Thanks, glad you enjoyed it.:-) I'm a bit worried that the mods who gave it +1 Funny will end up punished in meta-mod since the post reads pretty straight out of context. Poor guys.
You need to remember that there is certain (or perhaps uncertain) amount of randomness in the laws of physics as understand them. Thus, the sheet is twitchy -- left on its own, it bunches up slightly here and there. On average, these will balance out symmetrically when it's pulled over all four corners. However, at any instant, it may be slightly asymmetric.
Once the random asymmetry is large enough to pop a corner off the mattress, this happens and the sheet gets bunched up asymmetrically. After this, it's in a lower energy configuration and won't find its way back to the original, symmetrical state.
This doesn't really explain why matter is clumped -- that's actually a separate result of the same randomness that pops the sheet off the mattress. The spontaneous symmetry breaking mattress model explains why laws of physics that are symmetric in particular ways may appear to be asymmetric when measured. Basically, the laws are symmetric but the state we're in is asymmetric. In some circumstances (namely, at low energies) you can't distinguish the laws from the state, so it can be hard to identify where the asymmetry lies.
No, no, it's a common misconception that an infinite number of universe implies that everything is possible somewhere. In contrast, there is a great number of invariants -- things that are so fundamental to the inner workings of the physics that governs the multiverse that they are equally and absolutely true in any of the billions of alternate universes. I'm pretty sure you just identified four of them. You should publish.
Inertia -- the idea that an object in motion tends to stay in motion unless disturbed -- predates Newton and is generally credited to Galileo,. Newton's better credited with connecting the moon's orbit with a the gravity that pulls an apple to the ground and with putting these concepts into a mathematical framework that allows quantitative calculations. Oh and inventing calculus (but don't let Leibniz hear you say that).
You keep saying this. Where are you getting that tidbit of information? We know from the article that the police, called by the owner, specifically told him that he was not welcome to use it. That's more than sufficient notice for a reasonable person. If that is somehow not sufficient, then I'd argue that he'll be acquitted on an unfortunate legal technicality, not some moral victory.
Furthermore, it's very possible and plausible that he was first asked by the owners directly to stop and he refused to comply. Even if not, I really have a hard time believing that a police warning is insufficient. It sounds as though the owners were creeped out and may have felt unsafe confronting the unwelcome user. In that case, I'd really hope they could ask the police for assistance.
Except then they advertised the service to him again inviting him to use it. Just because they are too dumb to know that is what their automated system is doing is no excuse.
You are making a huge assumption that a broadcast ID and no encryption is the same as an offer of service. I'd argue that it's just a specific technical process that needs to be backed up by policy. You really have no basis to assume that you're welcome to connect to a network. It's costing someone something to operate, so there's a pretty strong argument that you should assume that you're not authorized to connect to any network unless specifically advised otherwise. Even so, I'd personally say that an initial connection could be construed as "innocent" but once you've been asked not to connect, it becomes malicious.
You walk into a parking lot downtown and someone comes out and tells you this is private property and to get lost. You comply. A week later you come by and there is a sign out front that says, "open house, public welcome." If you go in, you can't be convicted of trespassing, because they put up a sign inviting you in.
This is simply not true. The public is generally welcome to enter a retail store. However, it's well-established (and confirmed by others in this thread) that these places routinely ban problem "customers" such as shoplifters or strongly suspected shoplifters. The blanket welcome to the public can be revoked on a case-by-case basis and the ban is persistent.
Yes, he's charged with "theft of services" a crime which obviously does not apply since it specifically only applies to paid services, not free ones.
The price of the services is being a customer. That's a small fee rolled in to the purchase price of each item, but it's not zero. Perhaps he did not realize this when he first connected. However, after being advised, he can't make this claim any further.
Anyway, this guy is clearly trying to use a service not intended for his use after being warned at least once and probably multiple times that he was not welcome to do so. If what he is doing is legal, then I regard that as an unfortunate technicality. All your arguments hinge on the broadcast wireless ID being a new invitation to use the service. I think that's a weak argument when you've been specifically told not to use that ID in the past.
Finally, I don't see this discussion going any further since we both seem to be repeating ourselves without changing the opinions of the other. It's been fun. Have a nice weekend.
If you connect to a network and the owner of the network tells you your use is not authorized and not to connect again, I think it's pretty safe to assume further connections are unauthorized. How is that ambiguous? If the owner calls the police on you, I think that makes it even clearer. Sure, before you've been told not to use it, I think you have a reasonable claim. Afterwards, however, you know you're not welcome, even if no technical means are in place to prevent your access.
