Really?!? And just how do you recommend each individual go about this "digging"?
Are we supposed to hop on a plane ourselves and head for Iraq to find (or not find) WMDs? (Imagine the flight delays, TSA questions, etc.)
Are we supposed to go to Hawaii and hold the President's birth certificate in our own two hands before we believe he was born there? (Hmm, Hawaii.)
And what about Bush continuing to read "My Pet Goat" instead of excusing himself to deal with a national emergency? (I am pretty sure he wanted to know how the story ended.)
You may not be aware of this, but the modern world is full of wonderful telecommunication devices.
You could start by checking more than one news source. Maybe Fox News claims the world is ending... But MSNBC and the APR and the BBC and the New York Times all disagree with that assertion. So maybe you want to take the impending apocalypse with a grain of salt.
You wouldn't even need to leave your house to check those news sources. Most of them have web pages, or you could just flip to a different channel on your television. You can balance one bias against another... Get news from different parts of the world... All from the comfort of your basement.
Of course there's still the distinct possibility that all the news agencies are being equally stupid about something. They aren't known for getting real science right, for example.
But you can again check with various places without leaving your house. You could look up the original press release, for example. Or maybe, depending on where the research was done or published, you could find the original paper on-line. For non-science topics, you can frequently dig up all sorts of interesting firsthand accounts on-line. Blog posts, pictures from the scene, folks who were actually involved in whatever happened.
Or, if it isn't all available on-line, and you really wanted to know about it, you could pick up your phone. Call various news agencies and ask for more information. Call the politicians or universities or whatever is involved. You can usually come up with that information without too much trouble. Might be harder to contact a specific individual, but you could probably do it.
Sure, if you really wanted to you could fly on over to Iraq yourself... But I don't think that's really necessary with so much information available on-line, and so many ways to reach out and touch someone without physically leaving your house.
Sorry what you're describing is so impractical as to be utter nonsense.
Of course, what I'm describing here is the entire process that a good journalist is supposed to go through... Digging up all this information so you actually have a clue what is going on. And it is a good amount of work - that's why journalists get paid to do it. And I guess I'm not really suggesting that everybody go to these lengths.
What I am suggesting is a healthy dose of skepticism, some rational thinking skills, a bit of reading comprehension, and a willingness to base your information on something more than a 30-second sound bite.
You don't have to go to extremes to make sure you've got a relatively unbiased and relatively accurate idea of what's going on in the world. You can easily get multiple newspapers delivered to your doorstep. You can easily read multiple news sites on-line. You can easily switch from one channel to another on your television. You can easily throw something into Google and see what other people think about it.
Rather than watching Countdown on MSNBC and taking it as pure truth, check around a bit. Spend 10 minutes comparing what Keith said with what other people said.
I'm not suggesting that we all become experts in every field imaginable. Just that we make some token effort to be better informed.
About a year ago (maybe longer?) there was the story about the Russian spy w
... when exposed to corrected facts in news stories.
Perhaps because we have learned to distrust the news providers?
Nah. If we'd learned to distrust the news providers we wouldn't have simply accepted their misinformation in the first place. We would have gone out and dug up our own information. And our beliefs wouldn't be based on incorrect information in the first place. So it wouldn't be necessary to change our beliefs when the information was corrected by the news provider.
Oh, I'm not surprised. I just don't buy their line directly like you're doing.
It's entirely too convenient and took them too long to come up with this as an answer for me to wholly accept it as the cause. But then it's in vogue to bash the US, even in the US, these days.
It's convenient for who to come up with which answer?
Because this is the NHTSA's answer, not Toyota's.
The NHTSA really doesn't have much to lose if Toyota is turning out a defective car. They report their findings, and if Toyota has to do a recall, it's not going to affect the NHTSA.
... that the throttle and brake position logging was recording correct data. If there's a fault in the ECU or software, how can you guarantee the data logging is correct?
It also assumes that the folks at the NHTSA know what they're doing.
If they do, then they've assured themselves that the data logging is correct.
If they don't, then we've got far bigger problems then just these Toyotas.
It seems to me that if adults typically are exposed to 1200 times what is considered a safe level, then either every adult should be seriously ill from exposure, or the EPA standard for what is a safe level is a bit unreasonable.
Or we'd all be a lot healthier if we weren't exposed to as much dioxin.
Honestly, I don't know. It's been over a year since I played. Last time I played, you only had room for about 40 people on your ignore list. And it was by character name, not account or anything like that.
You can't use the account name because then you are giving out valuable information.
Why would you want to use the account name? Sure, it's a simple way to do it... But nobody out there would recognize the account name anyway.
What you want to do is just list other characters on the same account. You can already inspect a character in WoW to see their equipment and whatnot... Just add a tab/button/whatever that shows you other characters.
Then if Ed is being an asshat, and I want to add him to my ignore list, I can also take a look at the other characters that Ed plays as and add them to my ignore list as well. Hell, you could make it even easier... When you add a character to your ignore/friends lists you can have a prompt that asks you if you want to add all their characters, or just this one.
It's well known that a pseudonym enables people to be complete assholes. Complete. And I'd bet that the moderators of these forums were sick and tired of seeing cases where this happened. Either someone said something really inflammatory or got under the skin of a beginner -- turning them off to the game. Some people are sensitive and even Mr. Rogers won't undo what a bully can do.
So Blizzard probably estimated that 90% of those jerks would stop being jerks if their name appeared by their asshole posts.
I agree that anonymity allows people to be the kind of jerks that you wouldn't want to be if your reputation was at stake. But I don't believe that you necessarily have to reveal somebody's real name to counteract that.
In-game, you develop a reputation. If you're enough of an asshole (lootwhore, n00b, whatever) in-game, folks won't want to play with you. They'll put you on their ignore list. You'll be ostracized.
Right now, you can roll up a new character easily enough and shrug off the reputation of your old character. Or create a character specifically for the purpose of being an asshole. You can log in as "Joe the Night Elf" and be a nice guy and go on all the raids... And then you can log in as "Ed the Dwarf" and be a complete asshole... And nobody knows it's the same person. Ed's bad reputation does not affect Joe at all.
