A better analogy is this:
If your teenager was at the mall and met a stranger there who assaulted them, would you:
a) sue the mall for not having an individual police escort for each person in the mall
b) charge the parents for neglecting to hold their kid's hand the entire time
c) find, arrest, and charge the person who committed the assault
You would do (c). MySpace is no different than an online mall or park where people meet, talk, etc.
Some tips on things to consider doing before handing in your resignation (if you're going to be leaving on good terms with the company): 1) make sure any code you've written for the company is well documented and easily maintained (I can document the hell out obfuscated code, but that doesn't mean it's easily maintained) 2) make sure that any projects you're on are documented well enough for someone to step in with minimal difficulty 3) make sure you understand company policy on work you create for the company 4) if there are things that you have created for the company that you wish to take with you, make sure there is no confidential or proprietary information in them. Prepare a 'packet' of the things you would like to take so that when you hand in your resignation you can have the packet reviewed to make sure there is nothing proprietary in there. This goes for code, email, documentation, etc.
When you hand in your resignation, make sure to be courteous. Don't disrespect your coworkers (even if they are the reason for you leaving). Review any materials you've created for confidentiality (in general, if it's things you've created to be able to do you job better, most companies won't object to you taking a copy. If it's programs that are part of the company's business, then chances it's proprietary and/or confidential and you shouldn't be taking a copy.)
Contrary to what other people have been saying, do not delete ANYTHING (remember, this is leaving on good terms). The company will take care of disabling your account, access, etc. The company most likely has a legal right to anything you've created on company time or equipment or for the company due to the terms of employment (in general this is outlined in company policies. if you aren't sure, make sure you speak with HR before you hand in your resignation.)
In general, if you are leaving on good terms (i.e. another company has offered you a better deal or there are family matters that require you to leave as opposed to leaving because of something related to the company you are leaving) you want to treat everyone with respect, but understand that when you hand in your resignation the company has EVERY right to say "Thank you. We appreciate everything you've done for the company. There is no need to come in to work between now and then. If we need you, we will call you. By the way, you can come in tomorrow to pick up your personal effects." That is a perfectly good, ethical, legal response as long as they pay you for the time between resignation and termination.
Disclaimer: The above only applies to leaving on good terms. Leaving on bad terms is an entirely different kettle of fish.
You're also forgetting that the atmospheric pressure drops as you go up in altitude. That in turn presents less resistance to the craft. As for the atmospheric content, I can't say, though it would be plausible that the heavier gases would tend to accumulate at lower altitudes.
Another fallacy there. I don't think anyone that lands gets the right...
I never said that the USA owns the moon just because it landed there. However, it would be reasonable to say that the USA owns a stake of the moon surrounding where it's landers are should the moon be opened to officially recognized land claims.
Likewise, your analogy with US troops in Kuwait baseless. There are established laws governing land ownership and sovereignty (sp?) on Earth. As the US troops in Kuwait are there to protect the country at that country's request, there is no contention over property ownership.
You don't need to evict anyone to claim property...
If you and your gang of armed aliens took over my house, I'd be able to take you to court to get it back because, everyone say it now, there are established laws governing land ownership on earth. As the discussion is centered on an object that is not Earth and there are not laws that govern property ownership on asteroids, we are in agreement (you say that what I said would apply to a lawless location).
And in fact, the OrbDev site says that they are doing just that. Making this "Claim" to "force" the government to address Space property rights.
The funny thing is that if they wanted, NASA could charge Mr Nimitz for the cost of the NEAR mission. Why? Because he's claiming that the asteroid is his property and he is claiming NASA's work to send NEAR there as an increase in his property 'value'. I'd love to see NASA send him a $225million bill for survey services.
The other thing is that because the NEAR probe is now _on_ the asteroid, NASA has 'possession' of it. And curiously, Mr Nimitz has no ability to evict the probe.
All in all, I think Mr Nimitz should rethink his claim. Why? He has no ability to get to his 'property'. That makes it very hard for him to enforce his claim. Now, if he had a private space craft I'd suggest that he go and stay on the asteroid for a while to prove out his claim. As NASA is the one proving out the claim, and NASA isn't run/owned by Mr Nimitz, it would seem that the asteroid is NASA's, despite his claims to the contrary.
As for other planets that have probes on them, the "claims" would extend as far as the probes or missions ventured. i.e. The moon landings would be bounded by where the astronauts walked, drove, etc. The Mars landings would be bounded by where the mission landed and any rover ventured.
There is a lot of public information. It has lots of stuff that 99% of the population finds useless. The other 1% of the population either wants to use it for 'good' or 'evil' and thus finds it useful. Those that want to use it for 'good' are welcome to it, but because there are those that want to use it for evil, let's lock it all up and make sure no one knows it...except for those 'evil' people who can find it out anyway.
Hey while we're at it. Let's make sure that no one is allowed to see, let alone come near, critical pieces of infrastructure like bridges, power plants, or country roads that have large amounts of fiber under them. That way we'll know who the terrorists are because they'll go near those things in order to figure out how to blow them up.