As for trespass, electronic or otherwise, I think it's pretty safe to assume that if you were told yesterday that it is not public and you are not permitted to use the service/be there, you are not allowed to do it today either. When you're brought up on theft of service/trespass charges, I really don't think the absence of WEP or a sign is going to help you as much as you seem to think it will.
This guy had been told at LEAST once, and probably twice (I imagine they asked him to stop before calling the police, but that's not clear). He's accessing a system that he KNOWS he is not welcome to access. It doesn't matter whether there is a sign, because he has PERSONALLY been told not to access it.
Finally, regardless of how many crimes they may overlook, they arrested this guy after repeated complaints. Rereading the article, he was not only arrested but he is also CHARGED with a specific crime. They did not sweep him up and then try to think of a crime, they had reasonable suspicion that he was breaking a specific law, and then arrested him for it. OMG POLICE ABUSE!!
Seriously, I have a lot of sympathy for people who are wrongly arrested. I despise those who abuse their power. I also do not like laws that make it illegal to innocently connect with publicly accessible computing resources. In this case? He's an asshat and a moron and he had AMPLE warning that his access was unwelcome. I'm not familiar with the specific laws that may apply, but I would have no complaint if his activities were illegal.
The reason that I find it significant that the police had previously asked him to stop (on behalf of the network owners) is that it indicates that he was knowingly using a network without authorization. That strikes me as substantially different from "innocently" using an open access point. IANAL, but I do believe there are laws prohibiting unauthorized network access in many jurisdictions.
The police here arrested him at the request of the owners of that network (and possibly the parking lot he was loitering in, I don't know). In your hypothetical trespass example, if the owner of the private property you wander on to requests that you leave and you refuse, the police DO have the right to arrest you when he calls them. That is closer to what happened here, although it's dangerous to use analogies between physical actions and electronic ones.
It may well be that his network use is legal. On the other hand, it may well be that it's not. This is not a well-established area of law, as far as I know, and most of the rulings I'm aware of came from low courts and therefore don't have wide power as precedent. Overall, he is engaging in possibly illegal behavior that is clearly against the wishes of the network owners, possibly combined with trespassing. An arrest in this case does not seem unreasonable to me.
Plus, let's not lose sight of courtesy. Even if the guy is 100% within the law in using the access point, he has been asked by the owners not to. If this happened to me, I would stop. Not because of fear that I might be charged with a crime, but because it's just plain rude to freeload off of someone's resource.
Once he's been notified by the shop (probably directly before, but from the article, at least through the police) that he is not welcome to use their network, he is making unauthorized use of a network. IANAL, but there are laws about this in many jurisdictions. The point is not that the police have a special power to order him to halt, it is that it is on record that he's been informed that his access is unauthorized.
In that case, it'd be perfectly clear that the police officer was making an unreasonable request. If he instructed me to stop parking in the high school parking lot, then I'd probably stop doing it.
The point is that this guy was doing something of questionable legality. Once someone with the power to arrest you asks you not to do something, it is wise to be absolutely certain that you're in the right before you push your luck.
They may well have done that. Heck, the cops had already been there before and just told the guy to get lost. He came back after that, which is of extremely questionable wisdom.
This is a very good point, which I think was overlooked by many (and should have been featured more prominently in the article). It totally changes the landscape. He was NOT innocently and unknowingly using a resource intended to be private. He'd been advised by a reliable source that he was not welcome to use the network.
Of course, you could still plausibly maintain that the coffee shop needs to take technical steps to protect its connection. Personally, I disagree slightly, but then IANAL. However, if I was told by a police officer to stop using a network, I'd stop. If I really thought I was in the right, I'd consult with a lawyer before continuing.
Could the police use trespassing or something on this guy? If not, and you're using a wide open Wi-Fi point, they really have no case.
I think it may be more complicated than his simply using an open access point. According to the article, this guy had previously been asked by the police to move along and stop using their wireless network. Thus, he didn't just stop his truck and find an open network that seemed to be inviting him in. Rather, he was continuing to use a network that he had been instructed at least once he was not welcome to use. Even if you hold that a network's being open is generally reasonable permission to use it, this guy knew he did not have permission.
You seem very antisocial. What exactly is wrong with politely asking why the customer is unhappy before disconnecting their service? Not every interaction with a customer service representative is a battle to keep them from stealing money from your credit card account. As the parent quite reasonably pointed out, there are many reasons why someone might want to cancel that can be corrected. Further, even if you are certain that you want to discontinue service, if you give the company some insight as to why you don't believe their service is worth the price, they can use that information to offer packages that may be more palatable to you in the future. Voting with dollars in a free market is great, but it's even better to tell the service providers what it is that you would like them to offer.
