The U.S. Army (and I would imagine the other Armed Forces) do not interchange "strategy" and "tactics" like "In fact, you'd be very hardpressed to find someone who uses actualy tactics in a strategy game."
Strategy is considered the high-level, where the theater-level commanders and above are. Corps-level and below is the tactical level. The Army designates an "Operational" level in between the strategic and tactical levels to cover the gap and any overlap.
Strategy often deals with politics and logistics. For instance, with the current US situation, strategy would be the coalition building effort and the work to coordinate between military commanders from different nations. It would include the decisions about which troops go and how they get there, and how to pay for it all. It would include selecting which weapons to ramp up production on and which to scale back. It would include the overall scope of the mission: build/maintain a multinational coalition, bomb the heck out of military and government installations, go in with ground troops, break the Taliban, install a new government that everyone is happy with (good luck with that).
Tactics is all the details about exactly goes on at the battlefield. Tactics say how many sorties to fly, which specific targets to pick (which ones best support the strategic mission), what type of bombs to use on what, the timing and location of troop insertion, their movements, etc.
Most games aren't going to do true strategy because it is less exciting than a pure tactical level. And when you remove the strategic concerns, resources become less of an issue, and you build a huge army and attack en masse; it's wasteful and unstrategic, but it works (murphy's law of combat: if it's stupid and it works, it ain't stupid).
A true "strategy" game would more resemble SimCity than Warcraft.
Sure, I know him. I tried to purchase "The Truth" from his auction. It never showed up. The price was just too good to be true. Then he sold me 12 kilo of primo mexican brown. This time, all I got was a 25-lb bag of flour. Then I bought a human kidney from him. I didn't need it, but hey, you don't want to wait on one of those lists. Never arrived.
I'm beginning to wonder if there are any good deals left on ebay...
Read a real review of the movie on Salon
on
Review: Training Day
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
If you want to read a real movie review, Salon has a well done review of "Training Day" that actually discusses the merits of the film and will be much more useful in deciding whether you want to see the movie or not. Jon's reviews always sound like he didn't see the movie, but had someone else tell him the plot.
"Another use of the technology would be for video game controllers. Instead of placing multiple buttons on a controller (Sony's controller for the PlayStation 2 has eight buttons, not even counting the four direction buttons and the start and select buttons), a single button or a few buttons could be used for all the functions, with each finger denoting a particular action."
This is actually a better idea than using it on cell phones.
this is a totally illogical ruling. the internet is not some ether that just floats around and doesn't exist in any physical location. the judge should have realized that these porn transactions happened at the location of the server.
the article doesn't even say where the servers are. they may be in nebraska or they may be inside the house where the cameras are.
whatever local statutes there are against adult entertainment transactions should apply to electronic ones too.
this is no different than if they were offering a 1-900 phone service. the transactions don't happen in "another place out there".
No, this is a very logical ruling. It is not really about the where the transactions take place, as the/. article implies. If you read the NYT article closely, you'll see that it was about zoning. You are very correct in that a 1-900 line would be no different. It's pretty clear from the article that a 1-900 line office would also be legal, and could not be forced out by zoning issues.
Zoning laws against adult businesses are legal only because there are secondary effects -- e.g., lots of sleazy guys hanging around. An adult business that doesn't bring the sleazy guys into the neighborhood cannot be zoned against based on the fact that it is an adult business. If you want to set up a porn movie studio, a porn mag photo studio, a webcast "dorm", a 1-900 line, a porno distribution center, an escort service, whatever, if the clients/customers are not showing up at the door, then the zoning restrictions on adult businesses don't apply.
It's not where the transactions happen. It's where the losers are.
So tell me, fellow Slashbots, am I really missing anything by ignoring these teen divas and listening to Bethoven's 7th Symphony during my drive home?
No, you're not missing anything, but poor Beethoven hasn't seen one dime since Napster wrecked the late 18th-century music market. For how many more centuries will we allow his music to be just given away?
