Also, wear a visor if there are non-killable overhead lights and/or a white ceiling. You'd be amazed how much eyestrain comes from somewhere other than the CRT itself.
No proxy, but timing-out/overworked server sounds like the most likely culprit. It IS somewhat more likely to happen when mentioned via slashdot (that ultimate load testing app:)
Since you're here... whycome *most* of the time when I try to access a wikipedia article, I get only PART of the page, and "transfer interrupted"?? Clear cache, try again, same thing. Only solution seems to be "come back another day". (Which never happens, because by then I've forgotten about whatever I was looking for.) I'm on 26k dialup, so it's not like I'm personally overloading the server:)
I haven't seen that exact behaviuor anywhere else except on NT4 servers running IIS v3 or older.
I know some people who aborted a fetus that tested positive for some major nonlethal defect (I forget exactly what) that would have required a lot of medical and social intervention for the lifetime of the child. Their reasoning was, I quote, "It's not fair to the child".
Yeah, some disabled kids, notably those with Downs, are happy as far as their lives go. But an awful lot of disabled kids lead lives we wouldn't wish on anyone. For an example of how social isolation affects even a mentally-NORMAL child, check out Helen Keller.
As to genetics -- there is always this massive resistance to admitting that "defects" are hereditary in humans, which frankly does nothing but inhibit sensible research. But given the evidence to date [puts on professional dog breeder hat] it appears that autism/Aspergers is indeed genetic, probably controlled by a single gene (genetics of a given trait are frequently simpler than you'd think -- we already know that at least some forms of ADD, bipolar disorder, OCD, and dyslexia are due to single genes). Aspergers is probably the heterozygous expression, and autism the homozygous expression.
Sickle cell anemia might be taken as a parallel: a single copy of the gene provides some resistance to malaria, while two copies makes for a lethal defect. Likewise, Aspergers isn't the end of the world (as the plethora of symptomatic geeks goes to demonstrate), but who here would wish to produce a child with profound autism??
In dogs, there are already tests for some inherited conditions that can distinguish between heterozygous and homozygous. Presumably the same could be done with tests in humans. And with genetic testing, at least the parents could intelligently decide whether they wish to deal with a disabled child or not.
Side note (not directed at the parent poster, but at the world in general): why do we never see the people most adamantly against abortion volunteering to carry the fetus to term (fetuses aren't fussy about who hosts them) and/or adopt the resulting child?? Same with most folk who most vehemently argue against terminating defective fetuses. Put your own life where your mouth is, instead of trying to force your decision on everyone else.
"I'm not sure exactly what you call the catholic church now. Religion is probably the simplest definition."
Hmm. I guess now we need to define "religion". Is it the belief, or the political structure? [peers in can, decides to squish worms before they can escape]
Secondary thought: if it's the "belief", then at best such a large organised religion is a "loose confederacy", given all the differing interpretations even within a single church!
Russian Orthodox came to mind too, but I wasn't sure when/where they split from. Greek Orthodox at least was within screaming distance of Byzantium. Don't remember a thing about the Coptics.
My history has gone fuzzy over the decades too, and a lot of details have fallen out of my head. Maybe this is what they *really* mean by "ancient history":)
My HS classes dubbed it the "Roman Empire" somewhere around the time of Julius Caesar, or a little later. Personally I think what it's *called* makes little difference; Rome had always pursued expansionist policies, and already had fairly solid control over much of Europe.
And yeah, Roman Empire to Catholic church was indeed a stretch, but is there any other entity which has a more direct line of descent? Hmm, well, maybe Greek Orthodox??
Rome stood as a discrete political entity from 760-something BC to 460-something AD (I can't remember the exact dates off the top of my head), regardless of which periods were "Empire" or previous.
I don't normally count the Byzantine and later incarnations as Rome-proper, but tacked 'em on in the prior post just to string a connection to the Catholic church.:)
eMachines were at the "disposable" price point for a while, then around $500. People bought and tossed 'em like toasters. But then the bottom-end clones cut that price in half, for essentially the same hardware, and public perception of the "disposable" point dropped to under $300.
As this puts basic PCs in the same ballpark as consoles, I think the next step will be less price-related, and more a blurring of the distinction between console/appliance and fullblown-PC. This was already tried with WebTV and its kin, but the market wasn't quite ready for it at the time. Now, I think it is.
