True. As long as there is an intermediate step in entering the data, there is the potential for such mistakes.
My anecdote:
First year out of college I had a mis-read on a state 1040 (a single digit was repeated in one field) and instead of getting a small refund check, I got a notice that claimed I owed many thousands of dollars.
Long story short, I was told to re-submit everything (even though they possessed all the relavent info) and got my refund. Perhaps I was lucky that it was only one phone call and nothing extraordinary. Btw, that was a nice early lesson wrt maintaining complete backups.
I cringe every time I read about some clueless politician or corporate figure point to a fundamental part of the Internet and call it a new and emerging evil.
If you cringe every time something fundamental is called new, I suggest you not read anything from here.
You beat me to it with the Frontline thing, but I actually think that the credit card example is very fitting here.
The problem with the credit card industry is with the misconceptions of how it works. When you're given the impression that it works like any other industry, then when you learn the facts you feel like you've been lied to. That episode showed me that it's mostly a marketing problem that needs to be addressed.
Getting back on topic: The standard format of credit card agreements allows a customer to easily compare two similar contracts and the total text is limited to what can fit on that sheet of paper. With EULAs, while there is a general format, it's entirely in paragraph form (no tables) and the length has no ceiling so quickly comparing two similar EULAs is practically impossible. Also, the EULA is shown to the user when installing software and is normally produced in a small scrollable window which many times doesn't even fit a full paragraph.
One of my peeves is that it's always tucked into the packaging. If the EULA was sufficiently succinct and standardized, it could easily fit onto the side of a box like food products that have FDA nutritional info. But that's a different issue.
Conclusion: A software EULA is in paragraph form with an unbounded length that allows the author to easily hide stuff. A credit card agreement follows a standardized format with very limited surface area and any special "hidden" clauses, while perhaps difficult to understand, are easy to locate using side-by-side comparison tests.
But really... Faster/Slower: the use of a slideshow feature is inappropriate here.
Slideshows should be used as a way to display info without user interaction. In this case, however, most of the info is out of view when the page loads (requiring the user to scroll down and take time to read the paragraphs of info). Also, very few people can read 20 words/second.
That is, unless they expected most of their readers to just look at the pictures and ignore Forbes' reasons for including these specific examples. Somehow I doubt that, but the only other reason for including a slideshow is that a coder wanted to play with their new toy (I would definitely understand that one).
Anyway, had they used a simple "next" "previous" setup, we wouldn't be reading about frustrations with the slideshow - the ferrari vs bicycle comment I made.
- There are going to be more people collecting from SS when the baby boomers retire than there will be contributing to it.
I thought "baby boomer" refered to those born within the decade after WWII (1945-1955). The 2000 US census age brief (http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-12.pd f) has an interesting distribution graph, but the peak occurs at 35-45 years old (which corresponds to people born between 1955-1965). This peak would be the potential problem, but that doesn't correspond to "baby boomers".
I would think that any distribution-related problem would actually start two decades after the first baby boomers retire, not immediately. Of course, this scenario disregards immigration and assumes that no one involved dies.
As you noted, there are other problems with social security, but it appears that (given the current trend) the situation you described (more retired citizens than working citizens) will not occur during the next half century. Sorry.
If everyone were using the same indentical machines and configuration, then perhaps. But that's just not going to be the case.
Here's my take on these types of worms:
I have evidence which leads me to strongly believe that your kitchen faucet is leaking, badly. This will no doubt cause flooding and damage. Instead of warning you about it, I (a random citizen) will now fix this problem for you.
Of course, since I don't know your home, I may break something unrelated to your current problem. But don't worry, because I'll be back to fix THAT problem later, in the same fashion (at which time I might break something else, etc etc).
Scenario: The fire alarm in your building is flashing and making noise. People are fleeing from flames. However, the glue is not totally dry on your model airplane.
Simply, the game was a huge embarrassment. For example: when you fart, do you want to give someone the opportunity to bottle it up?
I played the game as a child and struggled to believe that it was fun, but only because my limited life experience told me "video game = fun." This game provided me with a harsh lesson early in life: there exist people who are willing to defile an activity that many enjoy. It was the only time I remember being relieved when my character would die, since it meant I didn't have to suffer any more.
The game designer (Warshaw) says some pretty funny stuff on the matter in this article: "What you did was design a game you could do in five weeks... and, you know... well, they didn't return all of 'em."