All you have to do is make it clear that those two characters are owned by the same account. Then if everybody hates Ed because he's an asshole, they know that Joe is also that same asshole, and they can hate him too.
Associating these characters with your real name is not necessary. And, in fact, I think it creates the potential for some real abuse. Folks will happily harass you to the greatest extent they can for some really stupid shit. They'll post random garbage on the forums, spam you in-game, email you, whatever they can. If you give them enough personal information, they'll happily harass you in the real world as well.
Of course, Meyerowitz's allegedly-winning idea was to use technology to map genocide events in real time and use the info to "provide early warning" of new genocide locations, assist relief organizations, etc. That's worth putting money into and would be, essentially, "putting money into the pressing problem" as you said.
Except that it's a pretty lousy idea.
I mean... Sure, genocide is bad and all... And stopping or at least reducing it would be good... But how the hell do you think technology is going to assist here?
Who is going to report the genocide events? Are we going to design a new gun or something that phones home when used for genocide? And what's the genocide threshold? And who's going to maintain the hardware? And what's the penalty for not using one of the new anti-genocide rifles when you commit your atrocities? And then what's going to happen once we've got this data mapped in realtime? We're just going to look at the maps and say wow, that's a lot of genocide? Is somebody supposed to act on that data? Or is it just supposed to provide awareness?
It seems to me that you can already create custom overlays in things like Google Earth and Google Maps. Seems to me that there are plenty of ways to distribute information. Seems to me that we don't really need $10 million worth of new technology. What we need is willingness to act on all the atrocities that we are currently aware of.
This is the one thing that drives me absolutely crazy about politics in America these days.
Politicians will say any old crazy thing, and then flat-out deny that it was ever said. Even if you quote their words back to them line by line. Even if you have a recording of the statement. Even if you have a copy of their own website or press release.
And nobody seems to care.
Sure, some reporters will try to call them out on it... But that doesn't matter. The politicians don't even blink. They just go right on denying that they ever said anything. And the voters are entirely too willing to just go along with the spin.
What? No, of course he never said that! That video of him saying those things must be a fabrication. As well as the audio recording of him making a similar statement on the radio. And the flyer you have from a mass-mailing he did last year must be a forgery. And the archive you have of his website must surely have been tampered with. There's absolutely no possible way he could have said that - we've always been at war with Eurasia!
Those who haven't been bitten by its limitations yet.
For Steam, there are still quite a lot of people in the second category. A lot of these people think that they are in a mythical third category; people who will never have problems with the system's limitations. This category does not exist for any DRM system, but people in the second group constantly believe that they won't have problems in the future. And, of course, the more money they spend on the system, the more cognitive dissonance requires that they defend it.
I'm genuinely curious how you think Steam's DRM is going to come bite me in the ass. Not whatever other DRM the publishers feel they need to shovel into a game despite the fact that it's being distributed on Steam, but actual problems with Steam itself.
I can download and install my games on as many different computers as I'd like. No activation limit. Just need the username & password. So I can let my friends and family "borrow" my games if I want to - without even having to hand them a disc.
I can re-install my games all I want. I don't have to worry about a disc getting scratched and becoming unusable. I don't have to worry about re-activating everything after reloading my computer.
I can make backups of my games, in case I don't want to rely on the download later.
Sure, Valve could shut down Steam entirely... Or abandon the old DRM platform and require you to purchase all-new games... But, let's be realistic here, it isn't like DRM-free physical media has never bit me in the ass. I don't know how many times I've had a disc damaged to the point where it was unreadable. Hell, even DRM-free digital copies have bit me in the ass. Maybe I didn't make a backup before reformatting... Maybe the software doesn't work with my new hardware or OS...
Honestly, how much of your library do you really plan on revisiting in a year, two years, three years? How much of that library do you really think is going to be functional in that time? Stuff breaks, even without DRM.
I'm not saying that Steam is going to somehow protect me from anything that can go wrong... But it seems to me that you've got a pretty good chance of your non-DRMed games failing to function as well.
At the end of the day, DRM will continue as long as people show that they are willing to put up with it.
Let's be really honest here - DRM actually makes some sense.
Folks like to cry about how copying bits isn't theft and how data wants to be free and whatever else... But the fact of the matter is that I paid for just a single copy of the game. If this were a physical object, I'd have just one Monopoly board.
Duplicating items in the physical world is non-trivial. In effect, their very physical substance acts as a type on inherent DRM. If I want another Monopoly board, I can't just magick one up out of thin air. I have to go buy one.
Likewise, if I buy a copy of Mass Effect, I've just paid for that one game. Sure, it's digital data, so I can make infinitely many copies of it with virtually no effort... But that isn't really what I paid for, is it?
DRM is just an attempt to make sure you've only got the one Monopoly board.
Sure, a lot of it gets horribly intrusive. I hate the stuff where I have to keep a disc in the drive... Or it fails to work with my hardware for some reason... Or I have to call up the publisher to get permission to install it again... That's all bad DRM. But something simple that stays out of my way? I don't mind that at all.
I won't buy DRM'd products, unless the DRM is so effectively cracked before I buy them that I can remove the DRM entirely.
Good news, Steam's DRM has been thoroughly cracked! Take a look around The Pirate Bay and you'll see plenty of Steam games available for downlo
Steam proves that the right games sell well on PC.
Steam is a terrific platform and I think it could go a long way towards revitalizing the PC game industry.
Yes, it's DRM. I know someone's going to show up and start yelling about the evils of Steam DRM. It always happens every time somebody mentions Steam. But everything is wrapped in DRM these days, and wishing that it wasn't so is not going to change the world. Sure, we could start boycotting and lobbying and whatever else... But the fact of the matter is that DRM is a part of the game industry these days. And Steam is one of the least-painful forms of DRM out there.
The marketplace is a great way to pick up your games. Buy them on-line and download them. No waiting for boxes to show up. You can even pre-load games before the release date. And you can burn backups of your files, so that you can install them offline later.