Pardon? What's that? We should acknowledge the weaknesses and put people to work making them less vulnerable? Why? It's so much better to hide them and pretend they don't exist until snotty grad students point them out.
</mini-rant>
In all seriousness, I applaud Sean Gorman and Laurie Schintler. They took one step from corporate/private risk analysis and expanded the view of where risks are and how big they are. This is something that organizations should be thinking about constantly. It's not enough to say "Well in order to hurt us directly you have to go through this, that, and the other hoop." You have to say "Ok, we've dealt with the direct risks. Now how bad are the n-fold indirect risks? What happens if this, that, or the other thing is directly or indirectly damaged and how does that affect me?" Most of the time, companies limit this to power and communication lines and as a result some of them make separate locations with duplicate functionality that can start working when the primary location goes down, but that's not enough all the time.
Personally, I think the dissertation should be treated like any other dissertation. And then FEMA should hire them (and others) to figure out ways to protect the identified weak points.
The next big field will probably be risk-mitigation.
Thanks for the clarification on the fact that the photon imparts twice it's momentum. I hadn't realized that. I did know that the light would be redshifted (or blue if the mirrors were accelerated towards each other).
From the paper written by Thomas Gold it seemed that he was saying that a perfect mirror wouldn't steal any energy what so ever.
If they are perfect mirrors they wouldn't absorb any of the energy from the beam of light. Thus they wouldn't move. The point is that there are no perfect mirrors and so some of the energy is absorbed. As a result the beam of light would lose energy as the mirrors are accelerated apart.
As a note, presuming you DO have perfect mirrors, you still need a perfect vacuum to ensure that no scattering occurs, otherwise eventually the beam of light will lose it's energy to scattering effects of intervening particles.
I believe he's talking about the support contracts offered by the largest distributor of Linux. I'm not sure which distributor that would be, though at a guess I'd say RedHat.
In either case, it's a relatively useless study. There are so many factors in computer use that to say "It's not the keyboard" or "It is the mouse" is rather useless. For example, my typing style hasn't changed much in the 20 some-odd years that I've been typing. I sit as if I'm in a recliner. I rest my elbows on the armrests of whatever chair I'm in. I rest my wrists on the edge of the desk. About the only thing that has changed is that I no longer have to look at the keyboard in order to type the correct key. Do I have symptoms of CTS? No. There are a lot of other things that impact the wrists that I do. [Yeah yeah, reply with your favorite masturbatory comments you trolls]. I do martial arts wrist stretches. I lift weights. I do pushups (yeah, that stretches the wrists). If I didn't exercise my wrists would I have CTS? Dunno. Do I care? Nope. I'm pretty happy at my 40hr/wk job in which I spend more than half that time typing. I also enjoy playing computer games that involve a lot of keyboard use. IMO and FME, this kind of study is useless no matter what.
To those that are wondering what kind of organization funds such a study: A health insurance agency. i.e. If you can 'rule out' a behavior as not causing a particular symptom, then if someone develops the symptom and claims it was caused by doing their job (and thus entitling them to disability), you can point to the study and say "Nope. Must've been something else. This study says that behavior doesn't cause it. No disability for you."
I agree that there are other benefits. However, what's the one way to guarantee that Congress will give you money for a project? Tie it in some way to national security.
You're missing something. The point is that the Japanese probably have a much better idea of what the Chinese are doing in terms of space program because of:
Proximity - Japan is a helluva lot closer to China than the US, giving them a front seat to anything and everything that China does in terms of space launches
Paranoia - Japan is a helluva lot more worried about China militarily (sp?).
Relations - The US cares about China when the US wants to. Japan has to because of the previous two. Along with trade.
As a result, the Japanese probably have a much better idea of how capable the Chinese are in terms of space programs.
We haven't been back to the moon because the designs are all 30 years old and haven't been updated to account for technological improvements to systems and materials. The technology can still be made and used if you are willing to retool factories to make the parts. The reason the US can't go back to the moon is because we don't have the materials to use (or willingness to retool) the old designs and we don't want to take the risks of updating those designs to use modern materials. Those risks would be too high in the eyes of modern society.
Oh. No doubt that the Chinese could care less if the US helps or competes with them. And they have the resources to leave the US behind. I'm just hoping that the US won't let that happen. And they probably won't, but for the wrong reasons. The US won't let it happen for any number of reasons beyond the following:
Loss of prestige
Loss of control (of outer space, the Moon, etc)
Military threat (do you really want to have someone out there capable of tossing rocks on your home without being able to do the same to them?)
...
Profit!!!!
IMO, the third one will be the most effective impetus to getting the space program back up to speed. All someone needs to do is say "Mr President, the Chinese could have a moon base before your term is over. And they could have the capability to drop kinetic weapons on us from there with impunity once they have a base. We can't let this happen. We must engage in diplomacy as well as an aggressive program of space defense in orbit and on the moon." *bang* Instant money to the defense/space programs. And yes, given the way Congress reacted to Bush's requests for money to help in 'national security' (anti-terrorist/anti-Iraq) issues, I don't have much trouble imagining them doing the same for something like the Chinese establishing (or even just attempting to establish) a moon base.