I've dealt with customer service reps like the one in this call (though it was AT&T GlobalNet, not AOL). Much like Vincent, after a couple minutes of badgering, I just answered every question with "I would like to cancel my account," and probably had to repeat that half a dozen times in a row before the rep finally gave up and canceled the account. That is obviously badgering and is extremely poor service. No argument.
However, this doesn't mean that it's wrong to offer to help remedy whatever complaint the customer has. It may help some people who were unaware of other offerings. If it's done politely and you really are sure you want to cancel, it will be as simple as politely saying, "Thank you for trying to help, but I really am certain I would like to cancel." How is that an affront to your obviously valuable time?
I don't dispute that they can do this, nor that their TOS permit it and perhaps give sufficient warning that it may happen. However, I still don't believe that "permitted under the TOS" is sufficient to make a behavior reasonable or responsible.
It's great to try to reduce spam on the internet, I'm not against that. Based on anecdotes elsewhere in the thread, though, it sounds like GoDaddy is quite happy to cast a wide net and refuse to provide reasonable review of their decisions. Financially, it's obvious why, and that undermines the legitimacy of their efforts, IMO.
I had an open relay for no more than a week or two due to a misconfiguration. I wound up on a couple of spam blacklists as a result and had to jump through hoops to get myself removed. Maybe things have improved in the couple years since this happened, but it's quite possible to have actions taken in very short time, even if you conscientiously fix your honest error within a couple hours of discovering the problem.
Sure, certain spam is illegal in certain jurisdictions, but they have a pretty weak claim to be enforcing the law here. They're basing their accusation on a spam blacklist (or their own investigations), not any finding by any proper, unbiased adjudicator. Given that they can rake in $50-$200 per domain they "find guilty" of spamming, they are in a very poor position to make a fair decision about who is misusing their domain. This is vigilanteism, at best, and perhaps fraud in those cases where they've cast too wide a net.
As someone else pointed out, if they are really doing this for legitimate reasons, why is their reinstatement fee orders of magnitude greater than the initial registration fee? Why is there no initial warning followed by a probationary period? I could imagine a hefty fine for repeat offenders, ultimately resulting in permanent removal of the domain registration, but a sudden $200 fee does not strike me as motivated by seeking justice. Especially when the judge and jury are a spam blacklist...
Finally, to those who've defended spamhaus as one of the better spam blacklists, that's still not a good reason to use their judgement to impose such a large penalty. It does not take much of a configuration error to open your relay and end up on a blacklist. I made such an error just before going on a business trip and it took about a week before I noticed that my server was being used for spam. I fixed it within hours of the discovery, but had already had my domain listed on more than one blacklist. If I'd been hit with a $200 fine from my registrar as well, that would have hardly seemed fair.
I think that's because they want to combat the idea that Apple OS is the place to go if you want pretty pictures and nice sound. Apple has control over their own hardware, so they can control that whole experience. Microsoft wants to be sure they don't become known for the OS being used on those crappy machines with poor graphics and sound. By "encouraging" hardware vendors to provide this support, they ensure this won't be a problem.
Yeah, I always hated the font designers for those damn games. It was like they went out of their way to choose fonts where 1 l and I looked as similar as possible. 0 and O, and heck, sometimes Q did too. I could never understand why they didn't pick a better font. And I was like 10, you'd think a professional game designer would think of it...
In human terms, SPI is Debian's legal guardian. SPI is legally responsible for Debian's debts, obligations, and will be the one against the wall if Debian does something bad. However Debian admins can agree to legal terms and contracts which put SPI on the spot.
It seemed to me from the discussion that it's not clear whether the Debian admins actually have the power to enter such agreements or not. I'm not disagreeing with your post, just clarifying that. As the SPI rep pointed out, whether or not the Debian admins actually have that power, they can create a nasty situation. If they do have the power, then SPI has unwittingly accepted the indemnification terms. If they do not, then distributing the software is illegal. His point (or one of them) is that the way around this is to let SPI in on the decision.
Re:Why not lock, instead of unlock?
on
Just Let Me Play!
·
· Score: 1
I absolutely 100% agree with you about RE:CV. I was really excited about it but got bored quickly when I kept getting gnawed by zombies as I attempted to target them. I suppose you get used to it, though I played pretty far and just found it annoying throughout. Oh well.