Of course this sealed-box approach will make it a lot easier to foist "Trusted Computing" on an unsuspecting consumer base, as they'll already be trained to "if it no longer works or can't do the latest whatever, just throw it out and get one with the newest 'features'."
Speaking of disposable, last month I picked my first working P4 motherboard out of the trash (a nice quality board that can handle up to 2.8GHz). Makes you wonder!!
Crap... I *do* know how to rebraid the end of a worn buggy whip. I think I better go find my time machine and go back to the 1880s, where I belong!
Seriously, you have a good point, but you don't take it far enough. Q: What happens when it is no longer necessary to understand something to use it? A: MORE people use it, because the entry threshold is lower.
And those interested in "innovation" move on to whatever is the next bleeding edge.
On a related note, 10 years ago PC user groups were full of enthusiastic kids, eager to stick their hands into new technology. Now, PC user groups are almost entirely retired folks' out for a social evening while they get a little help with their email. The kids have moved on, because PCs are no longer new and exciting.
Precisely why I wish I hadn't sold my IBM stock, back when it looked like they were going down in flames. At the time no one but IBM realised that they HAD the resources to change direction and land on their feet. And NOW look at IBM's stock price!!
I am one of those techs who gets paid to upgrade and do installs on home PCs.
However, I'll be the first to say it's a limited market, and most of the time I have to talk the client into spending a very few bucks to upgrade what they've got, rather than spending a lot more to buy a whole new monkey. Sometimes I have to talk them into not pitching the nasty thing entirely.
As you say, to most people the hardware and software are one sealed unit. Most people regard the computer as just another appliance, except more frustrating. Because unlike their microwave, their computer argues with them.
The Roman state (which was not just the famous Empire) lasted 1200 years as a political entity. It could be said that it still exists today, in distributed form -- the Catholic church being essentially its modern inheritor.
X: "Empires built by force of arms are built on sand!" Y: "The sand under the Roman Empire must have been most solidly packed."
-- from a Gordy Dickson novel
Apple did it with some Macs (so they were forever tied to the exact MacOS version they shipped with). Tandy did it with some PCs (so they were forever tied to DOS3.2). The embedded market is essentially OS in ROM. It's hardly new!
Over the lifetime of MSFT's stock, it has paid roughly $5.00 per share, TOTAL. And most of that was the recent $3/share one-time payout. MSFT shareholders are already accustomed to not being paid a worthwhile dividend (same as with most tech stocks -- they're generally listed under "speculative growth" for a good reason).
Given that the majority of shareholders didn't jump ship when MSFT's market value ceased doubling every six months (indeed, they are traded more heavily than ever, because almost anyone can afford $26/share), they sure as hell aren't going to be panicked by a couple years of flat income. Because that's all it would be. M$ has the resources to change direction as needed and land on their feet. Frex, they've been eyeing big media for some time now. Also, see my post above regarding their REAL market. The ENTIRE *consumer* desktop market could vanish tomorrow, and to M$ it would be no more than a minor blip. Their REAL money comes from enterprise business.
You're right -- this is a company with the resources to suffer several years worth of no income, R&D, and even major market mistakes, and still be in good financial shape. They have what, $35B or so in the bank? Methinks all that would happen if their market evaporated is that some of the more obvious loser depts might go away, that are now supported by OS and Office revenue streams, and long before they went broke, they'd find some new pies to stick their fingers into.
What people here forget is that M$ really doesn't care about the CONSUMER market. Their real money comes from enterprise contracts involving tens or even hundreds of thousands of licenses (and frequently an immediate outlay as minimal as exactly ONE physical copy of the software, and ONE sales agent's commission). These massive deals are not going to go away, both because big business demands accountability (which "free" sources cannot provide) AND because big business operates largely on mutual back-scratching at the CEO level.
For M$, the CONSUMER market is primarily a trickle-down effect -- most people wish to stick with what's comfortable or the line of least resistance, and having to use a certain set of products at work will incline them to buying those same products for home use. Or pirating them from work, but for M$ the effect is the same: the home consumer (who may also be a CEO on the side) doesn't get funny ideas from looking outside M$'s own barn.
Those are all excellent ideas, and would make the political process *accountable* again, and if not entirely responsive to the will of the people (remembering that people can sometimes be collectively very stupid), at least forced to explain to the people why whatever legislation was or was not in their best interests.
