The Matrix Online uses AOL Instant Messenger for all in-game chat. So you can message people in-game when you are not or visavesa. As for providing visual access to the game without a client, hmmmm, havn't see anyone doing THAT yet.
Everyone else understood my post, what's your problem? Cars have gotten safer. Brakes react faster and more effectively. Steering is more responsive and requires less to no physical exertion. Airbags, seatbelts, crumple zones and other safety features are now standard on every car produced. And that's just the cars. The roads have gotten better too! A law should be passed that states that all fines received for speeding will be deducted from the total amount of car registration paid by motorists in the region where the speed limit was violated. That way if you're speeding and I'm doing the speed limit I know that you may soon be reducing my registration costs. The end result would be a lack of enforcement of speed limits (as the local council would no longer see them as a revenue stream) and greater freedom for motorists on the road.
Oh I forgot, we're talking to americans who have never even heard of Europe, let alone the many highways in Europe which have no speed limits. There's more accidents on regular highways than these unrestricted highways. It all comes down to air travel. If you could drive from LA to Vegas in an hour, why would you fly?
Yeah, and get your ass handed to you by a lawyer when one of your "friends" crashes his car and sues you. The only people who are willing to allow people to race on their property are the guys that think people are mostly good and won't screw them.
That's not true ya know. Due to a lack of insurance coverage, about the only place where you can go and drive your car at excessive speeds is salt flats or the desert. Both of which screw up your car.
It's annoying, cause the best statistic of MMORPGs (the one that actually affects gameplay) is average number of simultanious players per server. Assuming the ability to find other players and form groups is equal (that's a big assumption I know) the number of simultanious players is exactly what seperates a MMORPG from a single player game. Most games do not release this statistic as it actually can have a negative effect on subscriptions. After all, if there isn't a lot of people playing during the hours that you tend to play then why would you play? And if you refuse to play if there isn't enough people playing, how is there ever going to be enough people playing?
uh huh. I'm sure their subscription numbers do not count cancellations, so there's probably 100k active players, and seeing as they have 10 times as many servers as MxO that means their number of similtanious players per server is probably about the same.
Way to choose an activity which actually shuns interaction as your format. Let's give this a better perspective shall we? Suppose you were to go to a basketball court, ball in hand, with the goal of shooting hoops, all by your lonesome. There's only a certain number of hoops (2) and yet you want one all to yourself rather than team up and play with others. Oh! But you're saying that you can interact with people without grouping with them. Oh! Well! In that case we better imagine a guy who demands that people play him at 1 on 1, otherwise it's "not fair". Basketball is a team game. People who don't want to play on a team should piss off and play something else. Same with MMORPGs.
How many servers is that spread across? Is there a command you can use to find out how many simultanious users are on in WoW? Obviously I enjoy the game, I was just responding to the criticism that "no-one" was playing it.
Sorry, no, the game is designed to be played in groups. If you enjoy playing it solo you're fighting an uphill battle and the people who are playing the game as it is designed get the burden of your choice of play. It is a fact that solo players complain that the game is "too hard" and demand that special quests be developed just for them. That takes resources away from the developers which could be better spent developing content or fixing bugs for the people who are playing the game as it is designed.
I play WoW.
That explains a lot. Try playing a role playing game and doing it solo. Oh wait, then the only role you would be playing is yourself. Hmm, how pointless. Interaction with other people is why we're playing online.
Uhhh, soloing means you ignore other players. Totally. It doesn't mean you interact with them in restricted ways. That said, when you get your ass whipped by a lvl 12 monster because you're only lvl 8, don't complain because if you had a few companions you would have faired better. It's a dangerous world, it's just stupid to go out in it alone.
And then you're guarenteed to be tortured forever. Whereas if you tell them that it isn't your laptop and you don't even know how to get into it they might torture you for a while and then give up cause they have nothing to suggest that the laptop is yours and that knowledge you have about the encryption system has made you just resistant enough to torture to make them think that you are telling the trueth.
1. Solo dudes are inevitably anti-social assholes. 2. Solo dudes are playing a game in a way that it wasn't intended to be played and almost always end up quitting in disgust and telling everyone it sucked. 3. Solo dudes use up server and bandwidth resources that could be better used to serve players who play the game the way it was intended.