Yay moderators are on crack again! I'd say the parent is actually ON topic since it discusses a real technical concern related to the subject of the article. If you're going to try to do this yourself, you should think about whether the mess is going to be a nuisance and plan to clean up accordingly. One thing you don't have to worry about is ants drinking the diet coke, since it doesn't contain any nutritive ingredients to speak of. The Mentos probably contain some sugar, but not much compared to the volume of coke that spews out.
How much of "bringing gaming to adults" was actually due to Microsoft and Sony, and how much had more to do with a generation who grew up with Atari and NES becoming adults and retaining an interest in gaming? These platforms were able to provide them with games that still interested them, but I think there was really an aging market out there looking for someone to keep feeding their already-formed addictions.
Are you sure there wasn't a switch on the back to toggle between tone and pulse dialing? Before tone dialing was rolled out everywhere (and when support often cost extra), this was a very common feature on push-button phones.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks, glad you enjoyed it. :-) I'm a bit worried that the mods who gave it +1 Funny will end up punished in meta-mod since the post reads pretty straight out of context. Poor guys.
You need to remember that there is certain (or perhaps uncertain) amount of randomness in the laws of physics as understand them. Thus, the sheet is twitchy -- left on its own, it bunches up slightly here and there. On average, these will balance out symmetrically when it's pulled over all four corners. However, at any instant, it may be slightly asymmetric.
Once the random asymmetry is large enough to pop a corner off the mattress, this happens and the sheet gets bunched up asymmetrically. After this, it's in a lower energy configuration and won't find its way back to the original, symmetrical state.
This doesn't really explain why matter is clumped -- that's actually a separate result of the same randomness that pops the sheet off the mattress. The spontaneous symmetry breaking mattress model explains why laws of physics that are symmetric in particular ways may appear to be asymmetric when measured. Basically, the laws are symmetric but the state we're in is asymmetric. In some circumstances (namely, at low energies) you can't distinguish the laws from the state, so it can be hard to identify where the asymmetry lies.
Does that help at all?
No, no, it's a common misconception that an infinite number of universe implies that everything is possible somewhere. In contrast, there is a great number of invariants -- things that are so fundamental to the inner workings of the physics that governs the multiverse that they are equally and absolutely true in any of the billions of alternate universes. I'm pretty sure you just identified four of them. You should publish.
Inertia -- the idea that an object in motion tends to stay in motion unless disturbed -- predates Newton and is generally credited to Galileo,. Newton's better credited with connecting the moon's orbit with a the gravity that pulls an apple to the ground and with putting these concepts into a mathematical framework that allows quantitative calculations. Oh and inventing calculus (but don't let Leibniz hear you say that).
Furthermore, it's very possible and plausible that he was first asked by the owners directly to stop and he refused to comply. Even if not, I really have a hard time believing that a police warning is insufficient. It sounds as though the owners were creeped out and may have felt unsafe confronting the unwelcome user. In that case, I'd really hope they could ask the police for assistance.
You are making a huge assumption that a broadcast ID and no encryption is the same as an offer of service. I'd argue that it's just a specific technical process that needs to be backed up by policy. You really have no basis to assume that you're welcome to connect to a network. It's costing someone something to operate, so there's a pretty strong argument that you should assume that you're not authorized to connect to any network unless specifically advised otherwise. Even so, I'd personally say that an initial connection could be construed as "innocent" but once you've been asked not to connect, it becomes malicious.
This is simply not true. The public is generally welcome to enter a retail store. However, it's well-established (and confirmed by others in this thread) that these places routinely ban problem "customers" such as shoplifters or strongly suspected shoplifters. The blanket welcome to the public can be revoked on a case-by-case basis and the ban is persistent.
The price of the services is being a customer. That's a small fee rolled in to the purchase price of each item, but it's not zero. Perhaps he did not realize this when he first connected. However, after being advised, he can't make this claim any further.
Anyway, this guy is clearly trying to use a service not intended for his use after being warned at least once and probably multiple times that he was not welcome to do so. If what he is doing is legal, then I regard that as an unfortunate technicality. All your arguments hinge on the broadcast wireless ID being a new invitation to use the service. I think that's a weak argument when you've been specifically told not to use that ID in the past.
Finally, I don't see this discussion going any further since we both seem to be repeating ourselves without changing the opinions of the other. It's been fun. Have a nice weekend.