I agree with much of this. I have found myself fighting with a lot of people about the morality of going to war with a largely innocent people. Somehow we have been fed the lie that the death of ordinary Afghan citizens constitutes acceptable "collateral damage".
I am waiting -- the U.S. government has not bombed anyone yet -- but I refuse to look the other way as we slaughter an innocent people to get to a few criminals. The total dead at the WTC is around 6,000. How long before we can count 6,000 dead peaceful Afghan men, women, and children? 60,000? Will that be a tragedy or a triumph? I guess it depends on political boundaries, not on innocence or guilt.
President Bush has said "you are either with us or you are with the terrorists". He's confusing mourning the human tragedy of the WTC attack with agreement with political policy (deliberately of course, so there can be no dissent). I mourn those dead and their families. That does not mean I must also agree with the U.S. response. If that makes me a terrorist, so be it. Too many people are afraid to speak their conscience for fear of appearing un-American, un-patriotic, unsympathetic, and the consequences that go along with it.
And don't even try to say that the U.S. has done anything wrong in the past. It's very 1984: The U.S. is right. The U.S. has always been right. Anyone who thinks different is a terrorist.
I've never really been the protesting type, but I think I might just start. Either that or just leave the country.
Remember the video for "Take On Me" by a-ha? Why not make a Quake level where you go in, beat that fruity guy up, steal the chick, and head out into the sunset?
I noticed that the Chicago Tribune had an article about the tension between security and liberty today. IMHO, whether or not Congress will move to restrict civil liberties right now is not as important as whether or not civil liberties are even being discussed. Whether or not they are even on the radar or the average person.
It is very likely civil liberties will be hedged for a short time. But now, the debate is on the front page of the newspaper rather than the techno-backwaters of Slashdot. People will notice the loss of their freedom. Up to now, freedom was being eroded and few noticed or cared.
I think that the short-term consequences, sadly, will include depriving U.S. citizens of civil liberties in the name of safety. But I think the long-term consequences are a heightened awareness of the balance and tension between security and liberty.
Whatever good religion does, it does far more harm.
I can feel your hatred. Sure, religion can be used as a weapon of hate. So can a plane, a gun, a knife, a rock, and even our language. So can a slashdot comment.
I am sorry that you have such an inaccurate understanding of religion. Christianity teaches "love your enemy", not, as you state, "hate those who don't believe as you do". I suppose this makes me evil in your mind. But which one of us has chosen to hate the other? I have read your comment and I do not hate you for it. Up to now, you have not heard from me yet you clearly state how you feel about everyone who believes in God. That illustrates true prejudice. Religious prejudice, racial prejudice, class prejudice, national prejudice, these are far more the cause of evil than faith itself.
Napster and mp3 set the standard for these things. People often won't pay where a free alternative exists, but they will pay if an alternative is (perceived) better.
BS, pure unadulterated BS, I would pay, I want the CD in my player, I want the booklet giving me information about the band, I want to see the cover art sitting on the coffee table at my house, you cant do that with an MP3...
DUH! The CD, the booklet, the information, the cover art, and the right to be pretentious and annoying are all what I am talking about when I said that people will pay for a better alternative? THOSE THINGS ARE THE BETTER ALTERNATIVE! Did you even read my post? If so, what did you think I meant when I said that? The point is that if it's just distribution of music in MP3 format (or a worse format), it will be hard to get people to pay. They have to offer something more or something better. Like the things you mention.
The RIAA is so scared that they refuse to listen to their customers, whom they also view as criminals and their enemies. All of these digital-music initiatives address only their own concerns, and do not address customer wants/needs. Sony likes to include digital rights management as a "feature" on it's devices -- as if it is something customers want. Sure, its a lovely feature that I can't connect a DVD player to my Sony camcorder.
What do customers want? Ask Napster.
Fast, accurate searching
Comprehensive database of content
Fast download
Fair price -- and only pay for what you use
Compatibility with customer's player of choice
Ease of use
Napster and mp3 set the standard for these things. People often won't pay where a free alternative exists, but they will pay if an alternative is (perceived) better.