Plenty of impulse buys. The lack of physical shelf space means that you can sell stuff on Steam for a lot less than in a brick & mortar store. There's constantly something good for sale for $5.
There's a built-in system of patching, finding network games, finding friends, planning events, achievement, etc. Sure, that's all kind of wasted on a single-player game... But most games include some kind of multiplayer these days. And that's an awful lot of nicely reusable code for anybody looking to implement multiplayer.
And now you've got the ability to use Steam on multiple operating systems. And your games, if supported, will work across multiple operating systems.
Obviously, what actually belongs in any particular game, or what makes sense in a specific genre is a subjective thing...
But it makes sense to race chocobos in a Final Fantasy game. They're an integral part of the Final Fantasy setting.
Just tossing in some random motorcycle race though... Just doesn't make much sense. Ok, sure, you're trying to get away from the badguys. And you're a badass anime hero. So, of course, you're going to ride off into the sunset on a motorcycle. But how does it fit into a final fantasy game to have a motorcycle race?
I think the problem is less with executing the mini-game well, than it is with the mini-game making sense.
Yeah, BioShock was a disappointment. No, it was not a worthy successor to System Shock 2. Yes, it failed on many levels. But I think the core problem with the hacking mini-game was not of a mechanical nature... The problem wasn't that the water was flowing and you had a time limit or it took you away from the gameplay or anything like that... The problem was that it just didn't make much sense.
In SS2 you were in space aboard a ship that was either malfunctioning or at the mercy of a crazed AI. There were automated defenses, and locked doors, and vending machines, and whatever else. In that context, it makes sense to have a hacking mini-game. How else are you going to make all these computerized, electronic gadgets do things they were never intended to do?
In BioShock you're in some kind of retro aquatic dystopia. The turrets and drones don't make any sense to start with... It looks like they're built out of an office chair with a weapon strapped on top - how do they even function? But if you were to twist them to your needs, it should be by altering the wiring or mechanical linkages - not by pushing some kind of liquid through some pipes. It just does not make sense.
Incorporating a mini-game that makes sense will not jar the player out of whatever immersion they have. It will expand upon the game-world. It will actually make the game more immersive.
But throwing something completely random that makes no sense at all will jar them out of the game. Effectively breaking the fourth wall.
You can immerse yourself in a marathon session of Pac-Man or chess or be immersed in a stack of paperwork. Immersion just means being deeply involved with something mentally.
Yep. And if you're deeply involved in a stack of paperwork, and every few minutes somebody runs by screaming at the top of their lungs, you're likely to become distracted enough that you're no longer immersed in that paperwork.
This is the argument that's being made, and I think it is a valid one.
Good games have a certain flow to them. You can settle in and just kind of ride the thing out. You get your mind into the right state and you almost forget the world around you. You are, in short, immersed.
This can be true of Pac Man, or Peggle, or a shooter, or whatever. They suck you in, monopolize your attention, and you become immersed in them.
And then some games, for whatever reason, break up that steady flow of gameplay with something jarring and different. Suddenly there's a button-mashing rhythm game in the middle of your shooter... Or some kind of half-assed racing game in the middle of your RPG... Or some kind of memory test in the middle of Pac Man... Or whatever. And it's a different enough though process that it jars you out of your immersion.
If your goal is to/really/ spread around leaked documents for the benefit of mankind, you will find a way to do it regardless. Complaining that people aren't giving you enough money and taking down a site is simply babyish. Yes, you aren't going to become a millionaire* by doing it, but if you are/really/ doing it for the benefit of mankind, you will do it for free and find ways to make it work.
*Assuming you don't get a list of future lottery numbers or something
Except that it really does cost money to run a server, pay for bandwidth, pay for lawyers, etc.
FFS, if I bought a phone and it didn't work I'd just take the thing back to the shop and get a refund. That way I get my money back so I can buy a different phone as a replacement. With a class-action lawsuit they'll get $5 worth of iTunes vouchers and still have a phone that doesn't work. What planet are these people on?
Returning the phone may not really be an option though. Generally speaking, folks sign some kind of contract with the provider at time of purchase. No, you probably don't have to... But most people do. And those contracts have early termination fees.
Could you argue that the phone is defective and avoid paying the ETF? Probably... But maybe not, as Apple is not acknowledging the issue. Maybe AT&T will simply suggest that you follow Steve's directions and hold the phone differently.
Depending on where you live, a contract with AT&T without an iPhone might not be a wonderful idea. Around here AT&T has relatively crappy coverage. The only reason to go with AT&T instead of Verizon up here is to get your hands on an iPhone. If you return the iPhone you'd be better off canceling your contract and getting a phone through Verizon. Except for those ETFs.
The other bit is the fact that this is a communication device. It can be used to call for help in an emergency. Say there's been an accident and you try to call 911 for help, but your call gets dropped. Sure, random crap breaks, it happens. Blame it on sunspots or whatever. But what if Apple was aware that there was an issue that would cause calls to be dropped? And they didn't fix that issue? Are they now responsible for that dropped call?
And what if there are other defects that apple is aware of? What if there is some condition that causes it to emit a far stronger signal than normal? Far stronger than is safe? What if there is the potential to short something out and electrify that antenna? What if the battery is known to be leaking toxic fumes? Or bursts into flames if you dial the wrong number?
These devices are regulated to ensure that they not only function the way they're supposed to, but to ensure that they're safe.
If the manufacturer is rolling out a device with one known defect, you have to wonder if there are any other defects they know about.
Marriage is a tax and legal affair. It is like creating a company or a trust with a business partner : Both of you can stay independent self-employed and do the same job but you will not get the same benefits. (and constraints)
Marriage is the mechanism to subscribe to the benefits you feel discriminated against - just like filling you tax return. Marriage is not a declaration of Love or some blood pact before ${diety}, it is a legal contract and nothing more.
The only real discrimination was to restrict this legal contract to people of specific sexual orientation.
Which is why I get so sick and tired of religious folks complaining about gay marriage destroying marriage in general.