If you connect to a network and the owner of the network tells you your use is not authorized and not to connect again, I think it's pretty safe to assume further connections are unauthorized. How is that ambiguous? If the owner calls the police on you, I think that makes it even clearer. Sure, before you've been told not to use it, I think you have a reasonable claim. Afterwards, however, you know you're not welcome, even if no technical means are in place to prevent your access.
As for trespass, electronic or otherwise, I think it's pretty safe to assume that if you were told yesterday that it is not public and you are not permitted to use the service/be there, you are not allowed to do it today either. When you're brought up on theft of service/trespass charges, I really don't think the absence of WEP or a sign is going to help you as much as you seem to think it will.
This guy had been told at LEAST once, and probably twice (I imagine they asked him to stop before calling the police, but that's not clear). He's accessing a system that he KNOWS he is not welcome to access. It doesn't matter whether there is a sign, because he has PERSONALLY been told not to access it.
Finally, regardless of how many crimes they may overlook, they arrested this guy after repeated complaints. Rereading the article, he was not only arrested but he is also CHARGED with a specific crime. They did not sweep him up and then try to think of a crime, they had reasonable suspicion that he was breaking a specific law, and then arrested him for it. OMG POLICE ABUSE!!
Seriously, I have a lot of sympathy for people who are wrongly arrested. I despise those who abuse their power. I also do not like laws that make it illegal to innocently connect with publicly accessible computing resources. In this case? He's an asshat and a moron and he had AMPLE warning that his access was unwelcome. I'm not familiar with the specific laws that may apply, but I would have no complaint if his activities were illegal.
The reason that I find it significant that the police had previously asked him to stop (on behalf of the network owners) is that it indicates that he was knowingly using a network without authorization. That strikes me as substantially different from "innocently" using an open access point. IANAL, but I do believe there are laws prohibiting unauthorized network access in many jurisdictions.
The police here arrested him at the request of the owners of that network (and possibly the parking lot he was loitering in, I don't know). In your hypothetical trespass example, if the owner of the private property you wander on to requests that you leave and you refuse, the police DO have the right to arrest you when he calls them. That is closer to what happened here, although it's dangerous to use analogies between physical actions and electronic ones.
It may well be that his network use is legal. On the other hand, it may well be that it's not. This is not a well-established area of law, as far as I know, and most of the rulings I'm aware of came from low courts and therefore don't have wide power as precedent. Overall, he is engaging in possibly illegal behavior that is clearly against the wishes of the network owners, possibly combined with trespassing. An arrest in this case does not seem unreasonable to me.
Plus, let's not lose sight of courtesy. Even if the guy is 100% within the law in using the access point, he has been asked by the owners not to. If this happened to me, I would stop. Not because of fear that I might be charged with a crime, but because it's just plain rude to freeload off of someone's resource.
Once he's been notified by the shop (probably directly before, but from the article, at least through the police) that he is not welcome to use their network, he is making unauthorized use of a network. IANAL, but there are laws about this in many jurisdictions. The point is not that the police have a special power to order him to halt, it is that it is on record that he's been informed that his access is unauthorized.
In that case, it'd be perfectly clear that the police officer was making an unreasonable request. If he instructed me to stop parking in the high school parking lot, then I'd probably stop doing it.
The point is that this guy was doing something of questionable legality. Once someone with the power to arrest you asks you not to do something, it is wise to be absolutely certain that you're in the right before you push your luck.
They may well have done that. Heck, the cops had already been there before and just told the guy to get lost. He came back after that, which is of extremely questionable wisdom.
This is a very good point, which I think was overlooked by many (and should have been featured more prominently in the article). It totally changes the landscape. He was NOT innocently and unknowingly using a resource intended to be private. He'd been advised by a reliable source that he was not welcome to use the network.
Of course, you could still plausibly maintain that the coffee shop needs to take technical steps to protect its connection. Personally, I disagree slightly, but then IANAL. However, if I was told by a police officer to stop using a network, I'd stop. If I really thought I was in the right, I'd consult with a lawyer before continuing.
You seem very antisocial. What exactly is wrong with politely asking why the customer is unhappy before disconnecting their service? Not every interaction with a customer service representative is a battle to keep them from stealing money from your credit card account. As the parent quite reasonably pointed out, there are many reasons why someone might want to cancel that can be corrected. Further, even if you are certain that you want to discontinue service, if you give the company some insight as to why you don't believe their service is worth the price, they can use that information to offer packages that may be more palatable to you in the future. Voting with dollars in a free market is great, but it's even better to tell the service providers what it is that you would like them to offer.
