There basically are two types of D&D players...numbers tweakers - spend all their time figuring out which weapon/armour combo with their character stats gives them the best stats. And those who just roleplay to have fun. There are various people in between as well, but with computers it's tilted towards numbers because there is no human game master, just a predictable computer.
In a pencil and paper game a game-master/dungeon-master can change results on the fly during the game in order to achieve certain ends....one being FUN. In the computer environment cold unfeeling logic and numbers govern the day. The player has to make up for the lack of a game master by doing his/her best to have fun because there is no human being to balance things out when the numbers go bad too often (which can happen)>
The fact of the matter is, games of statistical simulation (which is all these games are at their core) have been known to addict people for a LONG time (longer than computers). Gambling is one example. People have this need to want to improve the efficiency of any statistical system. Tweaking your character (kill monster...get better stats...kill monster quicker....get more gold...get better armour...so you can kill a bigger monster...ect..) and improving the numbers becomes the ends that justifies everything you are doing. Now I'm not saying that EVERYBODY does this, but nearly every person I've found who is addicted is addicted has "number addiction" as a primary or large part of their addiction.
Why do you think we don't see that many successful role playing games without statistical numbers? Easy, they DON'T SELL!
Yes...I found that out after posting (always read the article COMPLETELY before posting!). Too bad Slashdot does not let you edit your posts. You should be allowed to edit your post once or twice after posting. I don't think that would hurt things. Or even delete it if you goofed and posted something that you changed your mind about.
I'm really twisted up on this subject. On the one hand, having almost bulletproof ID is becoming more and more needed due to identity theft. At the same time the desire to be anonymous and ensure privacy is also something I want to keep.
What can somebody do to REALLY prove they are who they say they are? X.509/PGP + Web of Trust?
Can you combine Biometrics with digital certs? Should we?
Somehow I doubt that "loophole" is something a judge would let you get away with. Plus, I could be wrong but being in posession of classified material when you are not authorized to have it might be a crime (probably is)
Are you telling me that they linked against WineLib because they did'nt have the $$$ or people?! That's a pretty weak argument. Google is swimming in money and people are banging on the door to get in to work there.
Since the use of compression is to compensate for lack of either 1) Storage or 2)Bandwidth I have to wonder how useful having a tighter compression format for pictures would be. Computers are faster, hard drives larger, broadband quicker. I'd like to see better LOSSLESS compression than lossy comrpession.
What does "Free" speech mean? Does Free mean the right of anybody to say anything anywhere at anytime? The Supreme court has said no.
Certain types of speech are not "free".
Classified information is definitely not defined as something that anybody can talk about. If it were true then the government would not be able to have any classified information.
Just something to think about. The logical conclusion to most radical positions (both on the right and left) usually end up on contradiction.
"Relevant to the NSA programs, members of both parties have said, after each of the major public revelations, that what they discovered in those revelations and subsequent briefings did not match what they had been told in the prior briefings. So the "they were briefed" argument hardly flies, since the briefings were, though politicians will rarely put it quite this bluntly, lies."
What makes you think that Pelosi is telling the truth about what she heard in the briefings? If she DID know about it from the briefings do you really think she would stand up and say so? I don't put it past politicians in either party to lie about something in the name of politics.
Republicans will Lie and spin, Democrats will Lie and spin.
No matter what party you happen to agree with, don't automatically take their word over the position of the side you disagree with.
If you are really concerned. When you are using encryption, if possible use ciphers that were NOT developed by NSA/CIA like Blowfish AND use as big a key as possible (within acceptable performance).
Of course if the NSA has a supersecret way of breaking all encryption (like the movie sneakers) then of course we are all screwed.
In the perfect world everybody would wake up, write secure code, release secure OS's (that are configured correctly) and there would be no need to write low level "nets" to catch things like buffer overruns. I used to think as you do. Telling everybody there was no need for stuff like SELinux because correctly configured apps and OS's will work. Guess what? The world still creates apps with buffer overuns and releases OS's that are not secure!