Marriage hasn't been about religion in decades. It's about tax benefits and joint ownership of property and having the right to visit your spouse in various circumstances and whatever else.
Frankly, I think we should do away with "marriage" entirely.
Create some kind of domestic partnership to completely replace marriage. Make gender completely irrelevant to domestic partnership. Make any tax breaks or spousal benefits or whatever based on the domestic partnership.
Let churches have their marriage. Let them choose to marry whoever they want, or refuse to marry whoever they want. But make that marriage basically irrelevant. If you want to get married, go right ahead. If you want a tax break, get a domestic partnership (in stead of, or in addition to, marriage).
Unmarried hetro couples are now discriminated against. They should get the same as the Gay/Lesbian couples, some people may not believe in marrage or may not want to get married for one reason or another. Why should they be forced to marry just to avoid a tax?
I have absolutely no idea what kind of policy Google is implementing, since I didn't even bother to read the article...
But if they're paying more specifically to cover Domestic Partner medical insurance (which costs more than married/family medical insurance), and you list your significant other in an unmarried hetero relationship as a Domestic Partner and receive Domestic Partner medial insurance, I would suspect that you would also be compensated for it.
Anal-abusing males and group-masturbating females (commonly known as lesbians) do not contribute children towards the population of Planet Earth and USA in particular.
Let's ignore the fact that plenty of homosexual couples use fertility treatments to conceive children of their own...
But priests who've taken vows of celibacy do not contribute children towards the population of Planet Earth. Nor do folks who just happen to be sterile for whatever reason. Nor do folks who simply choose not to have children.
Should we discriminate against all of them?
Are we going to start mandating that everybody conceive a child?
Are we going to force people to reproduce?
Since it is the job of the future generation to care about the current generation when it becomes elderly, people who do not contribute DNS to the future generation, shall be required to shoulder extra burden for the common good of the society.
I assume you're referring to something state-funded, like Social Security?
Because in general, folks take care of their own elderly, not just random old people on the street. In which case it's my own damn fault I didn't produce kids when I get old and decrepit and there's nobody around to care for me.
In Europe and South America many countries actually had taxes for healthy 25+, who were unmarried and 30+ still without kids. You had to bring sworn witnesses to say you were refused engagement at least 3 times in the previous year, due to ugliness, if you wanted to skip the tax. The state provided funds to poor girls so they could marry and those having a medical excuse were offered to adopt a child or pay the tax.
I suspect that those taxes probably no longer exist, as most places (Japan excluded) have more than enough people right now. Many places are feeling the pressure of having too many people and not enough jobs or housing.
But, assuming those taxes still exist... I would certainly hope they're applied across-the-board. Especially to any religious groups that encourage their priests to take vows of celibacy.
Regardless, I think it's a miserable idea. Folks should be free to choose what they want to do in life. If I don't want to reproduce, regardless of my sexual orientation, that should be my choice.
That's all fine and well. They just shouldn't be allowed to adopt children, as such a practice might perpetuate a purely social lifestyle that has no biological or evolutionary purpose (other than to naturally remove each partners genes from the pool).
How does that make any kind of sense at all?
If you're adopting a child, the kid already exists and you aren't actually reproducing. So you're already looking at a choice that has no biological or evolutionary purpose.
And what of folks who are sterile? They can't reproduce... So, what, they shouldn't be allowed to adopt because they can't participate in biological reproduction?
Or is it all about the choice? You think that gay folks are making a choice not to reproduce, and such a horrible decision might get passed on to their kids? You think their gayness might rub off or something?
Well, what about folks who've taken vows of celibacy? That's an actual choice. You aren't worried that such an anti-evolutionary choice as a vow of celibacy will rub off on the kids?
I'm pretty sure the inequality imposed on them is a direct result of the imposition of Christian 'morals'
Well, but that's kind of the problem with Christian morals - they're largely contradictory.
Jesus sat down with lepers and whores. Didn't treat anyone terribly badly. Didn't discriminate. Wanted to get his message out to pretty much everyone. The Bible's got that whole message of do unto others as you'd have them do unto you and being a good Samaritan and all that...
But then you see 'Christians' aggressively pushing this 'moral' agenda and harming their neighbors in the process.
Could bees be modern-day sentinels like the canaries once used as warning signals of toxic gases in coal mines?
Just what we need, there will be swarms of honey bees at airports, in parking lots, and at work, all testing the air quality. Somehow the whole "swarm of bees" thing scares me more than the actual pollution - at least canaries were cute.
I've got no links or references to give you, so you'll have to forgive me.
The Mall of America, in Minnesota, was using some kind of tiny, stingless bee to pollinate plants indoors. I'd assume something similar could be used for monitoring air quality or whatever else.
You folks all know why this is right ? I mean what is the use of SSL-encryption if you don't know who your 'talking' to ?
Except that SSL encryption doesn't tell you who you're talking to.
You still have to trust that the site is somebody you want to talk to.
It is trivially easy to register a domain and buy a certificate. You can pick something deceptively similar to another domain... You can pick something that sounds trustworthy... You can get a certificate... It'll be 100% legitimate... And you can still use it maliciously.
Or you can steal someone else's cert. It isn't that hard. You just need root access to the machine.
All SSL does is encrypt the traffic between you and the server. Nothing more. If you think you've got any more security than that you are mistaken. SSL does not guarantee that you are talking to anyone in particular. It does not guarantee that they're reputable or trustworthy. It doesn't guarantee that they're actually who you think they are. It doesn't guarantee that nobody has a backdoor to their database.
All it does is encrypt traffic between you and them. Nothing more.
Not never. Given enough time and CPU cycles, anything stored locally can be cracked. It's just a matter of how long you want to wait.
Close enough to never that it really doesn't matter.
With modern technology the sun will have swallowed the Earth before you crack that disk.
But even if we see significant improvements in technology and we manage to crack the disk in just 50-100 years, that's probably effectively "never" as you'll likely be close enough to death not to really care too much about the incriminating evidence getting out.
Hell, even 10-20 years might as well be "never" if it exceeds the statute of limitations
Slashdot Mirror
Really?!? And just how do you recommend each individual go about this "digging"?
