What the judge said was, with software like kazaa when you download music it automatically goes into your shared folder (which is shared to the web). Since you are allowed to download music and the music happens to go into your shared folder you are not explicitly uploading anything. You did not activily distribute any songs. You did not go out an announce to anyone that the music was in your shared folder.
If that's the actual ruling summary, then ruling is incorrect.
When a computer receives a request from any user of a P2P network askng if you have files matching "*UT2004*", the program is replying on the computer owner's behalf that the file is ready to be distributed on his or her behalf.
The only defence is ignorance of the fact, where the user did not know that the file was in his or her shared folder - and even then, it's fairly shaky since computer users that get Kazaa probably know that they are doing piracy.
Techincally, she can't. Only the legislative branch can pass a bill. Therefore, she's got no more power than any other citizen has to suggest a bill.
The same is true in the USA.
Given the website you're linking to, I'm assuming that you don't know that much about the Canadian political system.
Bills may be proposed by any member of Parliment (such bills start with a "C-" prefix), or by any senator (rarer, but they start with "S-"). There are restrictions on what can be put into a bill, but those are generally details. If a bill is sponsered by one person as opposed to an entire party, it is generally referred to as a "Private-members bill", indicating that it is not associated with the party.
Private members bills haven't been known to become law that often. First off, the individual member of parliment must be recognised by the speaker of the house (normally, cabinet ministers, the PM, and leaders of the official opposition get priority) or senate. It must then pass a vote for the first reading before it can proceed further (where the content of the bill can be changed by the group of MPs assigned to correct the mistakes.) After one quick vote and one full tally vote, the bill gets transferred to either the House or Senate (depending on where the bill was proposed.)
After the bill has worked its way through both the house and senate, it is then given Royal Assent when it is signed by the Governor General of Canada.
Just so that you know, the procedure for passing laws is the similar for all three levels of government: Federal, Provincial, and Municipal. The major differences (among others) are that the Provincial and Municipal governments do not have a Senate, and the Municipal governments do not have an equivalent of a Governor general.
Not true: there are some of these devices that are identical. While their dynamic connectivity may change because of their slightly different environments, they are theoritically identical beacuse of the same initial seed for generation.
Even with the differences in the environment, the output of the two devices will generally be similar, if not identical.
It's easy to hide behind elitism, Aspergers, or whatever excuse you want to make up for why you avoid people, but the truth is that the meaning of life is found in other people.
I was once a hard core geek, and for a long time I thought I was happy, and better than the common masses. But since I forced myself to get over my unease, get out and meet new people and engage in "normal" activities, I have become a much happier person.
This is easier that it sounds. After being emotionally scarred through high school, I'm sure most affected geeks would have a lot of trouble getting a "normal" social life. Unlike regular shyness that may appear during their early childhood, this emotional scarring is permanent damage that is extremely difficult to get rid of.
If the meaning of life is found in other people, the same geeks would envision the meaning as cruelty in the social activities instead of the intended benevolence. As opposed to committing themselves to that option, they will instead look for other avenues where the meaning of life has a much better image - the internet with no (or limited) emotional communications would appear as a much better option.
Thanks to parents who don't kick their asses to study, thanks to computer games, game consoles, TV, entertainment, internet, chat, online games, shopping, clubbing, partying, "going out", need I say more?
That's true for most parents and students, but as you know, there is a small group of gifted children that can fly right through the highschool levels with almost no effort or studying. Forcing them to work or study on material that they've already mastered is causes a detremental effect known as burnout.
Over all who to blame for the laziness and ineptness of American school kids?
I'd say that it's the school system itself, as it does not even provide any room for skilled students to advance without having to waste 110 hours on material that they already know. College is somewhat better as it provides students with the ability to perform a Prior Learning Assessment (usually not recommended as courses contain information that isn't taught outside of college.)
The lazy Parents. They should be the ones to crack down on their lazy son/daughter to do work instead of "play"
From my experience, not every parent is lazy. The majority of them tend to want their child to perform well (but sometimes overdrive them.) The few bad apples that demand that their students get scholarship class "A+"s instead of a mere "A" are the major problem.
I saw one knife another when it ran out of ammo, it was a shock to see a skill like that transferred to a computer opponent.
Actually, that's been around for quite a while. Unreal Tournament bots switch to the Impact Hammer when they run out of ammo and will attack opponents using that melee weapon. There's even one bot that has the Impact Hammer as a favourite weapon - it will switch over and attack with it even though other weapons are more suited to the situation. (They will normally retreat if they are stuck with that weapon, but they will use it if cornered.)
