One way to do a campaign setting is to darken the tone a few notches, and lower the lethality.
To darken the tone, play up the effects of the oppression by being more graphic about what the regular citizens are doing, how they live, and how they die. Make your players understand just how soul crushing mandatory happiness really is.
To lower the lethality, make the computer a touch less mad and a bit more helpful, even if still bound in endless bureaucracy. Treat the computer as feeling that every citizen is a valuable cog in the welfare of all the other citizens, so instead of summary executions, make actual use of treason points, and make it a bit of work to get it. The Computer really doesn't want to kill you, but if it absolutely has to for the good of the rest, it will.
For designing the game, don't spell out the conflicts quite so clearly in the six-pack. Instead, let the players have time to develop them.
Basically, instead of a game about a darkly humourous future, the campaign version is a bleak future with a touch of black comedy.
I've been lucky enough to be involved in such a campaign once as a player. It was down-right chilling, and really forever altered the way I play Paranoia.. the game is entirely different when you start attaching value to the NPCs.
There's a certain group where, no matter what you try, they are bound and determined to cooperate.
Those groups are a pain, but there are solutions. The first is to immediately set up a power structure -- typically reversed from the normal social order that your group has. So the shy, meek guy of your gaming group, the one that always seems to just be following along and that you don't notice very often? Promote him. Unfairly. Make it clear that it's completely unfair and based on character bias. Also, make it really clear to your promoted character that he can now order the others to do basically anything.
Then start giving him all the inside information that's supposed to get to the group. Make sure he knows that some of it is too high a clearance for the rest of the group and that a trigger-happy, ultra-loyal NPC is watching for signs of treason.
Next what you do is you throw in some good rewards (exemption from R&D testing, blast armor, a laser that works, a coupon for "head of the line" service from PLD, etc) that can only be used by a single character -- but don't let the players have them just like that. Instead, start using their society ties to request them to do actions that directly conflict with one another in order to get these rewards.
Because you've already shaken up the way the group typically goes with your earlier promotion, they're usually more willing to move for themselves rather than in the same patterns.
It's exhausting, but when it works out, it's well worth it.
EU can prevent MS software from being imported. EU can levy huge fines on the European Subsidiaries of MS, which MS will undoubtedly try to pass on to the customers, but that's just another extra fee that encourages conversion away from MS.
MS's only response is to pull out of the EU, except they can't do that, because that'd send their stock price into a nose-dive like you've never seen.
Chicken and egg implies one thing can't exist without the other.
You *can* watch the shows, crap and all. You choose not to. TV companies cannot make a good product consistently and frequently without somebody telling them what's good and what's not.
You said it yourself.. good restaurants get your business often, but bad ones get it a single time. Yet here you are saying you don't even give the TV companies the single time.
Which basically means, you don't get to choose between the good and the bad, that's unfortunately left up to the population that actually watches TV. Too bad for us that they seem to like The Bachelor and American Idol over shows with quality.
I don't have cable or reception and I like it that way. I watch good shows on DVD when they come out... I don't know what it is with the networks. They have no understanding of what is good.
So, let's draw the lines. You don't watch the shows when they're on TV. As such, you (or the people like you with the nielsen boxes) do not factor into the networks' decisions as to what makes a TV show good.
Yet you wonder why the networks don't know what you think is good?
I've never had a problem with privacy guys, actually. They ask me for my info and I just say "No." They ask me again, and I say "No." They tell me that they can't enter my transaction without certain information and I say "Bullshit."
Usually this is as far as it gets, because I've stayed dead calm and they clue in that they're never going to get it from me, and I'm not going to leave their cash register until I finish the purchase. Once they figure that out, they ring up the purchase. I had one poor kid who had to call the manager, because he had no idea how to handle it. Fortunately, the manager clued in right away.
However, if they insist anyway we go on to the second stage, where I say "use your own info then."
This is where it can get fun. Usually they say that they can't do that, and then I start giving them back their own lines word for word: "But I need the information in order to complete the transaction," type of thing.
Re:The Privacy Commission slaps a big bank around
on
Canadian Privacy Act
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Thanks a lot....by just leaving the Bank, you've basically given up your right to complain further on the matter. Had you stayed with them and made repeated requests to the Privacy Commissioner for your deserved apology, the bank would have continued to be letter slapped until it turned into government imposed fines.. which would have gotten their attention and possibly improved customer service for everyone.
I know, not your responsibility, but it would have been nice for other folks having to deal with these guys.
Re:It IS absolutely retroactive
on
Canadian Privacy Act
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Actually, he can't refuse you service based on your refusal to supply information that isn't directly related to the transaction.
However, being a dentist, the transaction may well require an address to send a bill to.
If you're willing to pay at the desk, in cash, you can tell him no, and suggest that if he refuses based on that, you will contact the government of Canada for a PIPEDA infraction.
If it is, then it's IBM's tactic this time, not SCO's.
SCO hasn't produced the required evidence, the judge said as much in her quote about the case being at an impasse. Had IBM filed for a summary judgement on the case it is very likely it would have been over.