The other hope is that the commercial programs (X Prize competition, etc) succeed beyond our wildest dreams. That would hopefully lower the cost of space (or at least sub-orbital) flights.
Frontiers left to explore:
Space
Ocean - less likely to get funding due to environmental concerns
Regardless of whether it's 3 years or 10 years, this will be good. One of two things will happen:
The US space program will get a kick in pants (again) to get more manned missions out into the solar system.
The Chinese will fail
Personally, I'm hoping that only #1 will happen. Competition is good. See what's happened since we lost an 'opponent' in the space race? We've grown complacent. Having another space will be good for just about everything (national pride, the tech sector, the economy in general, innovation, etc).
Re:GPL the best bet
on
OSI vs SCO
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Again, point missed.
If they are indeed going to court to stop the distribution of code which they did not intend to distribute, but still did, then you know what, they lose. They are a vendor. If they don't know what is in their product, they are idiots. If they didn't take the time to find out what was in their product, they're careless.
* If the unwittingly-added code is found to be properly GPL'd, OSS is "viral" and disgruntled employees can wreack havoc with any proprietary software that they want.
Bad example. The actions of disgruntled employees are a separate issue. If it was a disgruntled employee that released proprietary information, there are a barrage of different issues at stake (like when was this purported employee released, why did it take so long to find this problem, etc). At the end of a case of disgruntled employee doing something, they have every right to retract the leaked information. I'm not sure if it can still be considered a trade secret, but it is most definitely still under whatever copyright the employer wants it to be. But we're not talking about the "what if's" of a disgruntled employee. We're talking about a company that should've known it's code was in there, could've known earlier if the code was in there, but did nothing about it until it realized that it was a rodent and about to be exterminated.
The main thing that needs to be considered is:
Caldera released a product under a license. Since, we can assume that code review was done (see above about not knowing what is your product and being an idiot), we can also assume that the product passed said review and was authorized to be released with the appropriate licenses. As a result, said proprietary information was approved to be released under GPL and thus made non-proprietary. End of story.
Regardless of whether or not SCO knew the code was theirs. If they did, then this lawsuit is thrown out and SCO punished for being gits and wasting the courts time. If they didn't know, then this lawsuit is thrown out and SCO punished for being idiots and wasting the courts time.
As for your last point, such is life. If it is found that proprietary code was released thus exposing trade secrets, I would think that several things would have to happen:
The date of the release would need to be determined
All new code created after that release date would need to be examined
Changes would have to be made
However, given the information in the linked position paper from the Open Source Initiative, I am sure that SCO is toast. But now it's up to a court to decide how serious a case of cranio-rectal inversion SCO has.
In answer to your points:
1) An RPG is an adventure game. An RPG without adventure is rather pointless. Thus it is part of the genre under discussion.
2) Could you provide an example of what you consider a classic adventure game? Perhaps you were thinking of Myst. I certainly agree that it is an adventure game. I wouldn't necessarily say it's a classic adventure game since there were adventure games galore before Myst came around.
3) Since slaying things by force of arms is 'not generally' part of adventure games and puzzle solving is, then what about those puzzle-solving games based on 'force of arms' systems (such as those NWN modules where combat doesn't mean anything and puzzle solving is everything)?
To sum up (because to explain would take too long*):
RPGs are adventure games. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't understand the nature of an RPG. They are, however, not the only type of adventure game.
I'll don my asbestos pants now.
* If you don't get the Princess Bride reference, don't bother commenting.
Adventure gaming dead? Not at all. Take for example, Neverwinter Nights. It's a classic adventure game.
Make a character
Go forth and slay things, complete quests, interact with environment and other characters
Watch character improve
Yeah, sure, there are 'big' adventure games like Everquest, Asheron's Call, etc where there is no real story and the adventure is in exploring (or camping). Neverwinter Nights is (IMHO) closer to being true to the genre. There's a story in which you control one of the main characters.
Neverwinter Nights is a good example of where the genre is going, in fact.
To address the statements you found in relation to NWN:
NWN takes full advantage of high end graphics cards. The better the graphics card, the more detail and effects you can get from NWN.
NWN is still classic adventure genre, but there's much more diversity available.
We have moved on from 'click every item in your inventory on every other item'. NWN allows for the creation of custom recipes to create new items in-game. NWN is a good example of how good adventure games can be.
Linear? Nah. There are more ways to go through the official campaign than I can think of. I'm on my 6th replay of the official campaign with my 6th character and I'm finding new things every time. Not to mention the user-created content that keeps me coming back.
As for other games, Mechwarrior 4: Mercenaries is another great adventure game. Run a mercenary company that controls giant robots and blow shit up.
Elder Scrolls 3: Morrowind is supposedly even better than NWN. I haven't played it but my friends that have keep saying how great it is.
The list goes on and on. If you want, include MMORPGs in your classification of 'adventure' games and suddenly you see where the genre went.
Lets see here...
I started college in 1993.
One of the first things that had you do was set up a 'services' account (aka Email account replete with shell access as well as other fun things like Gopher, FTP, Telnet, etc).
I started MUDing before 1994.
Mmmmm prior art. By 1994, just about everyone at the university had a webpage (or at least a placeholder for one).