The same bots also know how to use the impact hammer to jump to high places (sometimes to catch up with a flag carrier.)
One of the patches for Descent 3 makes the Guidebot better at dodging player attacks. Once you install the patch, it is very rare that the Guidebot gets killed unless you explicitly try to attack it.
There IS a big difference. If you use the same login/password for your authentication, and one gets compromised because the admin peeked in the database or web logs or whatever, all your accounts are compromised.
There's a minor detail that you overlooked in the grandparent's posting - the poster wished to know the differences between the two situations where account security is equal in both systems. This is a theoritical question that does assumes the technology level is a bit more secure than it is right now.
How is this any more or less of a security risk than having a single sign-on in the first place? ( Assuming equal security of the account storage, I guess. )
With equal account security, there's not really too much of a difference between those two systems. (There are some, but they are relativly minor compared to what I was thinking about.)
The problem only occurrs when certain multiple-sign in nodes do not have proper security procedures, such as storing unencrypted passwords. My comparision implies that the single sign-in method is fully secure (excluding man-in-the-middle attacks involving social engineering), which is not exactly valid with Microsoft's.NET passport.
Whether something like Passport is right for end users is another question.
While I'm not speaking for everybody, I'm sure there's a large group of people that always hate having to register for every individual website for the sole purpose of posting a single comment. It's one of the many good reasons why Usenet is still around. It's also the same reason why Gamespy's Forumplanet is keeping so many users in spite of having a poor forum interface.
Multiple logins aren't better either. Given the sheer quantity of internet forums, a user will eventaully give up on creating new username/password combinations that they will simply recycle them (a big security risk right there.)
In theory, KISS is quite good. In practice, business requirements chance so frequrently that you need to aim for a moving target instead of a well-defined static goal.
-I may sound horribly outdated, but I have serious questions as to whether OOP has bought us anything as an industry.
You're not alone. The benefits found in Object Oriented Programming are theoritical instead of practical. 9 times out of 10, OOP is not used to it's full extent, resulting in the extra effort spent writing OOP being wasted.
The theories on why OOP is better won't be mentioned here - they've been posted enough times that it can be found in almost any decent programming textbook. In general, they relate to modular building in a way that interdependancies are minimized to a significant extent.
BTW, I've also seen poor OOP code - In one game modding API there are many cases where there should be some form of return value for some functions that have the potential of failing, but no such return value exists. As a result, I have to search a listing of objects in a way that is more messy than it should be. You wouldn't be suprised when I want to figure out how to override the C++ "private" member declarations to make modifications directly to the class (and blow away the alleged benefits of OOP for whatever I'm doing) - of course, pointers shouldn't be used that way.
my install CD is broken so I have a choice of buying another copy or making my LEGAL copy work.
so I download off Kazaa the iso file of the CD burn a new one and voila...
Two things:
1. What makes you sure that the downloaded version is identical to the original CD? Although rare, ISOs can be modified to include viruses or trojan horses by experienced vigilantes. In fact, there was reports of a software collection CD containing an actual virus in one of the compressed files.
2. If you intend to use a critical product for long-term use, why not backup the original directly? (This, of course, is fairly expensive but is worth it compared to the time and risk spent hunting down another legal or illegitimate copy.) Even if you don't want to hose a CD, you can download specialised software that images the CD and mounts the image as a readable virtual disk, and burn those images at a later date should the unthinkable happen.
But there is an alternate way to remake War of the Worlds that would be interesting: Focus on what people will do when they are desperate.
IIRC, Mars was considered a dying planet by the original author. The Martians eventually had to do something to keep their people alive, and that meant colonizing Earth. The Martains, having observed Earth for many years, have known that it is populated with a civilization bent on conquest and would never accept aliens coming from the sky.
In a way, the movie could potentially put focus on the alien civilization as well, showing that they perform their acts from desperation rather than a desire for cruelty or power.
There is no pattern - if any, it's a pattern of your attitude towards Cruise. He had interesting parts in movies like "Rain Man" (1988)
I would say that the Dustin Hoffman was a better actor in that film, in addition to having a more interseting role. Also, the film appeared to be set up in a way that was causing Dustin to receive more noticable camera time than the actor you're referring to. His skills in acting are impressive in that film, as it is difficult in order to perform some of those scenes with a straight face.