Are we supposed to hop on a plane ourselves and head for Iraq to find (or not find) WMDs? (Imagine the flight delays, TSA questions, etc.)
Are we supposed to go to Hawaii and hold the President's birth certificate in our own two hands before we believe he was born there? (Hmm, Hawaii.)
And what about Bush continuing to read "My Pet Goat" instead of excusing himself to deal with a national emergency? (I am pretty sure he wanted to know how the story ended.)
You may not be aware of this, but the modern world is full of wonderful telecommunication devices.
You could start by checking more than one news source. Maybe Fox News claims the world is ending... But MSNBC and the APR and the BBC and the New York Times all disagree with that assertion. So maybe you want to take the impending apocalypse with a grain of salt.
You wouldn't even need to leave your house to check those news sources. Most of them have web pages, or you could just flip to a different channel on your television. You can balance one bias against another... Get news from different parts of the world... All from the comfort of your basement.
Of course there's still the distinct possibility that all the news agencies are being equally stupid about something. They aren't known for getting real science right, for example.
But you can again check with various places without leaving your house. You could look up the original press release, for example. Or maybe, depending on where the research was done or published, you could find the original paper on-line. For non-science topics, you can frequently dig up all sorts of interesting firsthand accounts on-line. Blog posts, pictures from the scene, folks who were actually involved in whatever happened.
Or, if it isn't all available on-line, and you really wanted to know about it, you could pick up your phone. Call various news agencies and ask for more information. Call the politicians or universities or whatever is involved. You can usually come up with that information without too much trouble. Might be harder to contact a specific individual, but you could probably do it.
Sure, if you really wanted to you could fly on over to Iraq yourself... But I don't think that's really necessary with so much information available on-line, and so many ways to reach out and touch someone without physically leaving your house.
Sorry what you're describing is so impractical as to be utter nonsense.
Of course, what I'm describing here is the entire process that a good journalist is supposed to go through... Digging up all this information so you actually have a clue what is going on. And it is a good amount of work - that's why journalists get paid to do it. And I guess I'm not really suggesting that everybody go to these lengths.
What I am suggesting is a healthy dose of skepticism, some rational thinking skills, a bit of reading comprehension, and a willingness to base your information on something more than a 30-second sound bite.
You don't have to go to extremes to make sure you've got a relatively unbiased and relatively accurate idea of what's going on in the world. You can easily get multiple newspapers delivered to your doorstep. You can easily read multiple news sites on-line. You can easily switch from one channel to another on your television. You can easily throw something into Google and see what other people think about it.
Rather than watching Countdown on MSNBC and taking it as pure truth, check around a bit. Spend 10 minutes comparing what Keith said with what other people said.
I'm not suggesting that we all become experts in every field imaginable. Just that we make some token effort to be better informed.
About a year ago (maybe longer?) there was the story about the Russian spy w
... when exposed to corrected facts in news stories.
Perhaps because we have learned to distrust the news providers?
Nah. If we'd learned to distrust the news providers we wouldn't have simply accepted their misinformation in the first place. We would have gone out and dug up our own information. And our beliefs wouldn't be based on incorrect information in the first place. So it wouldn't be necessary to change our beliefs when the information was corrected by the news provider.
Oh, I'm not surprised. I just don't buy their line directly like you're doing.
It's entirely too convenient and took them too long to come up with this as an answer for me to wholly accept it as the cause. But then it's in vogue to bash the US, even in the US, these days.
It's convenient for who to come up with which answer?
Because this is the NHTSA's answer, not Toyota's.
The NHTSA really doesn't have much to lose if Toyota is turning out a defective car. They report their findings, and if Toyota has to do a recall, it's not going to affect the NHTSA.
This assumes...
... that the throttle and brake position logging was recording correct data. If there's a fault in the ECU or software, how can you guarantee the data logging is correct?
It also assumes that the folks at the NHTSA know what they're doing.
If they do, then they've assured themselves that the data logging is correct.
If they don't, then we've got far bigger problems then just these Toyotas.
It seems to me that if adults typically are exposed to 1200 times what is considered a safe level, then either every adult should be seriously ill from exposure, or the EPA standard for what is a safe level is a bit unreasonable.
Or we'd all be a lot healthier if we weren't exposed to as much dioxin.
Honestly, I don't know. It's been over a year since I played. Last time I played, you only had room for about 40 people on your ignore list. And it was by character name, not account or anything like that.
You can't use the account name because then you are giving out valuable information.
Why would you want to use the account name? Sure, it's a simple way to do it... But nobody out there would recognize the account name anyway.
What you want to do is just list other characters on the same account. You can already inspect a character in WoW to see their equipment and whatnot... Just add a tab/button/whatever that shows you other characters.
Then if Ed is being an asshat, and I want to add him to my ignore list, I can also take a look at the other characters that Ed plays as and add them to my ignore list as well. Hell, you could make it even easier... When you add a character to your ignore/friends lists you can have a prompt that asks you if you want to add all their characters, or just this one.
It's well known that a pseudonym enables people to be complete assholes. Complete. And I'd bet that the moderators of these forums were sick and tired of seeing cases where this happened. Either someone said something really inflammatory or got under the skin of a beginner -- turning them off to the game. Some people are sensitive and even Mr. Rogers won't undo what a bully can do.
So Blizzard probably estimated that 90% of those jerks would stop being jerks if their name appeared by their asshole posts.
I agree that anonymity allows people to be the kind of jerks that you wouldn't want to be if your reputation was at stake. But I don't believe that you necessarily have to reveal somebody's real name to counteract that.
In-game, you develop a reputation. If you're enough of an asshole (lootwhore, n00b, whatever) in-game, folks won't want to play with you. They'll put you on their ignore list. You'll be ostracized.
Right now, you can roll up a new character easily enough and shrug off the reputation of your old character. Or create a character specifically for the purpose of being an asshole. You can log in as "Joe the Night Elf" and be a nice guy and go on all the raids... And then you can log in as "Ed the Dwarf" and be a complete asshole... And nobody knows it's the same person. Ed's bad reputation does not affect Joe at all.