With a password you can actually deny an agressor access. They'd have to torture you until you gave it up. For opening a door or something pointless like that you'd give up your password in a heartbeat, but let me tell you about a little system called deniable cryptography. Suppose you work for the NSA. You're given a laptop on which you are required to encrypt any work which is deemed sensitive (and seeing this is the NSA, let's just say that everything is sensitive). You are instructed to encrypt documents of different security grades under different passwords. No system is prescribed for the grading of documents, you're just told you should use at least three.
So now what happens when the bad guys grab your laptop and take out the rubber hose? I say you won't tell them a single password. How can I say so with such certainty? Well suppose after being beaten for an hour you decide to give up the least sensitive material on the laptop. In fact, this isn't even NSA material, it's just some emails you received from your girlfriend. So you give them your first password, say 'tulip'. The bad guys run to their cryptoanalyst guys and give over the password. They discover that it does indeed provide them with something intelligible. But they don't find anything of value, as you intended. Looking at the remaining space on the harddrive they notice that there is a heck of a lot left, so they send their low brow associates back to get another password from you.
After another hour of torture you might give up another password. And after another hour you might give up another password. But every time you give up a password you're just guarenteeing more extensive torture. Every time you give up a password the cryptoanalyst guys say there is more data on the disk. When you get to the end of your list of passwords you're really screwed because as far as the cryptoanalysts are concerned, all the free space on your disk is potentially more top quality intelligence. It is impossible for you to convince your captors that they have all the passwords for the laptop. So you will eventually die in their hands or, worse yet, the torture will go on indefinitely.
In summary, deniable encryption ensures that it isn't in your interest to give up a single password. You're better off claiming that it was some dude's laptop you stole on the way to where you got jumped.
Slashdot Mirror
The Matrix Online uses AOL Instant Messenger for all in-game chat. So you can message people in-game when you are not or visavesa. As for providing visual access to the game without a client, hmmmm, havn't see anyone doing THAT yet.
Was that the frame where his female building companion opened the pot noodle?
There's always someone who is willing to let the facts get in the way of a good post.
An Anonymous Reader gave us a kickback to mention Statler and Waldorf From the Balcony...
Or sub-$100k personal jets with vertical takeoff and landing, but hey, now who's dreamin'?
Everyone else understood my post, what's your problem? Cars have gotten safer. Brakes react faster and more effectively. Steering is more responsive and requires less to no physical exertion. Airbags, seatbelts, crumple zones and other safety features are now standard on every car produced. And that's just the cars. The roads have gotten better too! A law should be passed that states that all fines received for speeding will be deducted from the total amount of car registration paid by motorists in the region where the speed limit was violated. That way if you're speeding and I'm doing the speed limit I know that you may soon be reducing my registration costs. The end result would be a lack of enforcement of speed limits (as the local council would no longer see them as a revenue stream) and greater freedom for motorists on the road.
And they pay so much money in insurance that they need sponsors to do it.
Oh I forgot, we're talking to americans who have never even heard of Europe, let alone the many highways in Europe which have no speed limits. There's more accidents on regular highways than these unrestricted highways. It all comes down to air travel. If you could drive from LA to Vegas in an hour, why would you fly?
Yeah, and get your ass handed to you by a lawyer when one of your "friends" crashes his car and sues you. The only people who are willing to allow people to race on their property are the guys that think people are mostly good and won't screw them.
That's not true ya know. Due to a lack of insurance coverage, about the only place where you can go and drive your car at excessive speeds is salt flats or the desert. Both of which screw up your car.
Bullshit. The speed limits havn't changed since the 50s, cars have.
It's annoying, cause the best statistic of MMORPGs (the one that actually affects gameplay) is average number of simultanious players per server. Assuming the ability to find other players and form groups is equal (that's a big assumption I know) the number of simultanious players is exactly what seperates a MMORPG from a single player game. Most games do not release this statistic as it actually can have a negative effect on subscriptions. After all, if there isn't a lot of people playing during the hours that you tend to play then why would you play? And if you refuse to play if there isn't enough people playing, how is there ever going to be enough people playing?
uh huh. I'm sure their subscription numbers do not count cancellations, so there's probably 100k active players, and seeing as they have 10 times as many servers as MxO that means their number of similtanious players per server is probably about the same.