I've dealt with customer service reps like the one in this call (though it was AT&T GlobalNet, not AOL). Much like Vincent, after a couple minutes of badgering, I just answered every question with "I would like to cancel my account," and probably had to repeat that half a dozen times in a row before the rep finally gave up and canceled the account. That is obviously badgering and is extremely poor service. No argument.
However, this doesn't mean that it's wrong to offer to help remedy whatever complaint the customer has. It may help some people who were unaware of other offerings. If it's done politely and you really are sure you want to cancel, it will be as simple as politely saying, "Thank you for trying to help, but I really am certain I would like to cancel." How is that an affront to your obviously valuable time?
I don't dispute that they can do this, nor that their TOS permit it and perhaps give sufficient warning that it may happen. However, I still don't believe that "permitted under the TOS" is sufficient to make a behavior reasonable or responsible.
It's great to try to reduce spam on the internet, I'm not against that. Based on anecdotes elsewhere in the thread, though, it sounds like GoDaddy is quite happy to cast a wide net and refuse to provide reasonable review of their decisions. Financially, it's obvious why, and that undermines the legitimacy of their efforts, IMO.
I had an open relay for no more than a week or two due to a misconfiguration. I wound up on a couple of spam blacklists as a result and had to jump through hoops to get myself removed. Maybe things have improved in the couple years since this happened, but it's quite possible to have actions taken in very short time, even if you conscientiously fix your honest error within a couple hours of discovering the problem.
Sure, certain spam is illegal in certain jurisdictions, but they have a pretty weak claim to be enforcing the law here. They're basing their accusation on a spam blacklist (or their own investigations), not any finding by any proper, unbiased adjudicator. Given that they can rake in $50-$200 per domain they "find guilty" of spamming, they are in a very poor position to make a fair decision about who is misusing their domain. This is vigilanteism, at best, and perhaps fraud in those cases where they've cast too wide a net.
As someone else pointed out, if they are really doing this for legitimate reasons, why is their reinstatement fee orders of magnitude greater than the initial registration fee? Why is there no initial warning followed by a probationary period? I could imagine a hefty fine for repeat offenders, ultimately resulting in permanent removal of the domain registration, but a sudden $200 fee does not strike me as motivated by seeking justice. Especially when the judge and jury are a spam blacklist...
Finally, to those who've defended spamhaus as one of the better spam blacklists, that's still not a good reason to use their judgement to impose such a large penalty. It does not take much of a configuration error to open your relay and end up on a blacklist. I made such an error just before going on a business trip and it took about a week before I noticed that my server was being used for spam. I fixed it within hours of the discovery, but had already had my domain listed on more than one blacklist. If I'd been hit with a $200 fine from my registrar as well, that would have hardly seemed fair.
I think that's because they want to combat the idea that Apple OS is the place to go if you want pretty pictures and nice sound. Apple has control over their own hardware, so they can control that whole experience. Microsoft wants to be sure they don't become known for the OS being used on those crappy machines with poor graphics and sound. By "encouraging" hardware vendors to provide this support, they ensure this won't be a problem.
Yeah, I always hated the font designers for those damn games. It was like they went out of their way to choose fonts where 1 l and I looked as similar as possible. 0 and O, and heck, sometimes Q did too. I could never understand why they didn't pick a better font. And I was like 10, you'd think a professional game designer would think of it...
I absolutely 100% agree with you about RE:CV. I was really excited about it but got bored quickly when I kept getting gnawed by zombies as I attempted to target them. I suppose you get used to it, though I played pretty far and just found it annoying throughout. Oh well.
I don't think they do, but I can't say I've ever tried the experiment.
Yay moderators are on crack again! I'd say the parent is actually ON topic since it discusses a real technical concern related to the subject of the article. If you're going to try to do this yourself, you should think about whether the mess is going to be a nuisance and plan to clean up accordingly. One thing you don't have to worry about is ants drinking the diet coke, since it doesn't contain any nutritive ingredients to speak of. The Mentos probably contain some sugar, but not much compared to the volume of coke that spews out.
How much of "bringing gaming to adults" was actually due to Microsoft and Sony, and how much had more to do with a generation who grew up with Atari and NES becoming adults and retaining an interest in gaming? These platforms were able to provide them with games that still interested them, but I think there was really an aging market out there looking for someone to keep feeding their already-formed addictions.
Are you sure there wasn't a switch on the back to toggle between tone and pulse dialing? Before tone dialing was rolled out everywhere (and when support often cost extra), this was a very common feature on push-button phones.
This joke should be in the top 3 on the list.