Hope you don't mind if I plagiarize your words at every future opportunity.:)
Now, who do we have to bribe to get these concepts passed into law?:/
True -- of course we all have "special interests". The problem is that we citizens only get to apply one vote apiece toward OUR special interests, while corporations and other well-funded groups get to apply lobbyists and campaign contributions, worth several million votes apiece.:/
An interesting parallel, the more so because during the Middle Ages, the Church held power partly by being the sole "authorised source" of learning and information.
Big media would like every thought in our heads to come from them, for a suitable fee of course.
I had a related thought, involving DRM potentially misfiring against a file's rightful owners: what about when some studio loses an entire $100M digital production, because the CPU-level DRM decides that they don't have rights to the data?
My next thought was "Serves them right."
But seriously -- I think *that* is what it will take to make this nonsense go down in well-deserved flames -- someone with a BIG investment in their data has to LOSE that data directly *because* of DRM. It might just as easily be a bank, or the tax assessor's office -- and it will take a data disaster of that magnitude and immediacy to get the message across to average non-techie consumers.
Consider also that [nearly] all code has bugs. The CPU's code to control DRM is as likely to have bugs as anything else. Do you trust it NEVER to make a mistake? I certainly don't. "Trusted Computing" will eventually force all of us to use a TC-enabled machine for internet connections and the like, but my data that I can't live without *stays* on my old, non-DRM'd machines, solely because I don't TRUST any sort of DRM with my data.
The problem is that too many people misinterpret our rights as "all things not compulsory are forbidden", rather than the correct "all things not explicitly forbidden are allowed".
Unfortunately, the furst interpretation has become pervasive at the levels of gov't that are capable of restricting our rights in the name of special interests.:(
How sure? While we will probably never know for sure, I'm inclined to trust transcripts of cell phone calls from the doomed plane over uncorroborated info (or possible FUD) from on high. Also, "shooting down" a plane means blowing it up entirely with something like an air-to-air missile; just shooting a few holes (even fairly large holes) in it won't crash a modern jetliner (bullet holes, clearly from on-ground shooters, are occasionally found during routine inspections). Hell, it won't crash a cropduster.
Regardless, better to make an effort to save yourself than to be a sheep, especially when the sheep are positively destined for slaughter.
"That's why the entire TSA is a farce. It's purpose has never been to increase the security of the travelling public, but rather to preserve our conditioned docility..."
Your statement would be more accurate if you'd stopped at that point. IMO, whether our gov't can "protect" us or not isn't really the issue, just the excuse.
How would the gov't "protect" us if someone drove along a busy freeway dropping homemade grenades out the window -- scan every car as it entered the freeway? What about dropping a few dead rats into a water main -- should we shut off the public water system so this can't happen? There's no end to the fun if you're a really creative terrorist, because there's no way to "protect" everyone from an imaginative attack.
But you can frighten all the sheep into wanting to be "kept safe". On second thought, that now seems to be the government's job:/
Exactly. We have become a risk-averse society, willing to be sheep so long as the wolves go eat someone else.
Well, not me. I'd be the one eyeing that nice hefty carry-on bag in the overhead rack, and calculating the swing to the backside of a passing terrorist's skull.
I've trotted this story out here a few times before, but it bears repeating:
One of the "live killer games" that used to be played at SF cons was based on Logan's Run: Two guys with dart guns were "Sandmen". Everyone else were "runners". Any touch from a dart kills a runner. Sandmen can only be killed by putting a hand flat on their costume's chest panel. Last man standing determines the winning side.
When the game starts, all the "runners" scattered like panicked sheep, and the sandmen followed at their leisure, secure in their eventual triumph. It was evident to me that 1) tho 4 or 5 of us would get killed in the process, a swarm of runners WOULD take down a sandman, and 2) if either sandman survived, sooner or later ALL the runners would be killed. So I tried to get other runners to cooperate in targeting the sandmen -- with zero success. Everyone was too busy saving their own hide.
Later on we reversed the roles, and suddenly the two guys who'd been so aggressive as Sandmen were running like scared rabbits, with the former runners in hot pursuit.
Yeah, it's just a game, but goes to show how most people react in a predator/prey situation.
Me, I'm a predator. Overall it's not as safe as being a sheep, but it sure beats spending your life in fear that the next wolf might pick YOU for dinner.
Slashdot Mirror
Also, wear a visor if there are non-killable overhead lights and/or a white ceiling. You'd be amazed how much eyestrain comes from somewhere other than the CRT itself.