You can't have significantly less compatibility than mp3 and expect consumers to embrace it. I'm not going to open Winamp for my personal collection of ripped mp3's and some other player for "secure" music. You can't make it harder to play, where you have to have a key to open, blah, blah. What if I want to play the song somewhere other than my desktop PC? <sarcasm>Oh, it's less portable than mp3 or even a physical CD? Count me in!</sarcasm>
One day, the record companies will start developing a solution around customer needs, not their own. Until then, they'll try to spoon-feed us DivX for music. And fail.
If the internet has changed things, it is in this way: trial balloons such as this don't get a chance to get off the ground before they reach the people who care.
Once upon a time, a government or company could count on a significant lag time between implementing something offensive and the backlash against it. Of course, often it meant that whatever was implemented was already entrenched. They could point to it and say, "we've been running for six months with no problems". Also, that time could be used to get government officials or other key decision-makers on board (i.e., backroom politics) before those people would have to face a public that is concerned about the issue.
What we see today is not any increase in the number or kind of offensive tactics by opportunitstic, powerful institutions, but their schemes are coming to light much more quickly than ever before, and they do not have the time to cover it all up anymore. This is why it is said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. More and more, these things are getting nipped in the bud, or at least far sooner than they would have been without the ability of the internet to spread information outside of the spoon-feeding from government and big business.
This must not stop. There are already attempts to curb the ability of the internet to be a greenhouse for grass-roots action. Note the "features" of UCITA and DMCA which attempt to restrict criticism and public comment in the name of IP rights. As people in power find themselves attacked for their actions, they will simply try to stop the source of their enemies' power -- and that is the free nature of the internet. There will be attempts through technological means (Smart network, dumb terminals) and legal means (DMCA) to throttle the power of the ordinary person to participate in the process of making decisions.
I consider myself a serious Christian, that is, I seek to devote my life to being a disciple of Jesus Christ, and living by His word.
My pastor was the one who told me about Dogma. Yes, it pokes fun at religion, but it does not challenge faith.
It was actually very moving at times. Take the scene where Linda Fiorentino was struggling with being up to the task of saving the world, and the angel tells the story of having to be there when a young Jesus was starting to understand his mission. Or the scene in the parking garage where Ben Affleck is letting loose about being kicked out of heaven and missing the presence of God, and that the humans don't even realize what they are missing.
If that's offensive, it is only so because of the very rigid, do-my-thinking-for-me dogma that the movie is about.
Remember, that Jesus himself was one who challenged the "dogma" of his age. He was a lawbreaker in the minds of many because he healed on the Sabbath and touched the unclean and let prostitutes pay him honor. What he did was more offensive as the movie Dogma.
It was not that long ago that Anabaptists, some of the most Christ-like people of their age, were persecuted by the Catholic Church for being offensive - by practicing adult baptism (rather like the baptism Jesus had, I suppose). Just because people take offense at something does not mean that it is bad; it is often an indication that it is good.
Dogma challenged the beliefs of Catholics who go to chuch, say the prayers, do the ritual, but have not faintest idea of what they are saying, and live no differently than those who reject the Church. I would suggest that those people need their belief challenged. And I would say that it's too bad Kevin Smith has to do it, but that is only because their priest won't.
"The technology behind the key logger, which was developed by the F.B.I. but is similar to readily available commercial products..."
It sounds like the FBI has built upon existing key logging technology. I imagine those are patented, right? So distribute that information. If it's similar enough, then the same methods to defeat it would work against the FBI's stuff. This what the FBI is claminig they are trying to avoid by releasing details.
Of course, this information should only be used to prevent unscrupulous business competitors from using key logging against you;-). Don't use it to cover up a crime, like reading and encrypted e-book.
The urgency of this article reminds me of something from the annals of the U.S. Army's JRTC:
Each morning in the African Savannah, the lion wakes up and knows that he must run faster than the slowest gazelle or he will starve. Each morning, the gazelle wakes up and knows that he must run faster than the fastest lion or he will be killed. It does not matter whether you are lion or gazelle: when the sun comes up, you'd better be running.
