games!" and "how dare you offer software that allows you to restrict accessible websites from your own computer!" and "how dare you ask for restrictions on what might be displayed in public or broadcast during the Super Bowl!"
I suspect the reason is that so much of the slashdot crowd is composed of children who chafe at their parents' authority. They don't actually want parents to be responsible for raising their kids, they just want to blame them when things go wrong.
I really liked The Incredibles for this reason. I was rather surprised when watching it that the kind of "cartoon violence"--complete with cops and robbers with real guns--I grew up on was in the film in spades, along with real jeopardy and scary danger. I don't mind exposing my kid to those things as part of a good adventure.
You know what wasn't there? Disrespectful talkback and sass from kids and others, which has become a staple in kids' movies for the past few years now. Frankly, I think that does teach kids to be rude, and I look around me and what do I find? A bunch of rude kids, without respect or manners. Is it all "because" of movies and TV? No, but it doesn't help.
I just wanted to say first that I found this really helpful. I'd been merrily encoding without putting limits on bitrate, and my music collection just happens to stay around the nominal bitrate I usually use (128kbps). When I tried to encode some language lessons, though, it varied a lot more I guess, and it didn't work until I applied these limits, so thanks a long.
Secondly, I don't use the UMD firmware (I believe for the iFP-790 series the UMD firmware does not have Ogg support, or at least it didn't when I first got it). So I use the free IFP driver which works well for me. I use it on OpenBSD without problems, and since it's written for (mostly) Linux it should work well there, too. I even did a firmware upgrade with it and it worked fine.
I'm not sure the direction makes much sense. From the article:
Stilted controls have always been a favorite flogging point for the series' detractors. The original Raider was designed as a world made of boxes, and Lara's movements have always been built around that sort of orthogonal space. Making jumps has traditionally been a matter of lining Lara up against an edge, backing her up just so, then making a running leap. Very mechanical, very precise -- but not always much fun.
I think this has a lot to do with whether you like Tomb Raider or not. A great deal of the game has to do with precision jumping--being familiar with the standing jump arc and distance, how to catch handholds, etc. Frankly, I think if you don't like that (lining up and executing a difficult, precision jump) you probably don't like Tomb Raider. I'd hate to move from that to something like Devil May Cry where you can never tell where you're going to land and you just kind of jump any old way.
She sprints, leaps and dives with grace; when she steps slowly off a ledge, she'll immediately twist to catch herself (meaning no more accidental plummets). Moving hand-over-hand while hanging from a narrow platform, she'll automatically move her head to focus on the nearest hand-hold, subtly nudging players to figure out where to go next.
Well, I hardly think it's much fun to run around on catwalks and so forth if there's no chance of falling; and you've already had the option to automatically catch yourself. And when you step slowly you can't fall of the ledge, so I don't understand how this is a good thing. And Lara's gaze has always been attracted to the next place she has to get to.
So did I. I've played them all and in my opinion AoD was the best of the bunch since the original Tomb Raider.
It had some minor flaws (though it had a big reputation for bugginess, the PS2 version just wasn't that bad; I suspect the PC version was far worse) and felt incomplete, because it was intended to be followed rather shortly by a sequel that continues the story. Which would have happened had not the game and movie been disappointing (yes, I do think AoD was "rushed" out the door to meet the movie's release date).
Well, it clearly changes the balance, but as long as that's taken into account, what's the harm? It might be a good way of revisiting monsters you no longer bother with and seeing what they can really do--obviously you need to be more powerful for them if they're smarter, but it seems kind of fun.
As for why someone would play a monster (or set of monsters) instead of their own character in PvP... I don't know. It seems like a nifty change of pace to me.
Interesting idea. Usually you would deal with the problem you mention by not allowing the players to coordinate; that is, you don't get to choose what instance, dungeon, area or set of mobs you're going to control.
Are there some other reasons this would be problematic?
This rant is all very well, but there is of course another side to this story. Thank you for admitting you don't actually know what you're talking about since you "...can't vouch for these numbers myself; they were contained in a email I received on the matter."
I'll also point out that a simple edit count is probably not a measure of editor quality, nor endorses their behavior, any more than quantity of slashdot posting.
I don't know how it is in New Zealand, but in general in the States businesses are not held to errors in their advertising. Someone sends off an ad and they typoed $10 to read 10--the business is not obligated to stand by the erroneous price.
Counterargument: since the restaurant was warned, it stopped being an error and became intentional.
And, is there really an obligation to "keep a website up to date?" If I publish a menu, can't I change the prices the next day? Without giving everyone who took a copy an updated one?
Please stop suggesting NTP as a "countermeasure." It doesn't help--this is repeated over and over again in the paper. As far as I can tell, turning of tcp timestamps does.
It doesn't help. They're not tracking time error or system time but clock skew. Essentially if clock is supposed to tick once every second, they're measuring the deviation of the clock from that ideal.