No proxy, but timing-out/overworked server sounds like the most likely culprit. It IS somewhat more likely to happen when mentioned via slashdot (that ultimate load testing app :)
Since you're here... whycome *most* of the time when I try to access a wikipedia article, I get only PART of the page, and "transfer interrupted"?? Clear cache, try again, same thing. Only solution seems to be "come back another day". (Which never happens, because by then I've forgotten about whatever I was looking for.) I'm on 26k dialup, so it's not like I'm personally overloading the server :)
I haven't seen that exact behaviuor anywhere else except on NT4 servers running IIS v3 or older.
I know some people who aborted a fetus that tested positive for some major nonlethal defect (I forget exactly what) that would have required a lot of medical and social intervention for the lifetime of the child. Their reasoning was, I quote, "It's not fair to the child".
Yeah, some disabled kids, notably those with Downs, are happy as far as their lives go. But an awful lot of disabled kids lead lives we wouldn't wish on anyone. For an example of how social isolation affects even a mentally-NORMAL child, check out Helen Keller.
As to genetics -- there is always this massive resistance to admitting that "defects" are hereditary in humans, which frankly does nothing but inhibit sensible research. But given the evidence to date [puts on professional dog breeder hat] it appears that autism/Aspergers is indeed genetic, probably controlled by a single gene (genetics of a given trait are frequently simpler than you'd think -- we already know that at least some forms of ADD, bipolar disorder, OCD, and dyslexia are due to single genes). Aspergers is probably the heterozygous expression, and autism the homozygous expression.
Sickle cell anemia might be taken as a parallel: a single copy of the gene provides some resistance to malaria, while two copies makes for a lethal defect. Likewise, Aspergers isn't the end of the world (as the plethora of symptomatic geeks goes to demonstrate), but who here would wish to produce a child with profound autism??
In dogs, there are already tests for some inherited conditions that can distinguish between heterozygous and homozygous. Presumably the same could be done with tests in humans. And with genetic testing, at least the parents could intelligently decide whether they wish to deal with a disabled child or not.
Side note (not directed at the parent poster, but at the world in general): why do we never see the people most adamantly against abortion volunteering to carry the fetus to term (fetuses aren't fussy about who hosts them) and/or adopt the resulting child?? Same with most folk who most vehemently argue against terminating defective fetuses. Put your own life where your mouth is, instead of trying to force your decision on everyone else.
"I'm not sure exactly what you call the catholic church now. Religion is probably the simplest definition."
:)
Hmm. I guess now we need to define "religion". Is it the belief, or the political structure? [peers in can, decides to squish worms before they can escape]
Secondary thought: if it's the "belief", then at best such a large organised religion is a "loose confederacy", given all the differing interpretations even within a single church!
Russian Orthodox came to mind too, but I wasn't sure when/where they split from. Greek Orthodox at least was within screaming distance of Byzantium. Don't remember a thing about the Coptics.
What the heck was the original topic again?
My history has gone fuzzy over the decades too, and a lot of details have fallen out of my head. Maybe this is what they *really* mean by "ancient history" :)
:)
My HS classes dubbed it the "Roman Empire" somewhere around the time of Julius Caesar, or a little later. Personally I think what it's *called* makes little difference; Rome had always pursued expansionist policies, and already had fairly solid control over much of Europe.
And yeah, Roman Empire to Catholic church was indeed a stretch, but is there any other entity which has a more direct line of descent? Hmm, well, maybe Greek Orthodox??
Crap, you made me break my own silly theorum
Rome stood as a discrete political entity from 760-something BC to 460-something AD (I can't remember the exact dates off the top of my head), regardless of which periods were "Empire" or previous.
:)
I don't normally count the Byzantine and later incarnations as Rome-proper, but tacked 'em on in the prior post just to string a connection to the Catholic church.
eMachines were at the "disposable" price point for a while, then around $500. People bought and tossed 'em like toasters. But then the bottom-end clones cut that price in half, for essentially the same hardware, and public perception of the "disposable" point dropped to under $300.
As this puts basic PCs in the same ballpark as consoles, I think the next step will be less price-related, and more a blurring of the distinction between console/appliance and fullblown-PC. This was already tried with WebTV and its kin, but the market wasn't quite ready for it at the time. Now, I think it is.
Of course this sealed-box approach will make it a lot easier to foist "Trusted Computing" on an unsuspecting consumer base, as they'll already be trained to "if it no longer works or can't do the latest whatever, just throw it out and get one with the newest 'features'."