All you have to do is make it clear that those two characters are owned by the same account. Then if everybody hates Ed because he's an asshole, they know that Joe is also that same asshole, and they can hate him too.
Associating these characters with your real name is not necessary. And, in fact, I think it creates the potential for some real abuse. Folks will happily harass you to the greatest extent they can for some really stupid shit. They'll post random garbage on the forums, spam you in-game, email you, whatever they can. If you give them enough personal information, they'll happily harass you in the real world as well.
Of course, Meyerowitz's allegedly-winning idea was to use technology to map genocide events in real time and use the info to "provide early warning" of new genocide locations, assist relief organizations, etc. That's worth putting money into and would be, essentially, "putting money into the pressing problem" as you said.
Except that it's a pretty lousy idea.
I mean... Sure, genocide is bad and all... And stopping or at least reducing it would be good... But how the hell do you think technology is going to assist here?
Who is going to report the genocide events? Are we going to design a new gun or something that phones home when used for genocide? And what's the genocide threshold? And who's going to maintain the hardware? And what's the penalty for not using one of the new anti-genocide rifles when you commit your atrocities? And then what's going to happen once we've got this data mapped in realtime? We're just going to look at the maps and say wow, that's a lot of genocide? Is somebody supposed to act on that data? Or is it just supposed to provide awareness?
It seems to me that you can already create custom overlays in things like Google Earth and Google Maps. Seems to me that there are plenty of ways to distribute information. Seems to me that we don't really need $10 million worth of new technology. What we need is willingness to act on all the atrocities that we are currently aware of.
This is the one thing that drives me absolutely crazy about politics in America these days.
Politicians will say any old crazy thing, and then flat-out deny that it was ever said. Even if you quote their words back to them line by line. Even if you have a recording of the statement. Even if you have a copy of their own website or press release.
And nobody seems to care.
Sure, some reporters will try to call them out on it... But that doesn't matter. The politicians don't even blink. They just go right on denying that they ever said anything. And the voters are entirely too willing to just go along with the spin.
What? No, of course he never said that! That video of him saying those things must be a fabrication. As well as the audio recording of him making a similar statement on the radio. And the flyer you have from a mass-mailing he did last year must be a forgery. And the archive you have of his website must surely have been tampered with. There's absolutely no possible way he could have said that - we've always been at war with Eurasia!
For any DRM system, there are two kind of people:
For Steam, there are still quite a lot of people in the second category. A lot of these people think that they are in a mythical third category; people who will never have problems with the system's limitations. This category does not exist for any DRM system, but people in the second group constantly believe that they won't have problems in the future. And, of course, the more money they spend on the system, the more cognitive dissonance requires that they defend it.
I'm genuinely curious how you think Steam's DRM is going to come bite me in the ass. Not whatever other DRM the publishers feel they need to shovel into a game despite the fact that it's being distributed on Steam, but actual problems with Steam itself.
I can download and install my games on as many different computers as I'd like. No activation limit. Just need the username & password. So I can let my friends and family "borrow" my games if I want to - without even having to hand them a disc.
I can re-install my games all I want. I don't have to worry about a disc getting scratched and becoming unusable. I don't have to worry about re-activating everything after reloading my computer.
I can make backups of my games, in case I don't want to rely on the download later.
Sure, Valve could shut down Steam entirely... Or abandon the old DRM platform and require you to purchase all-new games... But, let's be realistic here, it isn't like DRM-free physical media has never bit me in the ass. I don't know how many times I've had a disc damaged to the point where it was unreadable. Hell, even DRM-free digital copies have bit me in the ass. Maybe I didn't make a backup before reformatting... Maybe the software doesn't work with my new hardware or OS...
Honestly, how much of your library do you really plan on revisiting in a year, two years, three years? How much of that library do you really think is going to be functional in that time? Stuff breaks, even without DRM.
I'm not saying that Steam is going to somehow protect me from anything that can go wrong... But it seems to me that you've got a pretty good chance of your non-DRMed games failing to function as well.
At the end of the day, DRM will continue as long as people show that they are willing to put up with it.
Let's be really honest here - DRM actually makes some sense.
Folks like to cry about how copying bits isn't theft and how data wants to be free and whatever else... But the fact of the matter is that I paid for just a single copy of the game. If this were a physical object, I'd have just one Monopoly board.
Duplicating items in the physical world is non-trivial. In effect, their very physical substance acts as a type on inherent DRM. If I want another Monopoly board, I can't just magick one up out of thin air. I have to go buy one.
Likewise, if I buy a copy of Mass Effect, I've just paid for that one game. Sure, it's digital data, so I can make infinitely many copies of it with virtually no effort... But that isn't really what I paid for, is it?
DRM is just an attempt to make sure you've only got the one Monopoly board.
Sure, a lot of it gets horribly intrusive. I hate the stuff where I have to keep a disc in the drive... Or it fails to work with my hardware for some reason... Or I have to call up the publisher to get permission to install it again... That's all bad DRM. But something simple that stays out of my way? I don't mind that at all.
I won't buy DRM'd products, unless the DRM is so effectively cracked before I buy them that I can remove the DRM entirely.
Good news, Steam's DRM has been thoroughly cracked! Take a look around The Pirate Bay and you'll see plenty of Steam games available for downlo
Steam proves that the right games sell well on PC.
Steam is a terrific platform and I think it could go a long way towards revitalizing the PC game industry.
Yes, it's DRM. I know someone's going to show up and start yelling about the evils of Steam DRM. It always happens every time somebody mentions Steam. But everything is wrapped in DRM these days, and wishing that it wasn't so is not going to change the world. Sure, we could start boycotting and lobbying and whatever else... But the fact of the matter is that DRM is a part of the game industry these days. And Steam is one of the least-painful forms of DRM out there.
The marketplace is a great way to pick up your games. Buy them on-line and download them. No waiting for boxes to show up. You can even pre-load games before the release date. And you can burn backups of your files, so that you can install them offline later.