The role played by Tom Cruise was more of a generic role of a brother not receiving what he wanted in his inheritance. He was also extremely frustrated with having to adapt to take care of his autistic brother after taking him, a sign that he was not ready to take responsibility. In a way, his character was simply using his brother (and was confirmed by the autistic character when he was asked if he was being used.)
Whether Tom's acting is good or merely average (depending on your tastes), it is overshadowed by Dustin's acting. As a result, we need to rely on other films he was in to see his full potential. From what I see from personal experience and the comments of others, most of the films he he stars in don't really show his potential either, meaning that he'll get a reputation as a famous but bad actor.
You're kidding, right? Gunman Chronicles was worse than Daikatana. (Of course, Daikatana wasn't nearly as bad as people said -- it was mediocre, not awful -- but Gunman was even more mediocre.)
I've played both Gunamn and Daikatana. In my experience, Gunman is actually better since you don't even need to download a slow-installing patch to get it working. While I now have access to a Daikatana manual installer, it only got made after noticing that the patch process takes over 10 minutes.
This setup time counts significantly, because I play multiplayer games on a DeepFreezed computer which negates all changes done to a computer's hard drive as soon as it is reset.
(That, and Daikatana seems to have some strange video card issues - but I'm not really supposed to hold this against the game.)
The main problem was that you really needed a flight stick to play it well; key+mouse was just hell.
After playing descent with a Joystick, followed by Keyboard+Joystick, and followed by Keyboard+Mouse, I eventually settled on Keyboard only for the first two of the Descent series.
It seems strange, but I seemed to have a bit more control over the ship than I used to, making it a bit easier to do 360-turns and a few other manuvers. (Or it could be that I'm a bit more experienced.)
For Descent 3, I find that Keyboard+Mouse works best for me. Not too sure on joystick, since it doesn't feel right when the stick is at the same level as the keyboard.
Descent 3 came out shortly after, fixed many technical issues but it was back to the hyper-difficult mazelike levels, focusing on exploration rather than action.
That's generally why I use the guidebot to get to the objectives.:)
Yes, Rainbow Six. By some people, it's called Rainbow "Aim-Bot" Six, but is otherwise worthy of being mentioned. It is around the time between Quake 2 and Unreal - an intermediate stage where 3d Accellerators were beginning to appear, and where the FPS AI was in the infancy stage.
We aren't talking about Raven Shield here - that game is the latest installment of the game that uses the Unreal engine and fixes some of the bugs that were appearent in the originals, as well as rebalancing the AI so that it doesn't do perfectly accurrate long range snap-shots with pistols (at least on Recruit - they'll still do it on Elite.)
Some of them, rather most of them, get involved with good things like computers or electronics or some other difficult task instead of video games or television and they learn skills that allow them to survive.
The only problem with the "computer" field is that video games are always one step away. This occurrs all too easily if the child doesn't have the will power to avoid the negative influence, or if the tools for using computers to the full potential aren't as available as they could be.
From what I know, this is the only field that has such a negative influcence associated with it - Electronics, media, and some other technology fields aren't affected.
Do you really and truly think that public school provides anything--anything at all--that is necessary to succeed in life?!?
Is there any indication otherwise?
During my youth, I was told by my parents, my teachers, and many television ads that school is the *ONLY* way to succeed in life. Even though there were notible exceptions (e.g. Bill Gates dropped out but founded Microsoft), I was told that such people were ultra-geniuses and that regular gifted students could not succeed through that avenue.
It took until college to know otherwise. Until then, I had to rely on teachers to provide an education that was never delivered.
That sounds very cool that Armed & Dangerous actually increases the health as opposed to accuracy you must admit that this is the exception and not the rule.
It may sound cool, but I disagree. In fact, it's something that I'm uncomfortable with, as it has the chance of making the game unplayable.
As an example, lets look at Slave Zero. On hard difficulty, there is not enough ammunition to destroy the health-boosted final boss, unless you select the correct weaponry. This is not the case on "Normal" or "Easy" where you can slay him using almost any weapon. (Believe me, I have finished that game.)
On the other hand, I would prefer some difficulty settings on the style of Star Trek: Armada II. In that game, you can select the AI difficulty independantly from it's build time and build cost handicaps. Thus, if you can defeat everything a non-cheating AI can throw at you, you can simply give it a small boost...:)
Most modern games only get harder because the AI is instructed to "shoot straighter". Take any FPS game and the only difference in levels is that the AI is a better shot.