Way to choose an activity which actually shuns interaction as your format. Let's give this a better perspective shall we? Suppose you were to go to a basketball court, ball in hand, with the goal of shooting hoops, all by your lonesome. There's only a certain number of hoops (2) and yet you want one all to yourself rather than team up and play with others. Oh! But you're saying that you can interact with people without grouping with them. Oh! Well! In that case we better imagine a guy who demands that people play him at 1 on 1, otherwise it's "not fair". Basketball is a team game. People who don't want to play on a team should piss off and play something else. Same with MMORPGs.
How many servers is that spread across? Is there a command you can use to find out how many simultanious users are on in WoW? Obviously I enjoy the game, I was just responding to the criticism that "no-one" was playing it.
Sigh, that's about 10,000 players. Compared to WoW that probably doesn't look like a lot. Compared to City of Heros, it is.
Sorry, no, the game is designed to be played in groups. If you enjoy playing it solo you're fighting an uphill battle and the people who are playing the game as it is designed get the burden of your choice of play. It is a fact that solo players complain that the game is "too hard" and demand that special quests be developed just for them. That takes resources away from the developers which could be better spent developing content or fixing bugs for the people who are playing the game as it is designed.
I play WoW.
That explains a lot. Try playing a role playing game and doing it solo. Oh wait, then the only role you would be playing is yourself. Hmm, how pointless. Interaction with other people is why we're playing online.
"Ok, the satellite is loaded, fire tube 2!" "Ok, firing." "Hey, I said tube 2 not tube 1, you just nuked Cleveland!"
There's nine servers with 50+ simultanious players on each server 24 hours a day. You do the math.
Uhhh, soloing means you ignore other players. Totally. It doesn't mean you interact with them in restricted ways. That said, when you get your ass whipped by a lvl 12 monster because you're only lvl 8, don't complain because if you had a few companions you would have faired better. It's a dangerous world, it's just stupid to go out in it alone.
And then you're guarenteed to be tortured forever. Whereas if you tell them that it isn't your laptop and you don't even know how to get into it they might torture you for a while and then give up cause they have nothing to suggest that the laptop is yours and that knowledge you have about the encryption system has made you just resistant enough to torture to make them think that you are telling the trueth.
1. Solo dudes are inevitably anti-social assholes. 2. Solo dudes are playing a game in a way that it wasn't intended to be played and almost always end up quitting in disgust and telling everyone it sucked.
3. Solo dudes use up server and bandwidth resources that could be better used to serve players who play the game the way it was intended.
That's the point, they can't prove there is anything else on the harddrive but neither can you so it's in their interests to beat you indefinitely.
With a password you can actually deny an agressor access. They'd have to torture you until you gave it up. For opening a door or something pointless like that you'd give up your password in a heartbeat, but let me tell you about a little system called deniable cryptography. Suppose you work for the NSA. You're given a laptop on which you are required to encrypt any work which is deemed sensitive (and seeing this is the NSA, let's just say that everything is sensitive). You are instructed to encrypt documents of different security grades under different passwords. No system is prescribed for the grading of documents, you're just told you should use at least three.
So now what happens when the bad guys grab your laptop and take out the rubber hose? I say you won't tell them a single password. How can I say so with such certainty? Well suppose after being beaten for an hour you decide to give up the least sensitive material on the laptop. In fact, this isn't even NSA material, it's just some emails you received from your girlfriend. So you give them your first password, say 'tulip'. The bad guys run to their cryptoanalyst guys and give over the password. They discover that it does indeed provide them with something intelligible. But they don't find anything of value, as you intended. Looking at the remaining space on the harddrive they notice that there is a heck of a lot left, so they send their low brow associates back to get another password from you.
After another hour of torture you might give up another password. And after another hour you might give up another password. But every time you give up a password you're just guarenteeing more extensive torture. Every time you give up a password the cryptoanalyst guys say there is more data on the disk. When you get to the end of your list of passwords you're really screwed because as far as the cryptoanalysts are concerned, all the free space on your disk is potentially more top quality intelligence. It is impossible for you to convince your captors that they have all the passwords for the laptop. So you will eventually die in their hands or, worse yet, the torture will go on indefinitely.
In summary, deniable encryption ensures that it isn't in your interest to give up a single password. You're better off claiming that it was some dude's laptop you stole on the way to where you got jumped.
Or they just force your ass over to the scanner with a gun to your head, Solid Snake style.