Which is, by the way, exactly how you should use any encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is the most secondary of all secondary sources, and accuracy or depth is never the highest priority for one. It is to provide an introduction to just about any subject under the sun, and the community-based approach fits perfectly.
Your anecdote is rootless--we can't really judge it because it's a "this one time some bad stuff happened" kind of thing. This isn't a criticism but it would add to the discussion if you explained some of the following points.
You say "a wiki" this and "a wiki" that--are you referring to a Wikipedia article? If so, which one? If not, what's your point?
You say "if there is no maintainer, then it is likely to be as inaccurate as the most careless of its contributors." but you don't support this. Why wouldn't it be as accurate as the most motivated contributor makes it? Or as the most motivated body of contributors, collectively? Are you familiar with the Wikipedia mechanisms for dealing with change reversion and vandalism?
I'll bet he meant 0% down instead of 0% financing. 0% financinig is pretty rare--and yes, whoever carries the loan will have figured out a way to make money doing that.
You say I'm wrong, yet you go on to support everything I say. You agree that gambling isn't legal everywhere, and you agree that gambling includes games where skill and chance are mixed.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that the player that can read from the memory stick is intentionally crippled so that it can't play movies at the full resolution the PSP is capable of.
I've been working in IT, running big websites and webhosting for 11 years. I have also intereviewed dozens of candidates for various junior-, mid- and senior-level positions.
I've been a system administrator, programmer/analyst, tools developer, database administrator and senior-level security engineer. Soon I'll switch jobs again to application development (with some web stuff and operations thrown in). The fact is, what I've done has been driven by what I wanted to do--when you like doing something, you acquire deep and useful skills in it; if you acquire skills merely because you think they make you more valuable--well, hell, why do you want that job anyway?
I've never had an interest in working with Windows--the last time I used Windows was in 3.11 days. If I got myself a bunch of NT skills and some certifications, where's that going to get me? A job where I administer Windows? Write some Visual Basic scripts? No thanks.
There's a few things I hate when interviewing people for jobs, and people who have "checkbox" skills in subjects that don't interest them are one of them. You can always tell--they have experience or certifications working with a certain technology but no understanding of it--they can't "geek out" about it and learn intricacies if necessary.
Networking (the social kind, I mean) is huge, especially among people that can grasp your skill. All but one of my jobs have come from people I know (often former bosses) approaching me. When you work with stuff that you really like, that you can really understand deeply and use to deliver excellent work, you will shine like a star; and that star-power is what will get you jobs.
If you want to learn about and use Windows, then by all means do; and while you're at it, pick up a couple of certifications why not. But if you don't, no power in the world is going to make you good at it, or enjoy it; so the only consequence is possibly finding work that you're not good at and don't enjoy. Blech.
I suspect that this is true; because the military has other techniques for breaking down a soldier's reluctance to kill, and has been using them for years. It's actually quite difficult, and it is a big part of combat training.
I think it's probably telling that they don't use video games to make recruits more willing to kill; it implies that it isn't very effective for that purpose.
Actually I think the (perceived) problem is that what would normally be a revulsion against violent acts can be desensitized out, which is rather supported by your story.
Now, those who eat meat probably think it's rather a good and necessary thing that at least somme people are desensitized to killing animals; that's a reasonable argument to make. It's probably not a good idea to desensitize people to killing other people.
Is it possible that that's what videogames do, or can do? That's the central question here, I think--I admit I don't know the answer.
What gets me is every time a thread like this comes up we hear "but parents have to be responsible for raising their children," as if somehow parents have some kind of absolute control over their children and the world they inhabit.
And when anyone suggests mechanisms that, in fact, allow a parent to exert some control over what goes into raising their kid, we get the outcry that "how dare you require parents' permission for M-rated games!" and "how dare you offer software that allows you to restrict accessible websites from your own computer!" and "how dare you ask for restrictions on what might be displayed in public or broadcast during the Super Bowl!"
I suspect the reason is that so much of the slashdot crowd is composed of children who chafe at their parents' authority. They don't actually want parents to be responsible for raising their kids, they just want to blame them when things go wrong.
I really liked The Incredibles for this reason. I was rather surprised when watching it that the kind of "cartoon violence"--complete with cops and robbers with real guns--I grew up on was in the film in spades, along with real jeopardy and scary danger. I don't mind exposing my kid to those things as part of a good adventure.
You know what wasn't there? Disrespectful talkback and sass from kids and others, which has become a staple in kids' movies for the past few years now. Frankly, I think that does teach kids to be rude, and I look around me and what do I find? A bunch of rude kids, without respect or manners. Is it all "because" of movies and TV? No, but it doesn't help.