My most recent FPS game (Armed and Dangerous by Planet Moon Studios/LucasArts) had four difficulty levels. The differences between "Normal", "Over The Top" and "Insane" had the enemies increase in health as opposed to accurracy.
Also, there's one game which you almost mentioned where higher difficulty levels do not mean more accurrate opponents. You mentioned Descent - it's third installment causes opponents to dodge aggressivly on "Insane", resulting in the enemy next to impossible to hit without an extended dogfight. From what I recall, it's the only game in existance that implements this form of AI.
Here's an idea: let writers create game ideas, not programers.
Couldn't agree more, even though there are a few niche games that don't require writers (e.g. Tetris...)
Everyone who bitches about gaming not being as good as it used to be is either A. outgrowing it or B. just pissed off because they finished their favorite game and can never get the same excitement from any other game ever again.
I have taken a deep look into various games, and noticed a trend. There are *TOO MANY* new games being relesed that do not meet the standards of previously released games.
My best example would be Star Trek: New Worlds. Aside from many interface and unit AI flaws that make game next to unplayable, the gameplay is otherwise simpler than C&C: Tiberium Dawn. There are many other games around that also support my example - just pick any random game off the shelf, and you will notice major problems with it.
The poor QA in games can easily be avoided by creating a lessons learned database that identified flaws from previously released games so that they are not likely to be repeated. While this won't eliminate games that are below average (by one definition, 50% of games fit that bill), they will be good enough that you won't be absolutly pissed for having your $20-30 sent down the drain.
Modern gaming is fine. If it doesn't interest you, find another game,
Modern gaming is only fine if I can make my choice on which game to purchase from the store without having to resort to professional and user reviews of the game itself. These reviews are supposed to be used to determine which one of the good games to choose from, rather than a filter on which half of the available games to avoid.
The only games that I seem to be able to purchase without problem would be part of the UT series (even if the next version is simply a patch of a previous one), or another tried-tested-and-true game that has not beem bashed over and over again for poor QA. This severly cuts down on the scope of games that you can actually purchase and play without the feeling of wasted money (excluding Bargin-Bin deals).
The movie/television industry isn't as badly affected by poor QA - most people can pick a random movie or television program and like it. The only problem would be low-quality programs that everybody likes (e.g. Seinfeld, considered to be junk by a group of people), along with other poor shows that appear by accident.
Multiplayer gaming can also be fun with back-and-forth battles that almost have no obvious indication of who is going to win a match. In such a case, it gives the losing team a different find of fun - a desire to beat the opponents in a later match.
The only place where it is not fun is in case of cheaters or in lopsided matches. Those are unavoidable.
Pathnames: Typing in a path and filename is the worst waste of time and another major reason why CLI sucks. Consider this problem from an information theory standpoint. I usually have between 4 and 16 subdirectories in each directory. In theory it should only take between 2 bits and 4 bits of information to select a subdirectory. At the same time, I have between 5 and 20 characters in the names of most directories. So instead of picking among a few easy to distinguish items in a GUI, I am forced to type in 5 to 20 characters (that's 40 to 160 bits of information) per level in a CLI. And with a CLI, if I make one tiny spelling error then the entire command fails and I have to retype it. That Sucks.
I wouldn't say that GUI systems are better for this instance.
I've been using Windows a lot, and noticed several major problems with the GUI interface when it comes to pathnames and filesystems. Nine times out of ten, it selects your default "My Documents" folder, your Desktop, the current working directory (i.e. the directory where the program was launched.), or the last used directory.
You also have to do a bit of hunting to find the folder you want, depending on the quantity of files as well.
The only good GUI interface for filemanagement that I've seen would be similar to XTreeGold 2.51, and I haven't seen it reproduced recently.
Slashdot Mirror
If that's the actual ruling summary, then ruling is incorrect.
When a computer receives a request from any user of a P2P network askng if you have files matching "*UT2004*", the program is replying on the computer owner's behalf that the file is ready to be distributed on his or her behalf.
The only defence is ignorance of the fact, where the user did not know that the file was in his or her shared folder - and even then, it's fairly shaky since computer users that get Kazaa probably know that they are doing piracy.