Instead, IBM is making sure that any onlookers have no doubts that IBM's Linux is absolutely squeaky clean from any liability issues. When IBM is done there won't be the tiny voice of any Darl McBride behind a PHB able to say "We could sue you for using this!"
Because the odds of a random knock getting to see the open port are astronomical. Their time is better spent going for those systems without port-knocking.
Example scenario: Port 44 runs your service, and is protected by your various SSH and other normal security devices.
On top of this, you have a knocking system running. Like certain firewalls, it listens for traffic but does not provide any response.
Now, let's say you've got a very small knocking sequence, port 1223, port 45, port 788.
First, any hacker coming in does not actually know that you have a port-knocking sequence in effect. You may just have a closed system. However, let's assume he's somehow found out that you do have something going on in your system, and determines there must be a port-knocking sequence in effect.
How many ports does your system have total? Out of all of those, he has to choose the correct three ports to knock on.
In addition, he has to knock on them in the proper sequence.
And he has to do this while getting no response from your system indicating anything one way or the other. Once that's all done, only then does the port your service is running on even open. Until then, like every other port on your system, it just sits there silently. So now he has to figure out which port opened to use the service.
How long do you expect a hacker would bang away at your system before deciding it would be more productive to move on to something else? Add into this, that the longer he bangs on the closed ports, the higher the chance somebody notices what's going on and starts tracking things back.
The folks who are saying it's "Security through Obscurity" aren't realizing that this is more akin to a password than a hidden access feature. Put a knocking system into place, tell everybody that you're running a service, and even tell them that you're running a knocking system. They still have to crack what the sequence of knocks is in order to get in.
Now, admitted, it's a particularly poor method for passwords, since anybody who knows the password has to transmit it openly, but as a first layer of security? Good idea.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that the very fact that you've blacked out indicates that some harm was done to your brain.
So how many times have you done this?
One way to do a campaign setting is to darken the tone a few notches, and lower the lethality.
To darken the tone, play up the effects of the oppression by being more graphic about what the regular citizens are doing, how they live, and how they die. Make your players understand just how soul crushing mandatory happiness really is.
To lower the lethality, make the computer a touch less mad and a bit more helpful, even if still bound in endless bureaucracy. Treat the computer as feeling that every citizen is a valuable cog in the welfare of all the other citizens, so instead of summary executions, make actual use of treason points, and make it a bit of work to get it. The Computer really doesn't want to kill you, but if it absolutely has to for the good of the rest, it will.
For designing the game, don't spell out the conflicts quite so clearly in the six-pack. Instead, let the players have time to develop them.
Basically, instead of a game about a darkly humourous future, the campaign version is a bleak future with a touch of black comedy.
I've been lucky enough to be involved in such a campaign once as a player. It was down-right chilling, and really forever altered the way I play Paranoia.. the game is entirely different when you start attaching value to the NPCs.
There's a certain group where, no matter what you try, they are bound and determined to cooperate.
Those groups are a pain, but there are solutions. The first is to immediately set up a power structure -- typically reversed from the normal social order that your group has. So the shy, meek guy of your gaming group, the one that always seems to just be following along and that you don't notice very often? Promote him. Unfairly. Make it clear that it's completely unfair and based on character bias. Also, make it really clear to your promoted character that he can now order the others to do basically anything.
Then start giving him all the inside information that's supposed to get to the group. Make sure he knows that some of it is too high a clearance for the rest of the group and that a trigger-happy, ultra-loyal NPC is watching for signs of treason.
Next what you do is you throw in some good rewards (exemption from R&D testing, blast armor, a laser that works, a coupon for "head of the line" service from PLD, etc) that can only be used by a single character -- but don't let the players have them just like that. Instead, start using their society ties to request them to do actions that directly conflict with one another in order to get these rewards.
Because you've already shaken up the way the group typically goes with your earlier promotion, they're usually more willing to move for themselves rather than in the same patterns.
It's exhausting, but when it works out, it's well worth it.
What's your security clearance, Citizen?
I guess the next aspect for study is how vulnerable Google is to Yahoo Bombs.
Of course, we're going to need someone to figure out how Yahoo's ranking system works before we can bomb it.
EU can prevent MS software from being imported.
EU can levy huge fines on the European Subsidiaries of MS, which MS will undoubtedly try to pass on to the customers, but that's just another extra fee that encourages conversion away from MS.
MS's only response is to pull out of the EU, except they can't do that, because that'd send their stock price into a nose-dive like you've never seen.
Chicken and egg implies one thing can't exist without the other.
You *can* watch the shows, crap and all. You choose not to. TV companies cannot make a good product consistently and frequently without somebody telling them what's good and what's not.
You said it yourself.. good restaurants get your business often, but bad ones get it a single time. Yet here you are saying you don't even give the TV companies the single time.
Which basically means, you don't get to choose between the good and the bad, that's unfortunately left up to the population that actually watches TV. Too bad for us that they seem to like The Bachelor and American Idol over shows with quality.