In reality I don't see this happening ANY time soon. MAC provides a good low layer protection to keep a vulnerability in some software from becoming root compromise. You don't need it for everything (like in Fedora core 2 it was on for everything by default and it broke lots of stuff). But! if you use it selectively on things that people use (like browsers, email) and daemons (Apache, SSH, Mail servers) that are open to the world, things would be a lot less dangerous.
If an autocratic dictator driven government (not Korea) takes GPL'd code and refuses to release changes AND claims in his country the GPL is illegal, then IS there technically a GPL violation?
I feel all antsy every time something like this happens (I don't like it), but the real sad thing is I'm not sure how we'll ever fight terrorism. What we are basically saying is that we don't trust the government to do ANY survielance of people in the U.S. (and this is a good thing).
The problem with knee jerk reactions (like what we are all justifiably having now) is that if there ever IS another terrorist act you can be sure all of our hard work will get thrown right out the window.
We've got to find a way to this stuff legally, quickly and with oversight. If we can't, then we might as well accept that there is basically nothing we can do about terrorists if they really want to get us.
It seems we have two arguments...one says HELL NO to everything, the other says "give up your rights or you'll be killed by terrorists".
There has GOT to be a way inbetween all this mess.
Anybody can Sue ANYBODY for ANYTHING (In the U.S.). I could sue you for eating a grilled cheese sandwitch, but chances are it will be thrown out of court.
Same goes for this as well. It may or may not be illegal depending on who you talk to, and it may or may not win in court. The legality is determined by the court NOT by the fact that you are suing.
This is true...we DON'T know what the NSA is doing. How do we know the NSA is NOT getting fisa warrants? As I understand it even the existance of a warrant under fisa could be classified.
So we would'nt even know.
This is where your representatives come in to play. You basically have to trust that the oversite commitee is making sure that warrants are being used.
As I understand it (and IANAL!!!) there is no need of a warrant where there is no expectation of privacy (generally). So...the supremes are saying in the above statements is that because the phone company is a 3rd party there is no expectation of privacy (legally).
The supreme court said in smith vs maryland in 1978 (and this was not a conservative court)
[W]e doubt that people in general entertain any actual expectation of privacy in the numbers they dial. All telephone users realize that they must "convey" phone numbers to the telephone company, since it is through telephone company switching equipment that their calls are completed. All subscribers realize, moreover, that the phone company has facilities for making permanent records of the numbers they dial, for they see a list of their long-distance (toll) calls on their monthly bills. . . .
[E]ven if [a caller] did harbor some subjective expectation that the phone numbers he dialed would remain private, this expectation is not "one that society is prepared to recognize as 'reasonable.'" . . . This Court consistently has held that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties. . . . [W]hen [a caller] used his phone, [he] voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company and "exposed" that information to its equipment in the ordinary course of business. In so doing, [the caller] assumed the risk that the company would reveal to police the numbers he dialed.
I't pisses me off how directv treats their TIVO subscriber base. I have the hardware for TIVO series two but DirecTV would rather try and push their substandard PVR than give their directv TIVO subscribers the same features as the standalone version.
Yes..I could hack my DirecTivo to get some of the features, but I should'nt have to do that!
Now they've backed themselves in a corner. People HATE their in house PVR but the company (or whoever sold the idea of making their own in the company) would rather stick their fingers in their ears than listen to their customers. rant off!
Slashdot Mirror
*disclaimer* I have yet to read the opinion and refuse to state my OWN opinion before READING what the court ACTUALLY said..
7 3.pdf
Here it is...that is, unless you've decided to make up your mind without research.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-4
There basically are two types of D&D players...numbers tweakers - spend all their time figuring out which weapon/armour combo with their character stats gives them the best stats. And those who just roleplay to have fun. There are various people in between as well, but with computers it's tilted towards numbers because there is no human game master, just a predictable computer.