I'd honestly still like to play ET once more, to experience it from the perspective of an adult.
But still, games were better back then, when they concentrated more on the gameplay and/or story before the prettiness of the graphics.
Better? A bad game today is generally more entertaining than a bad game from back then. Plus, we tend to only remember the games we liked.
Speaking of bad games, it's funny how people forget the obvious.
Since I'm thinking about ET, here's an article that I find curious. Of importance: 1. The article is dated July 1983, which is after the release date of the original 2600 ET (fall 1982). This article is NOT about the infamous one, however I would expect references to lessons learned (which I can't seem to find).
2. I feel that the following quote disproves your statement: "These included high standards of graphic and sound representation, especially for the E.T. figure and voice, and a natural yet playable game concept that was true to the feeling of the film." Notice how graphics and sound are listed first (with emphasis on quality), and game concept just needs to be "playable".
Or, does "back then" refer to games made before 1983?
When you see 'hungry', you quickly realize that you need to eat something (like corpses) and you learn which corpses to reject. But the problem I was facing occurs when you run out.
Aside from going deeper, I eventually figured out that #pray frequently saves you in those circumstances (poisoning, low health, etc), but doing that isn't apparent to a beginner. I was punished severely when praying for the first time while experimenting commands, which dissuaded me from that course later on (those first 70something games).
And yes, it's your own business whether you cheat in your own, single-player games. However, you'll enjoy the game much more if you learn to play it properly.
I agree. The savescumming was a response to the game difficulty. I will say that the lessons do get learned, but the penalty involved is not as harsh.
On the topic of cheating (since it seems to be the focus of this thread)...
I just had a look at this FAQ and something bothers me a bit.
If one were to be strict in the definition of cheating here, any FAQ use (with/without spoilers) is essentially reducing the difficulty of the game by knowledge gained through external channels. Considering that there are a variety of unexpected uses for many items, a true non-cheater would never learn some of the aspects of gameplay so as to play the game properly.
My criticism of the FAQ is that they demonize game saving while at the same time provide advice for gameplay (a different form of cheating)
The game IS hard. I chose to cheat by discovering a way to save games (I wasn't aware that it had a name) while others cheat via FAQs and spoilers (I didn't look at a FAQ/spoilerlist prior to this thread). In that light: I see myself as not much of a cheater, among cheaters. Of course, this may be just a rationalization on my part...
I understand how saving can be seriously abused and that approach doesn't appeal to me (just once every four or so levels). However, any saving greatly reduces the amount of randomization I like about this game, which is leading me to the decision to stop using it.
Even though a defensive rant is probably unneccessary (I'm still unsure if your comment is in jest), here goes:
That savegame procedure IS cheating (technically speaking) but, honestly, what's it matter to you? There's no way that that cheat could affect your appreciation of the game (it's not multiplayer and I never made any claim of progress).
The point is, I just recently started so I'm still learning (a couple months, as opposed to your claim of a couple decades) and my process is much more efficient than the normal course. By the time I'm comfortable with exploring more of it, I'll do it the normal way. Dying at level 2 the 74th time in a row gets old (normally by starvation).
Btw, the only reason I included that 'cheat' is to show the parent's author just how unique each instance of the game really is.
One last thing: you could also say that all games that allow saved games allow cheating too. It's not like I'm always changing the date to full moon nights (and no, I don't do that).
The best way to understand is to just play the game. I suggest a non-ascii (graphical) version, since you'll probably strain your eyes (and brain) with the original while trying to figure out what each onscreen character represents.
I started playing Nethack a couple months ago and find myself enjoying it more than most games for two reasons: 1. it's a small complex game, and 2. the dungeon maps always change. In fact, if you load a saved game, the maps of unexplored levels will also change on each reload.
I agree with with pretty much everything you wrote.
The two things that disappointed me with KOTOR was that: [1] (given my experience with Fallout 1 & 2) you could not attack just anybody and [2] the queuing system and mechanics for battle were somewhat incomplete.
For [1], the storyline requires that you speak to certain characters before you can proceed, so having the option to kill those characters prior to speaking to them would completely stop story progression. The devs could have built a game that allows for a very shallow story of you simply slaughtering everything (Fallout allows unprovoked attacking). I should say that this issue is not a deficiency in the game, but something that would have been a very nice bonus if included.