Bills may be proposed by any member of Parliment (such bills start with a "C-" prefix), or by any senator (rarer, but they start with "S-"). There are restrictions on what can be put into a bill, but those are generally details. If a bill is sponsered by one person as opposed to an entire party, it is generally referred to as a "Private-members bill", indicating that it is not associated with the party.
Private members bills haven't been known to become law that often. First off, the individual member of parliment must be recognised by the speaker of the house (normally, cabinet ministers, the PM, and leaders of the official opposition get priority) or senate. It must then pass a vote for the first reading before it can proceed further (where the content of the bill can be changed by the group of MPs assigned to correct the mistakes.) After one quick vote and one full tally vote, the bill gets transferred to either the House or Senate (depending on where the bill was proposed.)
After the bill has worked its way through both the house and senate, it is then given Royal Assent when it is signed by the Governor General of Canada.
Just so that you know, the procedure for passing laws is the similar for all three levels of government: Federal, Provincial, and Municipal. The major differences (among others) are that the Provincial and Municipal governments do not have a Senate, and the Municipal governments do not have an equivalent of a Governor general.
Even with the differences in the environment, the output of the two devices will generally be similar, if not identical.
If the meaning of life is found in other people, the same geeks would envision the meaning as cruelty in the social activities instead of the intended benevolence. As opposed to committing themselves to that option, they will instead look for other avenues where the meaning of life has a much better image - the internet with no (or limited) emotional communications would appear as a much better option.
I'd say that it's the school system itself, as it does not even provide any room for skilled students to advance without having to waste 110 hours on material that they already know. College is somewhat better as it provides students with the ability to perform a Prior Learning Assessment (usually not recommended as courses contain information that isn't taught outside of college.)
From my experience, not every parent is lazy. The majority of them tend to want their child to perform well (but sometimes overdrive them.) The few bad apples that demand that their students get scholarship class "A+"s instead of a mere "A" are the major problem.
The same bots also know how to use the impact hammer to jump to high places (sometimes to catch up with a flag carrier.)
One of the patches for Descent 3 makes the Guidebot better at dodging player attacks. Once you install the patch, it is very rare that the Guidebot gets killed unless you explicitly try to attack it.
In practice, your concern is completely valid.
The problem only occurrs when certain multiple-sign in nodes do not have proper security procedures, such as storing unencrypted passwords. My comparision implies that the single sign-in method is fully secure (excluding man-in-the-middle attacks involving social engineering), which is not exactly valid with Microsoft's
Multiple logins aren't better either. Given the sheer quantity of internet forums, a user will eventaully give up on creating new username/password combinations that they will simply recycle them (a big security risk right there.)
You're not alone. The benefits found in Object Oriented Programming are theoritical instead of practical. 9 times out of 10, OOP is not used to it's full extent, resulting in the extra effort spent writing OOP being wasted.
The theories on why OOP is better won't be mentioned here - they've been posted enough times that it can be found in almost any decent programming textbook. In general, they relate to modular building in a way that interdependancies are minimized to a significant extent.
BTW, I've also seen poor OOP code - In one game modding API there are many cases where there should be some form of return value for some functions that have the potential of failing, but no such return value exists. As a result, I have to search a listing of objects in a way that is more messy than it should be. You wouldn't be suprised when I want to figure out how to override the C++ "private" member declarations to make modifications directly to the class (and blow away the alleged benefits of OOP for whatever I'm doing) - of course, pointers shouldn't be used that way.
1. What makes you sure that the downloaded version is identical to the original CD? Although rare, ISOs can be modified to include viruses or trojan horses by experienced vigilantes. In fact, there was reports of a software collection CD containing an actual virus in one of the compressed files.
2. If you intend to use a critical product for long-term use, why not backup the original directly? (This, of course, is fairly expensive but is worth it compared to the time and risk spent hunting down another legal or illegitimate copy.) Even if you don't want to hose a CD, you can download specialised software that images the CD and mounts the image as a readable virtual disk, and burn those images at a later date should the unthinkable happen.
In a way, the movie could potentially put focus on the alien civilization as well, showing that they perform their acts from desperation rather than a desire for cruelty or power.
The role played by Tom Cruise was more of a generic role of a brother not receiving what he wanted in his inheritance. He was also extremely frustrated with having to adapt to take care of his autistic brother after taking him, a sign that he was not ready to take responsibility. In a way, his character was simply using his brother (and was confirmed by the autistic character when he was asked if he was being used.)