And herein lies a problem for the Linux community. It doesn't take too many arrogant jerks like you to give Linux geeks a reputation for being unhelpful elitists (even though the vast majority *are* helpful). Go ahead, just push everyone back to Windows, because you don't remember what it was like to not know anything.
A year ago, Katz was prattling on about how 15 year olds were going to take over the world and change everything, upend the media, and so on. Now he's refuting this guy who is saying the same thing:
In my opinion, Lewis stumbles badly here.
Has Jon joined the ranks of the jocks? Is he no longer the pied piper of the oppressed, under-appreciated teenage geniuses who master assembly language during a 15-minute recess while the older dinosaurs struggle for months with "Visual Basic for Dummies" ?
Slashdot Mirror
Strategy is considered the high-level, where the theater-level commanders and above are. Corps-level and below is the tactical level. The Army designates an "Operational" level in between the strategic and tactical levels to cover the gap and any overlap.
Strategy often deals with politics and logistics. For instance, with the current US situation, strategy would be the coalition building effort and the work to coordinate between military commanders from different nations. It would include the decisions about which troops go and how they get there, and how to pay for it all. It would include selecting which weapons to ramp up production on and which to scale back. It would include the overall scope of the mission: build/maintain a multinational coalition, bomb the heck out of military and government installations, go in with ground troops, break the Taliban, install a new government that everyone is happy with (good luck with that).
Tactics is all the details about exactly goes on at the battlefield. Tactics say how many sorties to fly, which specific targets to pick (which ones best support the strategic mission), what type of bombs to use on what, the timing and location of troop insertion, their movements, etc.
Most games aren't going to do true strategy because it is less exciting than a pure tactical level. And when you remove the strategic concerns, resources become less of an issue, and you build a huge army and attack en masse; it's wasteful and unstrategic, but it works (murphy's law of combat: if it's stupid and it works, it ain't stupid).
A true "strategy" game would more resemble SimCity than Warcraft.
After all, hasn't ESR been a linux-powered humanoid for quite a while now?
I'm beginning to wonder if there are any good deals left on ebay...
If you want to read a real movie review, Salon has a well done review of "Training Day" that actually discusses the merits of the film and will be much more useful in deciding whether you want to see the movie or not. Jon's reviews always sound like he didn't see the movie, but had someone else tell him the plot.
This is actually a better idea than using it on cell phones.
the article doesn't even say where the servers are. they may be in nebraska or they may be inside the house where the cameras are.
whatever local statutes there are against adult entertainment transactions should apply to electronic ones too.
this is no different than if they were offering a 1-900 phone service. the transactions don't happen in "another place out there".
No, this is a very logical ruling. It is not really about the where the transactions take place, as the /. article implies. If you read the NYT article closely, you'll see that it was about zoning. You are very correct in that a 1-900 line would be no different. It's pretty clear from the article that a 1-900 line office would also be legal, and could not be forced out by zoning issues.
Zoning laws against adult businesses are legal only because there are secondary effects -- e.g., lots of sleazy guys hanging around. An adult business that doesn't bring the sleazy guys into the neighborhood cannot be zoned against based on the fact that it is an adult business. If you want to set up a porn movie studio, a porn mag photo studio, a webcast "dorm", a 1-900 line, a porno distribution center, an escort service, whatever, if the clients/customers are not showing up at the door, then the zoning restrictions on adult businesses don't apply.
It's not where the transactions happen. It's where the losers are.
No, you're not missing anything, but poor Beethoven hasn't seen one dime since Napster wrecked the late 18th-century music market. For how many more centuries will we allow his music to be just given away?
I am waiting -- the U.S. government has not bombed anyone yet -- but I refuse to look the other way as we slaughter an innocent people to get to a few criminals. The total dead at the WTC is around 6,000. How long before we can count 6,000 dead peaceful Afghan men, women, and children? 60,000? Will that be a tragedy or a triumph? I guess it depends on political boundaries, not on innocence or guilt.