Plenty of impulse buys. The lack of physical shelf space means that you can sell stuff on Steam for a lot less than in a brick & mortar store. There's constantly something good for sale for $5.
There's a built-in system of patching, finding network games, finding friends, planning events, achievement, etc. Sure, that's all kind of wasted on a single-player game... But most games include some kind of multiplayer these days. And that's an awful lot of nicely reusable code for anybody looking to implement multiplayer.
And now you've got the ability to use Steam on multiple operating systems. And your games, if supported, will work across multiple operating systems.
But that's kind of my point.
Obviously, what actually belongs in any particular game, or what makes sense in a specific genre is a subjective thing...
But it makes sense to race chocobos in a Final Fantasy game. They're an integral part of the Final Fantasy setting.
Just tossing in some random motorcycle race though... Just doesn't make much sense. Ok, sure, you're trying to get away from the badguys. And you're a badass anime hero. So, of course, you're going to ride off into the sunset on a motorcycle. But how does it fit into a final fantasy game to have a motorcycle race?
I think the problem is less with executing the mini-game well, than it is with the mini-game making sense.
Yeah, BioShock was a disappointment. No, it was not a worthy successor to System Shock 2. Yes, it failed on many levels. But I think the core problem with the hacking mini-game was not of a mechanical nature... The problem wasn't that the water was flowing and you had a time limit or it took you away from the gameplay or anything like that... The problem was that it just didn't make much sense.
In SS2 you were in space aboard a ship that was either malfunctioning or at the mercy of a crazed AI. There were automated defenses, and locked doors, and vending machines, and whatever else. In that context, it makes sense to have a hacking mini-game. How else are you going to make all these computerized, electronic gadgets do things they were never intended to do?
In BioShock you're in some kind of retro aquatic dystopia. The turrets and drones don't make any sense to start with... It looks like they're built out of an office chair with a weapon strapped on top - how do they even function? But if you were to twist them to your needs, it should be by altering the wiring or mechanical linkages - not by pushing some kind of liquid through some pipes. It just does not make sense.
Incorporating a mini-game that makes sense will not jar the player out of whatever immersion they have. It will expand upon the game-world. It will actually make the game more immersive.
But throwing something completely random that makes no sense at all will jar them out of the game. Effectively breaking the fourth wall.
You can immerse yourself in a marathon session of Pac-Man or chess or be immersed in a stack of paperwork. Immersion just means being deeply involved with something mentally.
Yep. And if you're deeply involved in a stack of paperwork, and every few minutes somebody runs by screaming at the top of their lungs, you're likely to become distracted enough that you're no longer immersed in that paperwork.
This is the argument that's being made, and I think it is a valid one.
Good games have a certain flow to them. You can settle in and just kind of ride the thing out. You get your mind into the right state and you almost forget the world around you. You are, in short, immersed.
This can be true of Pac Man, or Peggle, or a shooter, or whatever. They suck you in, monopolize your attention, and you become immersed in them.
And then some games, for whatever reason, break up that steady flow of gameplay with something jarring and different. Suddenly there's a button-mashing rhythm game in the middle of your shooter... Or some kind of half-assed racing game in the middle of your RPG... Or some kind of memory test in the middle of Pac Man... Or whatever. And it's a different enough though process that it jars you out of your immersion.
And, speaking for myself - I hate that.
If your goal is to /really/ spread around leaked documents for the benefit of mankind, you will find a way to do it regardless. Complaining that people aren't giving you enough money and taking down a site is simply babyish. Yes, you aren't going to become a millionaire* by doing it, but if you are /really/ doing it for the benefit of mankind, you will do it for free and find ways to make it work.
*Assuming you don't get a list of future lottery numbers or something
Except that it really does cost money to run a server, pay for bandwidth, pay for lawyers, etc.
FFS, if I bought a phone and it didn't work I'd just take the thing back to the shop and get a refund. That way I get my money back so I can buy a different phone as a replacement. With a class-action lawsuit they'll get $5 worth of iTunes vouchers and still have a phone that doesn't work. What planet are these people on?
Returning the phone may not really be an option though. Generally speaking, folks sign some kind of contract with the provider at time of purchase. No, you probably don't have to... But most people do. And those contracts have early termination fees.
Could you argue that the phone is defective and avoid paying the ETF? Probably... But maybe not, as Apple is not acknowledging the issue. Maybe AT&T will simply suggest that you follow Steve's directions and hold the phone differently.
Depending on where you live, a contract with AT&T without an iPhone might not be a wonderful idea. Around here AT&T has relatively crappy coverage. The only reason to go with AT&T instead of Verizon up here is to get your hands on an iPhone. If you return the iPhone you'd be better off canceling your contract and getting a phone through Verizon. Except for those ETFs.
The other bit is the fact that this is a communication device. It can be used to call for help in an emergency. Say there's been an accident and you try to call 911 for help, but your call gets dropped. Sure, random crap breaks, it happens. Blame it on sunspots or whatever. But what if Apple was aware that there was an issue that would cause calls to be dropped? And they didn't fix that issue? Are they now responsible for that dropped call?
And what if there are other defects that apple is aware of? What if there is some condition that causes it to emit a far stronger signal than normal? Far stronger than is safe? What if there is the potential to short something out and electrify that antenna? What if the battery is known to be leaking toxic fumes? Or bursts into flames if you dial the wrong number?
These devices are regulated to ensure that they not only function the way they're supposed to, but to ensure that they're safe.
If the manufacturer is rolling out a device with one known defect, you have to wonder if there are any other defects they know about.
Marriage is a tax and legal affair. It is like creating a company or a trust with a business partner :
Both of you can stay independent self-employed and do the same job but you will not get the same benefits. (and constraints)
Marriage is the mechanism to subscribe to the benefits you feel discriminated against - just like filling you tax return. Marriage is not a declaration of Love or some blood pact before ${diety}, it is a legal contract and nothing more.
The only real discrimination was to restrict this legal contract to people of specific sexual orientation.
Which is why I get so sick and tired of religious folks complaining about gay marriage destroying marriage in general.