Whether Tom's acting is good or merely average (depending on your tastes), it is overshadowed by Dustin's acting. As a result, we need to rely on other films he was in to see his full potential. From what I see from personal experience and the comments of others, most of the films he he stars in don't really show his potential either, meaning that he'll get a reputation as a famous but bad actor.
This setup time counts significantly, because I play multiplayer games on a DeepFreezed computer which negates all changes done to a computer's hard drive as soon as it is reset.
(That, and Daikatana seems to have some strange video card issues - but I'm not really supposed to hold this against the game.)
It seems strange, but I seemed to have a bit more control over the ship than I used to, making it a bit easier to do 360-turns and a few other manuvers. (Or it could be that I'm a bit more experienced.)
For Descent 3, I find that Keyboard+Mouse works best for me. Not too sure on joystick, since it doesn't feel right when the stick is at the same level as the keyboard.
That's generally why I use the guidebot to get to the objectives.
We aren't talking about Raven Shield here - that game is the latest installment of the game that uses the Unreal engine and fixes some of the bugs that were appearent in the originals, as well as rebalancing the AI so that it doesn't do perfectly accurrate long range snap-shots with pistols (at least on Recruit - they'll still do it on Elite.)
From what I know, this is the only field that has such a negative influcence associated with it - Electronics, media, and some other technology fields aren't affected.
During my youth, I was told by my parents, my teachers, and many television ads that school is the *ONLY* way to succeed in life. Even though there were notible exceptions (e.g. Bill Gates dropped out but founded Microsoft), I was told that such people were ultra-geniuses and that regular gifted students could not succeed through that avenue.
It took until college to know otherwise. Until then, I had to rely on teachers to provide an education that was never delivered.
As an example, lets look at Slave Zero. On hard difficulty, there is not enough ammunition to destroy the health-boosted final boss, unless you select the correct weaponry. This is not the case on "Normal" or "Easy" where you can slay him using almost any weapon. (Believe me, I have finished that game.)
On the other hand, I would prefer some difficulty settings on the style of Star Trek: Armada II. In that game, you can select the AI difficulty independantly from it's build time and build cost handicaps. Thus, if you can defeat everything a non-cheating AI can throw at you, you can simply give it a small boost...
Also, there's one game which you almost mentioned where higher difficulty levels do not mean more accurrate opponents. You mentioned Descent - it's third installment causes opponents to dodge aggressivly on "Insane", resulting in the enemy next to impossible to hit without an extended dogfight. From what I recall, it's the only game in existance that implements this form of AI.
Couldn't agree more, even though there are a few niche games that don't require writers (e.g. Tetris...)
My best example would be Star Trek: New Worlds. Aside from many interface and unit AI flaws that make game next to unplayable, the gameplay is otherwise simpler than C&C: Tiberium Dawn. There are many other games around that also support my example - just pick any random game off the shelf, and you will notice major problems with it.
The poor QA in games can easily be avoided by creating a lessons learned database that identified flaws from previously released games so that they are not likely to be repeated. While this won't eliminate games that are below average (by one definition, 50% of games fit that bill), they will be good enough that you won't be absolutly pissed for having your $20-30 sent down the drain.
Modern gaming is only fine if I can make my choice on which game to purchase from the store without having to resort to professional and user reviews of the game itself. These reviews are supposed to be used to determine which one of the good games to choose from, rather than a filter on which half of the available games to avoid.
The only games that I seem to be able to purchase without problem would be part of the UT series (even if the next version is simply a patch of a previous one), or another tried-tested-and-true game that has not beem bashed over and over again for poor QA. This severly cuts down on the scope of games that you can actually purchase and play without the feeling of wasted money (excluding Bargin-Bin deals).
The movie/television industry isn't as badly affected by poor QA - most people can pick a random movie or television program and like it. The only problem would be low-quality programs that everybody likes (e.g. Seinfeld, considered to be junk by a group of people), along with other poor shows that appear by accident.
The only place where it is not fun is in case of cheaters or in lopsided matches. Those are unavoidable.
I've been using Windows a lot, and noticed several major problems with the GUI interface when it comes to pathnames and filesystems. Nine times out of ten, it selects your default "My Documents" folder, your Desktop, the current working directory (i.e. the directory where the program was launched.), or the last used directory.
You also have to do a bit of hunting to find the folder you want, depending on the quantity of files as well.
The only good GUI interface for filemanagement that I've seen would be similar to XTreeGold 2.51, and I haven't seen it reproduced recently.