Because the people who finance games can't be bothered to read more than a single sentence.
There's this neat thing.. it's called HBO.
I don't have cable or reception and I like it that way. I watch good shows on DVD when they come out ... I don't know what it is with the networks. They have no understanding of what is good.
So, let's draw the lines.
You don't watch the shows when they're on TV. As such, you (or the people like you with the nielsen boxes) do not factor into the networks' decisions as to what makes a TV show good.
Yet you wonder why the networks don't know what you think is good?
Yes, your missing the point about how the fat jobless loser manages to get his mitts on a $4000/carat diamond.
Is that you, Mr. Ralsky?
I also find the star system on Amazon can be worthwhile.
You just have to realize that the "average" is actually 4 stars, not 3, and know that unless there are 50 ratings or more, it's probably not accurate.
I've never had a problem with privacy guys, actually.
They ask me for my info and I just say "No."
They ask me again, and I say "No."
They tell me that they can't enter my transaction without certain information and I say "Bullshit."
Usually this is as far as it gets, because I've stayed dead calm and they clue in that they're never going to get it from me, and I'm not going to leave their cash register until I finish the purchase. Once they figure that out, they ring up the purchase. I had one poor kid who had to call the manager, because he had no idea how to handle it. Fortunately, the manager clued in right away.
However, if they insist anyway we go on to the second stage, where I say "use your own info then."
This is where it can get fun. Usually they say that they can't do that, and then I start giving them back their own lines word for word: "But I need the information in order to complete the transaction," type of thing.
Thanks a lot.. ..by just leaving the Bank, you've basically given up your right to complain further on the matter. Had you stayed with them and made repeated requests to the Privacy Commissioner for your deserved apology, the bank would have continued to be letter slapped until it turned into government imposed fines.. which would have gotten their attention and possibly improved customer service for everyone.
I know, not your responsibility, but it would have been nice for other folks having to deal with these guys.
Actually, he can't refuse you service based on your refusal to supply information that isn't directly related to the transaction.
However, being a dentist, the transaction may well require an address to send a bill to.
If you're willing to pay at the desk, in cash, you can tell him no, and suggest that if he refuses based on that, you will contact the government of Canada for a PIPEDA infraction.
You missed that whole iBook thing, didn't you?
As if live support wasn't already rare enough.
Who's going to want to work as a customer support rep after this?
SUPPORT: Hello, you've reached XYZ, how can I help you?
CUSTOMER: FUCK OFF AND DIE YOU STUPID CUNT! EAT MY SHIT!
SUPPORT: Excuse me?!
CUSOMTER: What? Oh.. oh geeze, sorry.. I thought you were a machine.
Isn't that a bit of a narrow niche?
If he's a bio/med geek, you can always go with a chocholate heart
Kiss my stock options.
If it is, then it's IBM's tactic this time, not SCO's.
SCO hasn't produced the required evidence, the judge said as much in her quote about the case being at an impasse. Had IBM filed for a summary judgement on the case it is very likely it would have been over.
Instead, IBM is making sure that any onlookers have no doubts that IBM's Linux is absolutely squeaky clean from any liability issues. When IBM is done there won't be the tiny voice of any Darl McBride behind a PHB able to say "We could sue you for using this!"
Open ports per se are not insecure, but they are more likely to come under concentrated attack.
Not really..
Because the odds of a random knock getting to see the open port are astronomical. Their time is better spent going for those systems without port-knocking.
Example scenario:
Port 44 runs your service, and is protected by your various SSH and other normal security devices.
On top of this, you have a knocking system running. Like certain firewalls, it listens for traffic but does not provide any response.
Now, let's say you've got a very small knocking sequence, port 1223, port 45, port 788.
First, any hacker coming in does not actually know that you have a port-knocking sequence in effect. You may just have a closed system.
However, let's assume he's somehow found out that you do have something going on in your system, and determines there must be a port-knocking sequence in effect.
How many ports does your system have total? Out of all of those, he has to choose the correct three ports to knock on.
In addition, he has to knock on them in the proper sequence.
And he has to do this while getting no response from your system indicating anything one way or the other. Once that's all done, only then does the port your service is running on even open. Until then, like every other port on your system, it just sits there silently. So now he has to figure out which port opened to use the service.
How long do you expect a hacker would bang away at your system before deciding it would be more productive to move on to something else? Add into this, that the longer he bangs on the closed ports, the higher the chance somebody notices what's going on and starts tracking things back.
The folks who are saying it's "Security through Obscurity" aren't realizing that this is more akin to a password than a hidden access feature. Put a knocking system into place, tell everybody that you're running a service, and even tell them that you're running a knocking system. They still have to crack what the sequence of knocks is in order to get in.
Now, admitted, it's a particularly poor method for passwords, since anybody who knows the password has to transmit it openly, but as a first layer of security? Good idea.
Uses a gesture based system for spells.
For instance, you cast a shield by drawing a circle around the area you want to shield.
Apparantly, the more perfect your circle, the stronger your shield, though I haven't been able to notice a large difference.
Screw cable.