For [2], there were a couple of things I disliked about the fighting system. The first glaring problem was that when my character is attacking a creature, the other party members should at least join in rather than just stand there and watch (it happens often enough). The second problem occurs after a party member gets incapacitated, when they wake up they mostly just stand and watch (also all commands queued while incap'd are discarded upon becoming awake - at least that's how I remember it).
Basically, my only real problem with KOTOR was the "stand and watch" issue. It didn't happen all the time, but it was annoying when it did. Aside from that, great game.
Which is why I always program the VCR to start 2 min prior to the scheduled time and to end 2 min after.
The only problem I've run into was when the schedule gets fouled up by 15 or so minutes (normally sports related). A recent Simpsons episode had that mis-timing problem (Fox5-NYC), which kinda ticked me off. It seems that their entire prime-time schedule was time-shifted that day.
I used to store all my important information using a large set of abaci, but then we had that earthquake... and... I'm sorry, but that event still gets me all emotional.
There are two complaints I have, with the interviewer and the one being interviewed. I'll start with my complaint with the school being interviewed.
The administration in all schools love/hate these lists. It's a crude way to provide a relative measure of a school's performance.
fta: To determine the rankings for America's Most Connected Campuses, The Princeton Review solicited data from 357 top colleges and universities around the country, asking them twenty questions about the technological sophistication of their campuses.
That tells me that the administration had the opportunity to present to the interviewer. Most importantly, they have the opportunity to even bend the truth a little. Given that, WHY would they answer 'no' to anything that was even remotely a 'yes'. Answering 'no' is guaranteed to reduce your score and a higher score means that you can brag about the rank even more during admission season.
Take the example of my alma mater: Stevens. question: Does the school stream its campus radio or TV stations? answer: no.
Really? Just a quick look at their website states, "WCPR is now online and accessible both on-campus and off-campus via our Internet webcast! (see the link to the right)". Yes, it does work and they've had streaming radio there for years - just check the wayback
If they answered yes to that one, they'd have 5 'no' answers and get listed in the top 25 - where I'm sure they'd love to be. Someone is not promoting the school well enough and to drop from being #1 last year to this.... As an alumnus, I'm rather disappointed.
On the complaint I have with the interviewer: IMO, the worst question is "Does tuition include a computer?". Any school that answered yes to that should be avoided. Yet a 'yes' would give you a higher score...
In defense of Forbes, they do list a lot of the details. At least one can point out the failures in their methodology to anyone interested.
When the current equipment doesn't work: dust off the old equipment.
The big problem not directly addressed however...
No matter how often they change the appearance of the currency: if an older (and easier to copy) version is still being accepted, then why bother counterfeiting the new ones? I mean, everyone still accepts the pre-1996 $20 bills worldwide.
Check out some of the related links above:
Best deals: Democrats
Best deals: Republicans
Best deals: United States
Who thought buying into the system could be so transparent?:) I'll take 200 shares of the junior senator from my state and 100 of the representative from my neighboring district.
Amusing sidelines: note the/. reference in the images in the article...
Checking the UID (206618), this is one VERY quiet individual.
But the thing I find weird is that pater (without writing any comments or journal or anything) somehow has a fan. I guess they know each other offline.
While on the topic of UIDs, what's with 31337 and 666?
Lately, Acclaim has become well known for one thing in particular (hint: baby Turok).
Maybe they're thinking on an abstract level, but isn't this taking the concept too far?
Re:As long as the boom is still there...
on
Disney Goes Boom!
·
· Score: 1
As long as the big boys still make that oh-so-satisfying "BOOM" when they go off, I'll be thrilled as ever.
I assume you're referring to the high flying ones, but how about the ones that explode like 100ft up? The ones that evoke an applause from all the parked cars. In some twisted way, I actually look forward to that orchestra of car alarms typically heard after the fireworks finale (when they usually schedule the 2-minute low-altitude bombardment).
Now that I think about it, the organizers probably do that on purpose.
Slashdot Mirror
True. As long as there is an intermediate step in entering the data, there is the potential for such mistakes.
My anecdote:
First year out of college I had a mis-read on a state 1040 (a single digit was repeated in one field) and instead of getting a small refund check, I got a notice that claimed I owed many thousands of dollars.