Also, doesn't all the work on ARPANET, MILNET, etc count as prior art? It was up and running before Chuckie came along with his idea. Didn't BBN produce tons of prior art regarding this prior to '94?
But on the other hand, you have the child, might be trying hard, might not, but with this, you're kinda taking all the trust away, by not believing them, so I feel for the kids that actually do their homework and have their parents watching over every turn, it's gonna bring feelings of resentment.
The child's best interest is not always to be watched like a hawk, sometimes it's to let him/her make a few mistakes and realize the importance of such things. Without realizing this, you can force them until they are like 14-15 and if they never realized it on their own, they will revolt, and you will have completly lost the battle, even if you're original intent was to give the child reason.
Good points. Your conclusion is a bit misguided though. The system provides the possibility that parents will abuse it and become overprotective and instill resentful feelings in their children. However, if it's used correctly, it can help parents track their child's progress, figure out if their child might need help in a particular area, and know when their child is improving without involving the teacher.
All of these are good things. Parents don't need to take immediate action on things they see there. However, if they see that their child has homework one day and their child says they did it, yet didn't turn it in, then the parent can know immediately.
Likewise, if parents see that their child is doing well in subject A, but consistently poorly in subject B despite obvious effort, then they have a choice of actions they can take. If they know the subject well enough, they can sit down with their child and help them out. They can talk with their child about getting a tutor (or just get one without talking to their child about it). They can talk to the teacher and get more information. etc etc etc.
Personally, I never had a real problem in school so I don't think my parents would've had much use for this system. But I was also a tutor and I know that the parents of some of the kids I tutored would've loved something like this so that their kids could get help sooner.
My reaction to this system is: "Great! Yippee! Yahoo!!! Ok. Enough happiness. Now the school system needs to educate the parents on how to use this tool to benefit their children the most."
Personally, I've had great experiences with Tiny Personal Firewall.
http://www.tinysoftware.com
Same thing regarding OS...works great on 98, 200, XP. Same thing regarding application limiting. Also does nice things like MD5 sum checking to see if an application has changed and then prompts you if you want to accept the new application.
What is the LIKELIHOOD that an attack with a baseball bat will end in fatality as compared to an attack with a firearm? Pretty damn low.
Do you have statistics on that?
I'm wondering because it seems to me that if you carry a baseball bat with the intent on harming (but not specifically killing) someone, you are more likely to kill them simply by getting 'caught up' in the moment of hitting them with a bat. Where as with a gun, unless you are specifically trying to kill someone, you probably won't be firing repeatedly.
Granted, if you go out with the specific intent of killing someone, the chances of the victim dying to probably even regardless of what weapon you use unless they 'defeat' your attack in some way (kicking your ass, killing you, etc).
However, the first part of your statement is correct. Bats, hammers, (eating) knives are not controlled because they aren't designed for the specific purpose of killing. Depending on the state you're in, long knives are regulated to some extent. For instance, you aren't allowed to walk around town with your favorite butcher knife without drawing a lot of attention (regardless of whether or not the blade is bare). However, a swiss army knife swinging from a keychain will hardly get a glance.
This article just goes to show how misguided the general population is when it comes to understanding what computers can offer. Without teachers that understand computers, how can we expect students to learn by using computers?
Those people that are pointing out that computers are great reservoirs of information or that computers are great aides to the learning process are correct. Computers can be great aides provided that the software is there and given the state of the software industry these days, I'd have to say that educational software has taken a nosedive in quality.
Example:
10 - 15 years ago there were a few really good programs for the Apple ][ series computers for physics, chemistry, biology, and 'earth sciences'. I know. I used them and got a lot more out of those subjects than my classmates who didn't use them. The programs were great at _illustrating_ what was being taught in class. Do those programs still exist? I don't know. Would they have been made the same way now as they were back then? Definitely not. The graphics were horrible compared to today. But this (IMNSHO) actually helped because it meant that more time was taken in the actual descriptions of what was going on. Yes there were graphics, but the crappy graphics plus the detailed and in-depth descriptions were what helped me learn. Given today's technology, the descriptions would've been something like "As the animation shows above, blah blah blah" and then the animation would've been all spiffy and what not, leaving the student to scratch their head and wonder what the hell was going on.
The other important thing is for teachers to understand how to make the best use of technology in their classroom. This has more to do with the education of teachers though. This goes back to using calculators in classrooms as well. At what level of detail do we say 'Enough! If you need that level of detail in your work and you don't have a calculator, then you probably aren't going to be worried about performing that calculation anyway!' If you are stranded on a desert island/asteroid/planet are you really going to be worried about doing calculus or are you going to have other things on your mind? To be honest, I'm not sure I know where I stand on that issue myself. In high school, we couldn't use calculators for most things. In college, we could. Considering how well I did in math and science in high school and how poorly I did in math in college, it's a toss up. On the one hand I would certainly like kids to understand calculus, but on the other, if they can get the correct answer to the problem, then that's a good thing.
Teachers need to determine for themselves, how much of a role technology will play in their classroom and the results of whatever standardized testing there is should give a good indication of which method is working better. As examples:
Should papers be type-written or hand-written?