Marriage hasn't been about religion in decades. It's about tax benefits and joint ownership of property and having the right to visit your spouse in various circumstances and whatever else.
Frankly, I think we should do away with "marriage" entirely.
Create some kind of domestic partnership to completely replace marriage. Make gender completely irrelevant to domestic partnership. Make any tax breaks or spousal benefits or whatever based on the domestic partnership.
Let churches have their marriage. Let them choose to marry whoever they want, or refuse to marry whoever they want. But make that marriage basically irrelevant. If you want to get married, go right ahead. If you want a tax break, get a domestic partnership (in stead of, or in addition to, marriage).
Unmarried hetro couples are now discriminated against. They should get the same as the Gay/Lesbian couples, some people may not believe in marrage or may not want to get married for one reason or another. Why should they be forced to marry just to avoid a tax?
I have absolutely no idea what kind of policy Google is implementing, since I didn't even bother to read the article...
But if they're paying more specifically to cover Domestic Partner medical insurance (which costs more than married/family medical insurance), and you list your significant other in an unmarried hetero relationship as a Domestic Partner and receive Domestic Partner medial insurance, I would suspect that you would also be compensated for it.
Anal-abusing males and group-masturbating females (commonly known as lesbians) do not contribute children towards the population of Planet Earth and USA in particular.
Let's ignore the fact that plenty of homosexual couples use fertility treatments to conceive children of their own...
But priests who've taken vows of celibacy do not contribute children towards the population of Planet Earth. Nor do folks who just happen to be sterile for whatever reason. Nor do folks who simply choose not to have children.
Should we discriminate against all of them?
Are we going to start mandating that everybody conceive a child?
Are we going to force people to reproduce?
Since it is the job of the future generation to care about the current generation when it becomes elderly, people who do not contribute DNS to the future generation, shall be required to shoulder extra burden for the common good of the society.
I assume you're referring to something state-funded, like Social Security?
Because in general, folks take care of their own elderly, not just random old people on the street. In which case it's my own damn fault I didn't produce kids when I get old and decrepit and there's nobody around to care for me.
In Europe and South America many countries actually had taxes for healthy 25+, who were unmarried and 30+ still without kids. You had to bring sworn witnesses to say you were refused engagement at least 3 times in the previous year, due to ugliness, if you wanted to skip the tax. The state provided funds to poor girls so they could marry and those having a medical excuse were offered to adopt a child or pay the tax.
I suspect that those taxes probably no longer exist, as most places (Japan excluded) have more than enough people right now. Many places are feeling the pressure of having too many people and not enough jobs or housing.
But, assuming those taxes still exist... I would certainly hope they're applied across-the-board. Especially to any religious groups that encourage their priests to take vows of celibacy.
Regardless, I think it's a miserable idea. Folks should be free to choose what they want to do in life. If I don't want to reproduce, regardless of my sexual orientation, that should be my choice.
That's all fine and well. They just shouldn't be allowed to adopt children, as such a practice might perpetuate a purely social lifestyle that has no biological or evolutionary purpose (other than to naturally remove each partners genes from the pool).
How does that make any kind of sense at all?
If you're adopting a child, the kid already exists and you aren't actually reproducing. So you're already looking at a choice that has no biological or evolutionary purpose.
And what of folks who are sterile? They can't reproduce... So, what, they shouldn't be allowed to adopt because they can't participate in biological reproduction?
Or is it all about the choice? You think that gay folks are making a choice not to reproduce, and such a horrible decision might get passed on to their kids? You think their gayness might rub off or something?
Well, what about folks who've taken vows of celibacy? That's an actual choice. You aren't worried that such an anti-evolutionary choice as a vow of celibacy will rub off on the kids?
I'm pretty sure the inequality imposed on them is a direct result of the imposition of Christian 'morals'
Well, but that's kind of the problem with Christian morals - they're largely contradictory.
Jesus sat down with lepers and whores. Didn't treat anyone terribly badly. Didn't discriminate. Wanted to get his message out to pretty much everyone. The Bible's got that whole message of do unto others as you'd have them do unto you and being a good Samaritan and all that...
But then you see 'Christians' aggressively pushing this 'moral' agenda and harming their neighbors in the process.
FTFA:
Could bees be modern-day sentinels like the canaries once used as warning signals of toxic gases in coal mines?
Just what we need, there will be swarms of honey bees at airports, in parking lots, and at work, all testing the air quality. Somehow the whole "swarm of bees" thing scares me more than the actual pollution - at least canaries were cute.
I've got no links or references to give you, so you'll have to forgive me.
The Mall of America, in Minnesota, was using some kind of tiny, stingless bee to pollinate plants indoors. I'd assume something similar could be used for monitoring air quality or whatever else.
You folks all know why this is right ? I mean what is the use of SSL-encryption if you don't know who your 'talking' to ?
Except that SSL encryption doesn't tell you who you're talking to.
You still have to trust that the site is somebody you want to talk to.
It is trivially easy to register a domain and buy a certificate. You can pick something deceptively similar to another domain... You can pick something that sounds trustworthy... You can get a certificate... It'll be 100% legitimate... And you can still use it maliciously.
Or you can steal someone else's cert. It isn't that hard. You just need root access to the machine.
All SSL does is encrypt the traffic between you and the server. Nothing more. If you think you've got any more security than that you are mistaken. SSL does not guarantee that you are talking to anyone in particular. It does not guarantee that they're reputable or trustworthy. It doesn't guarantee that they're actually who you think they are. It doesn't guarantee that nobody has a backdoor to their database.
All it does is encrypt traffic between you and them. Nothing more.
Not never. Given enough time and CPU cycles, anything stored locally can be cracked. It's just a matter of how long you want to wait.
Close enough to never that it really doesn't matter.
With modern technology the sun will have swallowed the Earth before you crack that disk.
But even if we see significant improvements in technology and we manage to crack the disk in just 50-100 years, that's probably effectively "never" as you'll likely be close enough to death not to really care too much about the incriminating evidence getting out.
Hell, even 10-20 years might as well be "never" if it exceeds the statute of limitations