Long story short, I was told to re-submit everything (even though they possessed all the relavent info) and got my refund. Perhaps I was lucky that it was only one phone call and nothing extraordinary. Btw, that was a nice early lesson wrt maintaining complete backups.
I cringe every time I read about some clueless politician or corporate figure point to a fundamental part of the Internet and call it a new and emerging evil.
If you cringe every time something fundamental is called new, I suggest you not read anything from here.
You beat me to it with the Frontline thing, but I actually think that the credit card example is very fitting here.
The problem with the credit card industry is with the misconceptions of how it works. When you're given the impression that it works like any other industry, then when you learn the facts you feel like you've been lied to. That episode showed me that it's mostly a marketing problem that needs to be addressed.
Getting back on topic: The standard format of credit card agreements allows a customer to easily compare two similar contracts and the total text is limited to what can fit on that sheet of paper. With EULAs, while there is a general format, it's entirely in paragraph form (no tables) and the length has no ceiling so quickly comparing two similar EULAs is practically impossible. Also, the EULA is shown to the user when installing software and is normally produced in a small scrollable window which many times doesn't even fit a full paragraph.
One of my peeves is that it's always tucked into the packaging. If the EULA was sufficiently succinct and standardized, it could easily fit onto the side of a box like food products that have FDA nutritional info. But that's a different issue.
Conclusion: A software EULA is in paragraph form with an unbounded length that allows the author to easily hide stuff. A credit card agreement follows a standardized format with very limited surface area and any special "hidden" clauses, while perhaps difficult to understand, are easy to locate using side-by-side comparison tests.
I'd say the credit card example fits well.
This law won't do anything to actually stop spyware, as it will probably only affect companies run out of the US.
:)
So Congress will force these companies to outsource this coveted hi-tech work? The BASTARDS!
True, I was more or less making a joke.
But really... Faster/Slower: the use of a slideshow feature is inappropriate here.
Slideshows should be used as a way to display info without user interaction. In this case, however, most of the info is out of view when the page loads (requiring the user to scroll down and take time to read the paragraphs of info). Also, very few people can read 20 words/second.
That is, unless they expected most of their readers to just look at the pictures and ignore Forbes' reasons for including these specific examples. Somehow I doubt that, but the only other reason for including a slideshow is that a coder wanted to play with their new toy (I would definitely understand that one).
Anyway, had they used a simple "next" "previous" setup, we wouldn't be reading about frustrations with the slideshow - the ferrari vs bicycle comment I made.
"Previous... Slower... ah ha!"
But you didn't get to the best part:
Previous... Slower... Stop... Faster...
Faster ?
Like adding a jet engine to a ferrari, when all you really need is a bicycle.
- There are going to be more people collecting from SS when the baby boomers retire than there will be contributing to it.
d f) has an interesting distribution graph, but the peak occurs at 35-45 years old (which corresponds to people born between 1955-1965). This peak would be the potential problem, but that doesn't correspond to "baby boomers".
I thought "baby boomer" refered to those born within the decade after WWII (1945-1955).
The 2000 US census age brief (http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-12.p
I would think that any distribution-related problem would actually start two decades after the first baby boomers retire, not immediately. Of course, this scenario disregards immigration and assumes that no one involved dies.
As you noted, there are other problems with social security, but it appears that (given the current trend) the situation you described (more retired citizens than working citizens) will not occur during the next half century. Sorry.
If everyone were using the same indentical machines and configuration, then perhaps. But that's just not going to be the case.
Here's my take on these types of worms:
I have evidence which leads me to strongly believe that your kitchen faucet is leaking, badly. This will no doubt cause flooding and damage. Instead of warning you about it, I (a random citizen) will now fix this problem for you.
Of course, since I don't know your home, I may break something unrelated to your current problem. But don't worry, because I'll be back to fix THAT problem later, in the same fashion (at which time I might break something else, etc etc).
Scenario: The fire alarm in your building is flashing and making noise. People are fleeing from flames. However, the glue is not totally dry on your model airplane.
What do you do?
Simply, the game was a huge embarrassment. For example: when you fart, do you want to give someone the opportunity to bottle it up?