Should computers be used to teach math skills or science skills?
Should computers be used to teach foreign languages?
My answers would look something like:
1 - Hand-written unless the handwriting is atrocious, in which case the handwriting needs to be worked on. Using a wordprocessor to check spelling is fine, but then spelling mistakes in the paper result in a failing grade. Using a grammar checker to check for grammar mistakes should be treated the same.
2 - Hell no. Computers and calculators can certainly be used to aide the study of math and science but they should not be the primary learning tool. Turtle Logo is great for illustrating geometry (and indeed mistakes in that probably lead to a greater understanding of geometry) and likewise there are great programs that illustrate things in chemistry and physics (prOn doesn't count for biology, sorry). But all of those are really only good if you have some grasp of the basics behind the subject.
3 - Possibly. There are a lot of programs that can teach you about grammar and spelling. However, pronunciation is another story. Hooked on Phonics be damned. Having experience with French and Dutch language programs, I can tell you that hearing the computer say something is one thing. Trying to duplicate it is another. Again, another place where computers are probably better aides than primary tools.
Net result: Computers will only work in the following situations:
1 - Teachers that understand how to integrate computers into the curriculum correctly
2 - Students that understand how to use computers to aid their learning
3 - School administrations that understand how to get the above two
Oh I understand that. However, as ajs pointed out, the best way to resolve this is for the two sides (Verant and the players) to come to an understanding or agreement on the issue.
The understanding might be that Verant isn't going to change this 'feature' and the players are going to use it to their full advantage.
Or, the players might feel so strong about it that they do something to highlight how strongly they feel about it (by using the 'feature' to their full advantage, by boycotting the area, etc etc etc).
A decree by one side or the other isn't going to change the poor pathing.
Slashdot Mirror
A better analogy is this: If your teenager was at the mall and met a stranger there who assaulted them, would you: a) sue the mall for not having an individual police escort for each person in the mall b) charge the parents for neglecting to hold their kid's hand the entire time c) find, arrest, and charge the person who committed the assault You would do (c). MySpace is no different than an online mall or park where people meet, talk, etc.
How to professionally resign? You did it.
Some tips on things to consider doing before handing in your resignation (if you're going to be leaving on good terms with the company):
1) make sure any code you've written for the company is well documented and easily maintained (I can document the hell out obfuscated code, but that doesn't mean it's easily maintained)
2) make sure that any projects you're on are documented well enough for someone to step in with minimal difficulty
3) make sure you understand company policy on work you create for the company
4) if there are things that you have created for the company that you wish to take with you, make sure there is no confidential or proprietary information in them. Prepare a 'packet' of the things you would like to take so that when you hand in your resignation you can have the packet reviewed to make sure there is nothing proprietary in there. This goes for code, email, documentation, etc.
When you hand in your resignation, make sure to be courteous. Don't disrespect your coworkers (even if they are the reason for you leaving). Review any materials you've created for confidentiality (in general, if it's things you've created to be able to do you job better, most companies won't object to you taking a copy. If it's programs that are part of the company's business, then chances it's proprietary and/or confidential and you shouldn't be taking a copy.)
Contrary to what other people have been saying, do not delete ANYTHING (remember, this is leaving on good terms). The company will take care of disabling your account, access, etc. The company most likely has a legal right to anything you've created on company time or equipment or for the company due to the terms of employment (in general this is outlined in company policies. if you aren't sure, make sure you speak with HR before you hand in your resignation.)
In general, if you are leaving on good terms (i.e. another company has offered you a better deal or there are family matters that require you to leave as opposed to leaving because of something related to the company you are leaving) you want to treat everyone with respect, but understand that when you hand in your resignation the company has EVERY right to say "Thank you. We appreciate everything you've done for the company. There is no need to come in to work between now and then. If we need you, we will call you. By the way, you can come in tomorrow to pick up your personal effects." That is a perfectly good, ethical, legal response as long as they pay you for the time between resignation and termination.
Disclaimer: The above only applies to leaving on good terms. Leaving on bad terms is an entirely different kettle of fish.
You're also forgetting that the atmospheric pressure drops as you go up in altitude. That in turn presents less resistance to the craft. As for the atmospheric content, I can't say, though it would be plausible that the heavier gases would tend to accumulate at lower altitudes.
I never said that the USA owns the moon just because it landed there. However, it would be reasonable to say that the USA owns a stake of the moon surrounding where it's landers are should the moon be opened to officially recognized land claims. Likewise, your analogy with US troops in Kuwait baseless. There are established laws governing land ownership and sovereignty (sp?) on Earth. As the US troops in Kuwait are there to protect the country at that country's request, there is no contention over property ownership.
You don't need to evict anyone to claim property...
If you and your gang of armed aliens took over my house, I'd be able to take you to court to get it back because, everyone say it now, there are established laws governing land ownership on earth. As the discussion is centered on an object that is not Earth and there are not laws that govern property ownership on asteroids, we are in agreement (you say that what I said would apply to a lawless location).