In a pencil and paper game a game-master/dungeon-master can change results on the fly during the game in order to achieve certain ends....one being FUN. In the computer environment cold unfeeling logic and numbers govern the day. The player has to make up for the lack of a game master by doing his/her best to have fun because there is no human being to balance things out when the numbers go bad too often (which can happen)>
The fact of the matter is, games of statistical simulation (which is all these games are at their core) have been known to addict people for a LONG time (longer than computers). Gambling is one example. People have this need to want to improve the efficiency of any statistical system. Tweaking your character (kill monster...get better stats...kill monster quicker....get more gold...get better armour...so you can kill a bigger monster...ect..) and improving the numbers becomes the ends that justifies everything you are doing. Now I'm not saying that EVERYBODY does this, but nearly every person I've found who is addicted is addicted has "number addiction" as a primary or large part of their addiction.
Why do you think we don't see that many successful role playing games without statistical numbers? Easy, they DON'T SELL!
Yes...I found that out after posting (always read the article COMPLETELY before posting!). Too bad Slashdot does not let you edit your posts. You should be allowed to edit your post once or twice after posting. I don't think that would hurt things. Or even delete it if you goofed and posted something that you changed your mind about.
I'm really twisted up on this subject. On the one hand, having almost bulletproof ID is becoming more and more needed due to identity theft. At the same time the desire to be anonymous and ensure privacy is also something I want to keep.
What can somebody do to REALLY prove they are who they say they are? X.509/PGP + Web of Trust?
Can you combine Biometrics with digital certs? Should we?
Somehow I doubt that "loophole" is something a judge would let you get away with. Plus, I could be wrong but being in posession of classified material when you are not authorized to have it might be a crime (probably is)
OK...let's say it would cost them $500,000 U.S.
Are you telling me that they linked against WineLib because they did'nt have the $$$ or people?! That's a pretty weak argument. Google is swimming in money and people are banging on the door to get in to work there.
Using wine to run windows software is NOT porting apps. A ported app would use LINUX and X native libraries, not an API translator.
Since the use of compression is to compensate for lack of either 1) Storage or 2)Bandwidth I have to wonder how useful having a tighter compression format for pictures would be. Computers are faster, hard drives larger, broadband quicker. I'd like to see better LOSSLESS compression than lossy comrpession.
What does "Free" speech mean? Does Free mean the right of anybody to say anything anywhere at anytime? The Supreme court has said no.
Certain types of speech are not "free".
Classified information is definitely not defined as something that anybody can talk about. If it were true then the government would not be able to have any classified information.
Just something to think about. The logical conclusion to most radical positions (both on the right and left) usually end up on contradiction.
Thanks! That was EXACTLY what I was looking to watch JUST before hitting the sack at night :(
Thanks slashdot for giving me nightmares
"Relevant to the NSA programs, members of both parties have said, after each of the major public revelations, that what they discovered in those revelations and subsequent briefings did not match what they had been told in the prior briefings. So the "they were briefed" argument hardly flies, since the briefings were, though politicians will rarely put it quite this bluntly, lies."
What makes you think that Pelosi is telling the truth about what she heard in the briefings? If she DID know about it from the briefings do you really think she would stand up and say so? I don't put it past politicians in either party to lie about something in the name of politics.
Republicans will Lie and spin, Democrats will Lie and spin.
No matter what party you happen to agree with, don't automatically take their word over the position of the side you disagree with.
Yea..thanks. I really screwed up that sentence. I meant what you said.
If you are really concerned. When you are using encryption, if possible use ciphers that were NOT developed by NSA/CIA like Blowfish AND use as big a key as possible (within acceptable performance).
Of course if the NSA has a supersecret way of breaking all encryption (like the movie sneakers) then of course we are all screwed.