I just wanted to say first that I found this really helpful. I'd been merrily encoding without putting limits on bitrate, and my music collection just happens to stay around the nominal bitrate I usually use (128kbps). When I tried to encode some language lessons, though, it varied a lot more I guess, and it didn't work until I applied these limits, so thanks a long.
Secondly, I don't use the UMD firmware (I believe for the iFP-790 series the UMD firmware does not have Ogg support, or at least it didn't when I first got it). So I use the free IFP driver which works well for me. I use it on OpenBSD without problems, and since it's written for (mostly) Linux it should work well there, too. I even did a firmware upgrade with it and it worked fine.
I'm not sure the direction makes much sense. From the article:
I think this has a lot to do with whether you like Tomb Raider or not. A great deal of the game has to do with precision jumping--being familiar with the standing jump arc and distance, how to catch handholds, etc. Frankly, I think if you don't like that (lining up and executing a difficult, precision jump) you probably don't like Tomb Raider. I'd hate to move from that to something like Devil May Cry where you can never tell where you're going to land and you just kind of jump any old way.
Well, I hardly think it's much fun to run around on catwalks and so forth if there's no chance of falling; and you've already had the option to automatically catch yourself. And when you step slowly you can't fall of the ledge, so I don't understand how this is a good thing. And Lara's gaze has always been attracted to the next place she has to get to.
FYI, you play one or two levels as another (male) character in AoD.
So did I. I've played them all and in my opinion AoD was the best of the bunch since the original Tomb Raider.
It had some minor flaws (though it had a big reputation for bugginess, the PS2 version just wasn't that bad; I suspect the PC version was far worse) and felt incomplete, because it was intended to be followed rather shortly by a sequel that continues the story. Which would have happened had not the game and movie been disappointing (yes, I do think AoD was "rushed" out the door to meet the movie's release date).
Well, it clearly changes the balance, but as long as that's taken into account, what's the harm? It might be a good way of revisiting monsters you no longer bother with and seeing what they can really do--obviously you need to be more powerful for them if they're smarter, but it seems kind of fun.
As for why someone would play a monster (or set of monsters) instead of their own character in PvP... I don't know. It seems like a nifty change of pace to me.
Interesting idea. Usually you would deal with the problem you mention by not allowing the players to coordinate; that is, you don't get to choose what instance, dungeon, area or set of mobs you're going to control.
Are there some other reasons this would be problematic?
This rant is all very well, but there is of course another side to this story. Thank you for admitting you don't actually know what you're talking about since you "...can't vouch for these numbers myself; they were contained in a email I received on the matter." I'll also point out that a simple edit count is probably not a measure of editor quality, nor endorses their behavior, any more than quantity of slashdot posting.
Jaws was a much better movie that its book.
Wow! Tim Curry would be great as the Doctor.
I don't think it is. But consider:
I don't know how it is in New Zealand, but in general in the States businesses are not held to errors in their advertising. Someone sends off an ad and they typoed $10 to read 10--the business is not obligated to stand by the erroneous price.
Counterargument: since the restaurant was warned, it stopped being an error and became intentional.
And, is there really an obligation to "keep a website up to date?" If I publish a menu, can't I change the prices the next day? Without giving everyone who took a copy an updated one?
Please stop suggesting NTP as a "countermeasure." It doesn't help--this is repeated over and over again in the paper. As far as I can tell, turning of tcp timestamps does.
It's funny how all of the replies to the question missed the primary point that MAC is a link-level address and is only used on your link.
It doesn't help. They're not tracking time error or system time but clock skew. Essentially if clock is supposed to tick once every second, they're measuring the deviation of the clock from that ideal.
I believe so, and on OpenBSD:
And make the appropriate edit in /etc/sysctl.conf.
My guess is OpenBSD will have this or a similar countermeasure pretty soon.
Which is, by the way, exactly how you should use any encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is the most secondary of all secondary sources, and accuracy or depth is never the highest priority for one. It is to provide an introduction to just about any subject under the sun, and the community-based approach fits perfectly.
Your anecdote is rootless--we can't really judge it because it's a "this one time some bad stuff happened" kind of thing. This isn't a criticism but it would add to the discussion if you explained some of the following points.
You say "a wiki" this and "a wiki" that--are you referring to a Wikipedia article? If so, which one? If not, what's your point?
You say "if there is no maintainer, then it is likely to be as inaccurate as the most careless of its contributors." but you don't support this. Why wouldn't it be as accurate as the most motivated contributor makes it? Or as the most motivated body of contributors, collectively? Are you familiar with the Wikipedia mechanisms for dealing with change reversion and vandalism?
I'll bet he meant 0% down instead of 0% financing. 0% financinig is pretty rare--and yes, whoever carries the loan will have figured out a way to make money doing that.
You say I'm wrong, yet you go on to support everything I say. You agree that gambling isn't legal everywhere, and you agree that gambling includes games where skill and chance are mixed.
Why are you arguing again?