And in fact, the OrbDev site says that they are doing just that. Making this "Claim" to "force" the government to address Space property rights. The funny thing is that if they wanted, NASA could charge Mr Nimitz for the cost of the NEAR mission. Why? Because he's claiming that the asteroid is his property and he is claiming NASA's work to send NEAR there as an increase in his property 'value'. I'd love to see NASA send him a $225million bill for survey services. The other thing is that because the NEAR probe is now _on_ the asteroid, NASA has 'possession' of it. And curiously, Mr Nimitz has no ability to evict the probe. All in all, I think Mr Nimitz should rethink his claim. Why? He has no ability to get to his 'property'. That makes it very hard for him to enforce his claim. Now, if he had a private space craft I'd suggest that he go and stay on the asteroid for a while to prove out his claim. As NASA is the one proving out the claim, and NASA isn't run/owned by Mr Nimitz, it would seem that the asteroid is NASA's, despite his claims to the contrary. As for other planets that have probes on them, the "claims" would extend as far as the probes or missions ventured. i.e. The moon landings would be bounded by where the astronauts walked, drove, etc. The Mars landings would be bounded by where the mission landed and any rover ventured.
There is a lot of public information. It has lots of stuff that 99% of the population finds useless. The other 1% of the population either wants to use it for 'good' or 'evil' and thus finds it useful. Those that want to use it for 'good' are welcome to it, but because there are those that want to use it for evil, let's lock it all up and make sure no one knows it...except for those 'evil' people who can find it out anyway.
Hey while we're at it. Let's make sure that no one is allowed to see, let alone come near, critical pieces of infrastructure like bridges, power plants, or country roads that have large amounts of fiber under them. That way we'll know who the terrorists are because they'll go near those things in order to figure out how to blow them up.
Pardon? What's that? We should acknowledge the weaknesses and put people to work making them less vulnerable? Why? It's so much better to hide them and pretend they don't exist until snotty grad students point them out.
</mini-rant>
In all seriousness, I applaud Sean Gorman and Laurie Schintler. They took one step from corporate/private risk analysis and expanded the view of where risks are and how big they are. This is something that organizations should be thinking about constantly. It's not enough to say "Well in order to hurt us directly you have to go through this, that, and the other hoop." You have to say "Ok, we've dealt with the direct risks. Now how bad are the n-fold indirect risks? What happens if this, that, or the other thing is directly or indirectly damaged and how does that affect me?" Most of the time, companies limit this to power and communication lines and as a result some of them make separate locations with duplicate functionality that can start working when the primary location goes down, but that's not enough all the time.
Personally, I think the dissertation should be treated like any other dissertation. And then FEMA should hire them (and others) to figure out ways to protect the identified weak points.
The next big field will probably be risk-mitigation.
Thanks for the clarification on the fact that the photon imparts twice it's momentum. I hadn't realized that. I did know that the light would be redshifted (or blue if the mirrors were accelerated towards each other). From the paper written by Thomas Gold it seemed that he was saying that a perfect mirror wouldn't steal any energy what so ever.
As a note, presuming you DO have perfect mirrors, you still need a perfect vacuum to ensure that no scattering occurs, otherwise eventually the beam of light will lose it's energy to scattering effects of intervening particles.
I believe he's talking about the support contracts offered by the largest distributor of Linux. I'm not sure which distributor that would be, though at a guess I'd say RedHat.
In either case, it's a relatively useless study. There are so many factors in computer use that to say "It's not the keyboard" or "It is the mouse" is rather useless. For example, my typing style hasn't changed much in the 20 some-odd years that I've been typing. I sit as if I'm in a recliner. I rest my elbows on the armrests of whatever chair I'm in. I rest my wrists on the edge of the desk. About the only thing that has changed is that I no longer have to look at the keyboard in order to type the correct key. Do I have symptoms of CTS? No. There are a lot of other things that impact the wrists that I do. [Yeah yeah, reply with your favorite masturbatory comments you trolls]. I do martial arts wrist stretches. I lift weights. I do pushups (yeah, that stretches the wrists). If I didn't exercise my wrists would I have CTS? Dunno. Do I care? Nope. I'm pretty happy at my 40hr/wk job in which I spend more than half that time typing. I also enjoy playing computer games that involve a lot of keyboard use. IMO and FME, this kind of study is useless no matter what.
To those that are wondering what kind of organization funds such a study: A health insurance agency. i.e. If you can 'rule out' a behavior as not causing a particular symptom, then if someone develops the symptom and claims it was caused by doing their job (and thus entitling them to disability), you can point to the study and say "Nope. Must've been something else. This study says that behavior doesn't cause it. No disability for you."
As a result, the Japanese probably have a much better idea of how capable the Chinese are in terms of space programs.
We haven't been back to the moon because the designs are all 30 years old and haven't been updated to account for technological improvements to systems and materials. The technology can still be made and used if you are willing to retool factories to make the parts. The reason the US can't go back to the moon is because we don't have the materials to use (or willingness to retool) the old designs and we don't want to take the risks of updating those designs to use modern materials. Those risks would be too high in the eyes of modern society.