President Bush has said "you are either with us or you are with the terrorists". He's confusing mourning the human tragedy of the WTC attack with agreement with political policy (deliberately of course, so there can be no dissent). I mourn those dead and their families. That does not mean I must also agree with the U.S. response. If that makes me a terrorist, so be it. Too many people are afraid to speak their conscience for fear of appearing un-American, un-patriotic, unsympathetic, and the consequences that go along with it.
And don't even try to say that the U.S. has done anything wrong in the past. It's very 1984: The U.S. is right. The U.S. has always been right. Anyone who thinks different is a terrorist.
I've never really been the protesting type, but I think I might just start. Either that or just leave the country.
May God bless the people of Afghanistan too.
Remember the video for "Take On Me" by a-ha? Why not make a Quake level where you go in, beat that fruity guy up, steal the chick, and head out into the sunset?
It is very likely civil liberties will be hedged for a short time. But now, the debate is on the front page of the newspaper rather than the techno-backwaters of Slashdot. People will notice the loss of their freedom. Up to now, freedom was being eroded and few noticed or cared.
I think that the short-term consequences, sadly, will include depriving U.S. citizens of civil liberties in the name of safety. But I think the long-term consequences are a heightened awareness of the balance and tension between security and liberty.
I can feel your hatred. Sure, religion can be used as a weapon of hate. So can a plane, a gun, a knife, a rock, and even our language. So can a slashdot comment.
I am sorry that you have such an inaccurate understanding of religion. Christianity teaches "love your enemy", not, as you state, "hate those who don't believe as you do". I suppose this makes me evil in your mind. But which one of us has chosen to hate the other? I have read your comment and I do not hate you for it. Up to now, you have not heard from me yet you clearly state how you feel about everyone who believes in God. That illustrates true prejudice. Religious prejudice, racial prejudice, class prejudice, national prejudice, these are far more the cause of evil than faith itself.
BS, pure unadulterated BS, I would pay, I want the CD in my player, I want the booklet giving me information about the band, I want to see the cover art sitting on the coffee table at my house, you cant do that with an MP3...
DUH! The CD, the booklet, the information, the cover art, and the right to be pretentious and annoying are all what I am talking about when I said that people will pay for a better alternative? THOSE THINGS ARE THE BETTER ALTERNATIVE! Did you even read my post? If so, what did you think I meant when I said that? The point is that if it's just distribution of music in MP3 format (or a worse format), it will be hard to get people to pay. They have to offer something more or something better. Like the things you mention.
I was pretty sure I had made that clear.
*Sigh*
What do customers want? Ask Napster.
Fast, accurate searching
Comprehensive database of content
Fast download
Fair price -- and only pay for what you use
Compatibility with customer's player of choice
Ease of use
Napster and mp3 set the standard for these things. People often won't pay where a free alternative exists, but they will pay if an alternative is (perceived) better.
You can't have significantly less compatibility than mp3 and expect consumers to embrace it. I'm not going to open Winamp for my personal collection of ripped mp3's and some other player for "secure" music. You can't make it harder to play, where you have to have a key to open, blah, blah. What if I want to play the song somewhere other than my desktop PC? <sarcasm>Oh, it's less portable than mp3 or even a physical CD? Count me in!</sarcasm>
One day, the record companies will start developing a solution around customer needs, not their own. Until then, they'll try to spoon-feed us DivX for music. And fail.
That also sounds like what elitist Linux geeks say when you tell them that Linux is hard to use.
I wonder if there's a connection there...
Boy, if I had some mod points I'd teach you a lesson for saying that!
Once upon a time, a government or company could count on a significant lag time between implementing something offensive and the backlash against it. Of course, often it meant that whatever was implemented was already entrenched. They could point to it and say, "we've been running for six months with no problems". Also, that time could be used to get government officials or other key decision-makers on board (i.e., backroom politics) before those people would have to face a public that is concerned about the issue.