Speaking of disposable, last month I picked my first working P4 motherboard out of the trash (a nice quality board that can handle up to 2.8GHz). Makes you wonder!!
Crap... I *do* know how to rebraid the end of a worn buggy whip. I think I better go find my time machine and go back to the 1880s, where I belong!
Seriously, you have a good point, but you don't take it far enough. Q: What happens when it is no longer necessary to understand something to use it? A: MORE people use it, because the entry threshold is lower.
And those interested in "innovation" move on to whatever is the next bleeding edge.
On a related note, 10 years ago PC user groups were full of enthusiastic kids, eager to stick their hands into new technology. Now, PC user groups are almost entirely retired folks' out for a social evening while they get a little help with their email. The kids have moved on, because PCs are no longer new and exciting.
Precisely why I wish I hadn't sold my IBM stock, back when it looked like they were going down in flames. At the time no one but IBM realised that they HAD the resources to change direction and land on their feet. And NOW look at IBM's stock price!!
I am one of those techs who gets paid to upgrade and do installs on home PCs.
However, I'll be the first to say it's a limited market, and most of the time I have to talk the client into spending a very few bucks to upgrade what they've got, rather than spending a lot more to buy a whole new monkey. Sometimes I have to talk them into not pitching the nasty thing entirely.
As you say, to most people the hardware and software are one sealed unit. Most people regard the computer as just another appliance, except more frustrating. Because unlike their microwave, their computer argues with them.
The Roman state (which was not just the famous Empire) lasted 1200 years as a political entity. It could be said that it still exists today, in distributed form -- the Catholic church being essentially its modern inheritor.
X: "Empires built by force of arms are built on sand!"
Y: "The sand under the Roman Empire must have been most solidly packed."
-- from a Gordy Dickson novel
Apple did it with some Macs (so they were forever tied to the exact MacOS version they shipped with). Tandy did it with some PCs (so they were forever tied to DOS3.2). The embedded market is essentially OS in ROM. It's hardly new!
Over the lifetime of MSFT's stock, it has paid roughly $5.00 per share, TOTAL. And most of that was the recent $3/share one-time payout. MSFT shareholders are already accustomed to not being paid a worthwhile dividend (same as with most tech stocks -- they're generally listed under "speculative growth" for a good reason).
Given that the majority of shareholders didn't jump ship when MSFT's market value ceased doubling every six months (indeed, they are traded more heavily than ever, because almost anyone can afford $26/share), they sure as hell aren't going to be panicked by a couple years of flat income. Because that's all it would be. M$ has the resources to change direction as needed and land on their feet. Frex, they've been eyeing big media for some time now. Also, see my post above regarding their REAL market. The ENTIRE *consumer* desktop market could vanish tomorrow, and to M$ it would be no more than a minor blip. Their REAL money comes from enterprise business.
You're right -- this is a company with the resources to suffer several years worth of no income, R&D, and even major market mistakes, and still be in good financial shape. They have what, $35B or so in the bank? Methinks all that would happen if their market evaporated is that some of the more obvious loser depts might go away, that are now supported by OS and Office revenue streams, and long before they went broke, they'd find some new pies to stick their fingers into.
What people here forget is that M$ really doesn't care about the CONSUMER market. Their real money comes from enterprise contracts involving tens or even hundreds of thousands of licenses (and frequently an immediate outlay as minimal as exactly ONE physical copy of the software, and ONE sales agent's commission). These massive deals are not going to go away, both because big business demands accountability (which "free" sources cannot provide) AND because big business operates largely on mutual back-scratching at the CEO level.
For M$, the CONSUMER market is primarily a trickle-down effect -- most people wish to stick with what's comfortable or the line of least resistance, and having to use a certain set of products at work will incline them to buying those same products for home use. Or pirating them from work, but for M$ the effect is the same: the home consumer (who may also be a CEO on the side) doesn't get funny ideas from looking outside M$'s own barn.
Those are all excellent ideas, and would make the political process *accountable* again, and if not entirely responsive to the will of the people (remembering that people can sometimes be collectively very stupid), at least forced to explain to the people why whatever legislation was or was not in their best interests.
:)
:/
Hope you don't mind if I plagiarize your words at every future opportunity.
Now, who do we have to bribe to get these concepts passed into law?