IMO, the third one will be the most effective impetus to getting the space program back up to speed. All someone needs to do is say "Mr President, the Chinese could have a moon base before your term is over. And they could have the capability to drop kinetic weapons on us from there with impunity once they have a base. We can't let this happen. We must engage in diplomacy as well as an aggressive program of space defense in orbit and on the moon." *bang* Instant money to the defense/space programs. And yes, given the way Congress reacted to Bush's requests for money to help in 'national security' (anti-terrorist/anti-Iraq) issues, I don't have much trouble imagining them doing the same for something like the Chinese establishing (or even just attempting to establish) a moon base.
The other hope is that the commercial programs (X Prize competition, etc) succeed beyond our wildest dreams. That would hopefully lower the cost of space (or at least sub-orbital) flights.
Frontiers left to explore:
Personally, I'm hoping that only #1 will happen. Competition is good. See what's happened since we lost an 'opponent' in the space race? We've grown complacent. Having another space will be good for just about everything (national pride, the tech sector, the economy in general, innovation, etc).
If they are indeed going to court to stop the distribution of code which they did not intend to distribute, but still did, then you know what, they lose. They are a vendor. If they don't know what is in their product, they are idiots. If they didn't take the time to find out what was in their product, they're careless.
Bad example. The actions of disgruntled employees are a separate issue. If it was a disgruntled employee that released proprietary information, there are a barrage of different issues at stake (like when was this purported employee released, why did it take so long to find this problem, etc). At the end of a case of disgruntled employee doing something, they have every right to retract the leaked information. I'm not sure if it can still be considered a trade secret, but it is most definitely still under whatever copyright the employer wants it to be. But we're not talking about the "what if's" of a disgruntled employee. We're talking about a company that should've known it's code was in there, could've known earlier if the code was in there, but did nothing about it until it realized that it was a rodent and about to be exterminated.
The main thing that needs to be considered is:
Caldera released a product under a license. Since, we can assume that code review was done (see above about not knowing what is your product and being an idiot), we can also assume that the product passed said review and was authorized to be released with the appropriate licenses. As a result, said proprietary information was approved to be released under GPL and thus made non-proprietary. End of story.
Regardless of whether or not SCO knew the code was theirs. If they did, then this lawsuit is thrown out and SCO punished for being gits and wasting the courts time. If they didn't know, then this lawsuit is thrown out and SCO punished for being idiots and wasting the courts time.
As for your last point, such is life. If it is found that proprietary code was released thus exposing trade secrets, I would think that several things would have to happen:
However, given the information in the linked position paper from the Open Source Initiative, I am sure that SCO is toast. But now it's up to a court to decide how serious a case of cranio-rectal inversion SCO has.
1) An RPG is an adventure game. An RPG without adventure is rather pointless. Thus it is part of the genre under discussion.
2) Could you provide an example of what you consider a classic adventure game? Perhaps you were thinking of Myst. I certainly agree that it is an adventure game. I wouldn't necessarily say it's a classic adventure game since there were adventure games galore before Myst came around.
3) Since slaying things by force of arms is 'not generally' part of adventure games and puzzle solving is, then what about those puzzle-solving games based on 'force of arms' systems (such as those NWN modules where combat doesn't mean anything and puzzle solving is everything)?
To sum up (because to explain would take too long*):
RPGs are adventure games. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't understand the nature of an RPG. They are, however, not the only type of adventure game.
I'll don my asbestos pants now.
* If you don't get the Princess Bride reference, don't bother commenting.
Yeah, sure, there are 'big' adventure games like Everquest, Asheron's Call, etc where there is no real story and the adventure is in exploring (or camping). Neverwinter Nights is (IMHO) closer to being true to the genre. There's a story in which you control one of the main characters.
Neverwinter Nights is a good example of where the genre is going, in fact.
To address the statements you found in relation to NWN:
As for other games,
Mechwarrior 4: Mercenaries is another great adventure game. Run a mercenary company that controls giant robots and blow shit up.
Elder Scrolls 3: Morrowind is supposedly even better than NWN. I haven't played it but my friends that have keep saying how great it is.
The list goes on and on. If you want, include MMORPGs in your classification of 'adventure' games and suddenly you see where the genre went.
I started college in 1993.
One of the first things that had you do was set up a 'services' account (aka Email account replete with shell access as well as other fun things like Gopher, FTP, Telnet, etc).
I started MUDing before 1994.
Mmmmm prior art. By 1994, just about everyone at the university had a webpage (or at least a placeholder for one).
Also, doesn't all the work on ARPANET, MILNET, etc count as prior art? It was up and running before Chuckie came along with his idea. Didn't BBN produce tons of prior art regarding this prior to '94?
All of these are good things. Parents don't need to take immediate action on things they see there. However, if they see that their child has homework one day and their child says they did it, yet didn't turn it in, then the parent can know immediately.
Likewise, if parents see that their child is doing well in subject A, but consistently poorly in subject B despite obvious effort, then they have a choice of actions they can take. If they know the subject well enough, they can sit down with their child and help them out. They can talk with their child about getting a tutor (or just get one without talking to their child about it). They can talk to the teacher and get more information. etc etc etc.