In the perfect world everybody would wake up, write secure code, release secure OS's (that are configured correctly) and there would be no need to write low level "nets" to catch things like buffer overruns. I used to think as you do. Telling everybody there was no need for stuff like SELinux because correctly configured apps and OS's will work. Guess what? The world still creates apps with buffer overuns and releases OS's that are not secure!
In reality I don't see this happening ANY time soon. MAC provides a good low layer protection to keep a vulnerability in some software from becoming root compromise. You don't need it for everything (like in Fedora core 2 it was on for everything by default and it broke lots of stuff). But! if you use it selectively on things that people use (like browsers, email) and daemons (Apache, SSH, Mail servers) that are open to the world, things would be a lot less dangerous.
My opinion of course
If an autocratic dictator driven government (not Korea) takes GPL'd code and refuses to release changes AND claims in his country the GPL is illegal, then IS there technically a GPL violation?
Just a thought experiment
what?
But the real question is what percentage of people DIED!
I feel all antsy every time something like this happens (I don't like it), but the real sad thing is I'm not sure how we'll ever fight terrorism. What we are basically saying is that we don't trust the government to do ANY survielance of people in the U.S. (and this is a good thing).
The problem with knee jerk reactions (like what we are all justifiably having now) is that if there ever IS another terrorist act you can be sure all of our hard work will get thrown right out the window.
We've got to find a way to this stuff legally, quickly and with oversight. If we can't, then we might as well accept that there is basically nothing we can do about terrorists if they really want to get us.
It seems we have two arguments...one says HELL NO to everything, the other says "give up your rights or you'll be killed by terrorists".
There has GOT to be a way inbetween all this mess.
Anybody can Sue ANYBODY for ANYTHING (In the U.S.). I could sue you for eating a grilled cheese sandwitch, but chances are it will be thrown out of court.
Same goes for this as well. It may or may not be illegal depending on who you talk to, and it may or may not win in court. The legality is determined by the court NOT by the fact that you are suing.
I REALLY hope that Apple is planning to port (or participate in the ports already in progress) to get the NSA's MAC controls into Mach Microkernel.
OS X would be a WHOLE lot more secure with them in place.
This is true...we DON'T know what the NSA is doing. How do we know the NSA is NOT getting fisa warrants? As I understand it even the existance of a warrant under fisa could be classified.
So we would'nt even know.
This is where your representatives come in to play. You basically have to trust that the oversite commitee is making sure that warrants are being used.
As I understand it (and IANAL!!!) there is no need of a warrant where there is no expectation of privacy (generally). So...the supremes are saying in the above statements is that because the phone company is a 3rd party there is no expectation of privacy (legally).
The supreme court said in smith vs maryland in 1978 (and this was not a conservative court)
[W]e doubt that people in general entertain any actual expectation of privacy in the numbers they dial. All telephone users realize that they must "convey" phone numbers to the telephone company, since it is through telephone company switching equipment that their calls are completed. All subscribers realize, moreover, that the phone company has facilities for making permanent records of the numbers they dial, for they see a list of their long-distance (toll) calls on their monthly bills. . . .
[E]ven if [a caller] did harbor some subjective expectation that the phone numbers he dialed would remain private, this expectation is not "one that society is prepared to recognize as 'reasonable.'" . . . This Court consistently has held that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties. . . . [W]hen [a caller] used his phone, [he] voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company and "exposed" that information to its equipment in the ordinary course of business. In so doing, [the caller] assumed the risk that the company would reveal to police the numbers he dialed.
Guaranteed.
I't pisses me off how directv treats their TIVO subscriber base. I have the hardware for TIVO series two but DirecTV would rather try and push their substandard PVR than give their directv TIVO subscribers the same features as the standalone version.
Yes..I could hack my DirecTivo to get some of the features, but I should'nt have to do that!
Now they've backed themselves in a corner. People HATE their in house PVR but the company (or whoever sold the idea of making their own in the company) would rather stick their fingers in their ears than listen to their customers.
rant off!