What we see today is not any increase in the number or kind of offensive tactics by opportunitstic, powerful institutions, but their schemes are coming to light much more quickly than ever before, and they do not have the time to cover it all up anymore. This is why it is said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. More and more, these things are getting nipped in the bud, or at least far sooner than they would have been without the ability of the internet to spread information outside of the spoon-feeding from government and big business.
This must not stop. There are already attempts to curb the ability of the internet to be a greenhouse for grass-roots action. Note the "features" of UCITA and DMCA which attempt to restrict criticism and public comment in the name of IP rights. As people in power find themselves attacked for their actions, they will simply try to stop the source of their enemies' power -- and that is the free nature of the internet. There will be attempts through technological means (Smart network, dumb terminals) and legal means (DMCA) to throttle the power of the ordinary person to participate in the process of making decisions.
My pastor was the one who told me about Dogma. Yes, it pokes fun at religion, but it does not challenge faith.
It was actually very moving at times. Take the scene where Linda Fiorentino was struggling with being up to the task of saving the world, and the angel tells the story of having to be there when a young Jesus was starting to understand his mission. Or the scene in the parking garage where Ben Affleck is letting loose about being kicked out of heaven and missing the presence of God, and that the humans don't even realize what they are missing.
If that's offensive, it is only so because of the very rigid, do-my-thinking-for-me dogma that the movie is about.
Remember, that Jesus himself was one who challenged the "dogma" of his age. He was a lawbreaker in the minds of many because he healed on the Sabbath and touched the unclean and let prostitutes pay him honor. What he did was more offensive as the movie Dogma.
It was not that long ago that Anabaptists, some of the most Christ-like people of their age, were persecuted by the Catholic Church for being offensive - by practicing adult baptism (rather like the baptism Jesus had, I suppose). Just because people take offense at something does not mean that it is bad; it is often an indication that it is good.
Dogma challenged the beliefs of Catholics who go to chuch, say the prayers, do the ritual, but have not faintest idea of what they are saying, and live no differently than those who reject the Church. I would suggest that those people need their belief challenged. And I would say that it's too bad Kevin Smith has to do it, but that is only because their priest won't.
It sounds like the FBI has built upon existing key logging technology. I imagine those are patented, right? So distribute that information. If it's similar enough, then the same methods to defeat it would work against the FBI's stuff. This what the FBI is claminig they are trying to avoid by releasing details.
Of course, this information should only be used to prevent unscrupulous business competitors from using key logging against you ;-). Don't use it to cover up a crime, like reading and encrypted e-book.
The urgency of this article reminds me of something from the annals of the U.S. Army's JRTC:
Each morning in the African Savannah, the lion wakes up and knows that he must run faster than the slowest gazelle or he will starve. Each morning, the gazelle wakes up and knows that he must run faster than the fastest lion or he will be killed. It does not matter whether you are lion or gazelle: when the sun comes up, you'd better be running.
...can you hear it? That's the sound of a few thousand rabid Highlander fanatics drooling over their own piece-together Damascus-steel Kurgan sword.
Or, for the ladies, a Damascus-steel Xena death-frisbee.
And herein lies a problem for the Linux community. It doesn't take too many arrogant jerks like you to give Linux geeks a reputation for being unhelpful elitists (even though the vast majority *are* helpful). Go ahead, just push everyone back to Windows, because you don't remember what it was like to not know anything.
A year ago, Katz was prattling on about how 15 year olds were going to take over the world and change everything, upend the media, and so on. Now he's refuting this guy who is saying the same thing:
In my opinion, Lewis stumbles badly here.
Has Jon joined the ranks of the jocks? Is he no longer the pied piper of the oppressed, under-appreciated teenage geniuses who master assembly language during a 15-minute recess while the older dinosaurs struggle for months with "Visual Basic for Dummies" ?
Trust me...
Now the nerds can get both their T&A and SF fix in one, conveniently packaged hour instead of having to flip channels...
At the Jet Propulsion Laboratory