Personally, I never had a real problem in school so I don't think my parents would've had much use for this system. But I was also a tutor and I know that the parents of some of the kids I tutored would've loved something like this so that their kids could get help sooner.
My reaction to this system is: "Great! Yippee! Yahoo!!! Ok. Enough happiness. Now the school system needs to educate the parents on how to use this tool to benefit their children the most."
Personally, I've had great experiences with Tiny Personal Firewall.
http://www.tinysoftware.com
Same thing regarding OS...works great on 98, 200, XP. Same thing regarding application limiting. Also does nice things like MD5 sum checking to see if an application has changed and then prompts you if you want to accept the new application.
Do you have statistics on that?
I'm wondering because it seems to me that if you carry a baseball bat with the intent on harming (but not specifically killing) someone, you are more likely to kill them simply by getting 'caught up' in the moment of hitting them with a bat. Where as with a gun, unless you are specifically trying to kill someone, you probably won't be firing repeatedly.
Granted, if you go out with the specific intent of killing someone, the chances of the victim dying to probably even regardless of what weapon you use unless they 'defeat' your attack in some way (kicking your ass, killing you, etc).
However, the first part of your statement is correct. Bats, hammers, (eating) knives are not controlled because they aren't designed for the specific purpose of killing. Depending on the state you're in, long knives are regulated to some extent. For instance, you aren't allowed to walk around town with your favorite butcher knife without drawing a lot of attention (regardless of whether or not the blade is bare). However, a swiss army knife swinging from a keychain will hardly get a glance.
Those people that are pointing out that computers are great reservoirs of information or that computers are great aides to the learning process are correct. Computers can be great aides provided that the software is there and given the state of the software industry these days, I'd have to say that educational software has taken a nosedive in quality.
Example:
10 - 15 years ago there were a few really good programs for the Apple ][ series computers for physics, chemistry, biology, and 'earth sciences'. I know. I used them and got a lot more out of those subjects than my classmates who didn't use them. The programs were great at _illustrating_ what was being taught in class. Do those programs still exist? I don't know. Would they have been made the same way now as they were back then? Definitely not. The graphics were horrible compared to today. But this (IMNSHO) actually helped because it meant that more time was taken in the actual descriptions of what was going on. Yes there were graphics, but the crappy graphics plus the detailed and in-depth descriptions were what helped me learn. Given today's technology, the descriptions would've been something like "As the animation shows above, blah blah blah" and then the animation would've been all spiffy and what not, leaving the student to scratch their head and wonder what the hell was going on.
The other important thing is for teachers to understand how to make the best use of technology in their classroom. This has more to do with the education of teachers though. This goes back to using calculators in classrooms as well. At what level of detail do we say 'Enough! If you need that level of detail in your work and you don't have a calculator, then you probably aren't going to be worried about performing that calculation anyway!' If you are stranded on a desert island/asteroid/planet are you really going to be worried about doing calculus or are you going to have other things on your mind? To be honest, I'm not sure I know where I stand on that issue myself. In high school, we couldn't use calculators for most things. In college, we could. Considering how well I did in math and science in high school and how poorly I did in math in college, it's a toss up. On the one hand I would certainly like kids to understand calculus, but on the other, if they can get the correct answer to the problem, then that's a good thing.
Teachers need to determine for themselves, how much of a role technology will play in their classroom and the results of whatever standardized testing there is should give a good indication of which method is working better. As examples:
Should papers be type-written or hand-written?
Should computers be used to teach math skills or science skills?
Should computers be used to teach foreign languages?
My answers would look something like:
1 - Hand-written unless the handwriting is atrocious, in which case the handwriting needs to be worked on. Using a wordprocessor to check spelling is fine, but then spelling mistakes in the paper result in a failing grade. Using a grammar checker to check for grammar mistakes should be treated the same.
2 - Hell no. Computers and calculators can certainly be used to aide the study of math and science but they should not be the primary learning tool. Turtle Logo is great for illustrating geometry (and indeed mistakes in that probably lead to a greater understanding of geometry) and likewise there are great programs that illustrate things in chemistry and physics (prOn doesn't count for biology, sorry). But all of those are really only good if you have some grasp of the basics behind the subject.
3 - Possibly. There are a lot of programs that can teach you about grammar and spelling. However, pronunciation is another story. Hooked on Phonics be damned. Having experience with French and Dutch language programs, I can tell you that hearing the computer say something is one thing. Trying to duplicate it is another. Again, another place where computers are probably better aides than primary tools.
Net result: Computers will only work in the following situations:
1 - Teachers that understand how to integrate computers into the curriculum correctly
2 - Students that understand how to use computers to aid their learning
3 - School administrations that understand how to get the above two
I can just see a case mod for this that turns it into a disco ball.
--kalimar
Oh I understand that. However, as ajs pointed out, the best way to resolve this is for the two sides (Verant and the players) to come to an understanding or agreement on the issue.
The understanding might be that Verant isn't going to change this 'feature' and the players are going to use it to their full advantage.
Or, the players might feel so strong about it that they do something to highlight how strongly they feel about it (by using the 'feature' to their full advantage, by boycotting the area, etc etc etc).
A decree by one side or the other isn't going to change the poor pathing.