True -- of course we all have "special interests". The problem is that we citizens only get to apply one vote apiece toward OUR special interests, while corporations and other well-funded groups get to apply lobbyists and campaign contributions, worth several million votes apiece. :/
An interesting parallel, the more so because during the Middle Ages, the Church held power partly by being the sole "authorised source" of learning and information.
Big media would like every thought in our heads to come from them, for a suitable fee of course.
I had a related thought, involving DRM potentially misfiring against a file's rightful owners: what about when some studio loses an entire $100M digital production, because the CPU-level DRM decides that they don't have rights to the data?
My next thought was "Serves them right."
But seriously -- I think *that* is what it will take to make this nonsense go down in well-deserved flames -- someone with a BIG investment in their data has to LOSE that data directly *because* of DRM. It might just as easily be a bank, or the tax assessor's office -- and it will take a data disaster of that magnitude and immediacy to get the message across to average non-techie consumers.
Consider also that [nearly] all code has bugs. The CPU's code to control DRM is as likely to have bugs as anything else. Do you trust it NEVER to make a mistake? I certainly don't. "Trusted Computing" will eventually force all of us to use a TC-enabled machine for internet connections and the like, but my data that I can't live without *stays* on my old, non-DRM'd machines, solely because I don't TRUST any sort of DRM with my data.
And people wonder why I hoard old hardware....
The problem is that too many people misinterpret our rights as "all things not compulsory are forbidden", rather than the correct "all things not explicitly forbidden are allowed".
:(
Unfortunately, the furst interpretation has become pervasive at the levels of gov't that are capable of restricting our rights in the name of special interests.
How sure? While we will probably never know for sure, I'm inclined to trust transcripts of cell phone calls from the doomed plane over uncorroborated info (or possible FUD) from on high. Also, "shooting down" a plane means blowing it up entirely with something like an air-to-air missile; just shooting a few holes (even fairly large holes) in it won't crash a modern jetliner (bullet holes, clearly from on-ground shooters, are occasionally found during routine inspections). Hell, it won't crash a cropduster.
Regardless, better to make an effort to save yourself than to be a sheep, especially when the sheep are positively destined for slaughter.
Or maybe Greece just has really weird ants!
:)
In other odd things to eat, roasted grasshopper legs taste a lot like frog.
The PDF link seems to be dead, but the HTML link still works:p rivacy-deathof.htm
http://personal.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/
"That's why the entire TSA is a farce. It's purpose has never been to increase the security of the travelling public, but rather to preserve our conditioned docility..."
:/
Your statement would be more accurate if you'd stopped at that point. IMO, whether our gov't can "protect" us or not isn't really the issue, just the excuse.
How would the gov't "protect" us if someone drove along a busy freeway dropping homemade grenades out the window -- scan every car as it entered the freeway? What about dropping a few dead rats into a water main -- should we shut off the public water system so this can't happen? There's no end to the fun if you're a really creative terrorist, because there's no way to "protect" everyone from an imaginative attack.
But you can frighten all the sheep into wanting to be "kept safe". On second thought, that now seems to be the government's job
Exactly. We have become a risk-averse society, willing to be sheep so long as the wolves go eat someone else.
Well, not me. I'd be the one eyeing that nice hefty carry-on bag in the overhead rack, and calculating the swing to the backside of a passing terrorist's skull.
I've trotted this story out here a few times before, but it bears repeating:
One of the "live killer games" that used to be played at SF cons was based on Logan's Run: Two guys with dart guns were "Sandmen". Everyone else were "runners". Any touch from a dart kills a runner. Sandmen can only be killed by putting a hand flat on their costume's chest panel. Last man standing determines the winning side.
When the game starts, all the "runners" scattered like panicked sheep, and the sandmen followed at their leisure, secure in their eventual triumph. It was evident to me that 1) tho 4 or 5 of us would get killed in the process, a swarm of runners WOULD take down a sandman, and 2) if either sandman survived, sooner or later ALL the runners would be killed. So I tried to get other runners to cooperate in targeting the sandmen -- with zero success. Everyone was too busy saving their own hide.
Later on we reversed the roles, and suddenly the two guys who'd been so aggressive as Sandmen were running like scared rabbits, with the former runners in hot pursuit.
Yeah, it's just a game, but goes to show how most people react in a predator/prey situation.
Me, I'm a predator. Overall it's not as safe as being a sheep, but it sure beats spending your life in fear that the next wolf might pick YOU for dinner.