I played the game as a child and struggled to believe that it was fun, but only because my limited life experience told me "video game = fun." This game provided me with a harsh lesson early in life: there exist people who are willing to defile an activity that many enjoy. It was the only time I remember being relieved when my character would die, since it meant I didn't have to suffer any more.
The game designer (Warshaw) says some pretty funny stuff on the matter in this article: "What you did was design a game you could do in five weeks... and, you know... well, they didn't return all of 'em."
I'd honestly still like to play ET once more, to experience it from the perspective of an adult.
But still, games were better back then, when they concentrated more on the gameplay and/or story before the prettiness of the graphics.
Better? A bad game today is generally more entertaining than a bad game from back then. Plus, we tend to only remember the games we liked.
Speaking of bad games, it's funny how people forget the obvious.
Since I'm thinking about ET, here's an article that I find curious. Of importance:
1. The article is dated July 1983, which is after the release date of the original 2600 ET (fall 1982). This article is NOT about the infamous one, however I would expect references to lessons learned (which I can't seem to find).
2. I feel that the following quote disproves your statement: "These included high standards of graphic and sound representation, especially for the E.T. figure and voice, and a natural yet playable game concept that was true to the feeling of the film." Notice how graphics and sound are listed first (with emphasis on quality), and game concept just needs to be "playable".
Or, does "back then" refer to games made before 1983?
When you see 'hungry', you quickly realize that you need to eat something (like corpses) and you learn which corpses to reject. But the problem I was facing occurs when you run out.
...
Aside from going deeper, I eventually figured out that #pray frequently saves you in those circumstances (poisoning, low health, etc), but doing that isn't apparent to a beginner. I was punished severely when praying for the first time while experimenting commands, which dissuaded me from that course later on (those first 70something games).
And yes, it's your own business whether you cheat in your own, single-player games. However, you'll enjoy the game much more if you learn to play it properly.
I agree. The savescumming was a response to the game difficulty. I will say that the lessons do get learned, but the penalty involved is not as harsh.
On the topic of cheating (since it seems to be the focus of this thread)
I just had a look at this FAQ and something bothers me a bit.
If one were to be strict in the definition of cheating here, any FAQ use (with/without spoilers) is essentially reducing the difficulty of the game by knowledge gained through external channels. Considering that there are a variety of unexpected uses for many items, a true non-cheater would never learn some of the aspects of gameplay so as to play the game properly.
My criticism of the FAQ is that they demonize game saving while at the same time provide advice for gameplay (a different form of cheating)
The game IS hard. I chose to cheat by discovering a way to save games (I wasn't aware that it had a name) while others cheat via FAQs and spoilers (I didn't look at a FAQ/spoilerlist prior to this thread). In that light: I see myself as not much of a cheater, among cheaters. Of course, this may be just a rationalization on my part...
I understand how saving can be seriously abused and that approach doesn't appeal to me (just once every four or so levels). However, any saving greatly reduces the amount of randomization I like about this game, which is leading me to the decision to stop using it.
Ahhh, whatever.
Even though a defensive rant is probably unneccessary (I'm still unsure if your comment is in jest), here goes:
That savegame procedure IS cheating (technically speaking) but, honestly, what's it matter to you? There's no way that that cheat could affect your appreciation of the game (it's not multiplayer and I never made any claim of progress).
The point is, I just recently started so I'm still learning (a couple months, as opposed to your claim of a couple decades) and my process is much more efficient than the normal course. By the time I'm comfortable with exploring more of it, I'll do it the normal way. Dying at level 2 the 74th time in a row gets old (normally by starvation).
Btw, the only reason I included that 'cheat' is to show the parent's author just how unique each instance of the game really is.
One last thing: you could also say that all games that allow saved games allow cheating too. It's not like I'm always changing the date to full moon nights (and no, I don't do that).
It's essentially single-player D&D.
The best way to understand is to just play the game. I suggest a non-ascii (graphical) version, since you'll probably strain your eyes (and brain) with the original while trying to figure out what each onscreen character represents.
I started playing Nethack a couple months ago and find myself enjoying it more than most games for two reasons: 1. it's a small complex game, and 2. the dungeon maps always change. In fact, if you load a saved game, the maps of unexplored levels will also change on each reload.
But to answer your question properly, look here
I agree with with pretty much everything you wrote.
The two things that disappointed me with KOTOR was that: [1] (given my experience with Fallout 1 & 2) you could not attack just anybody and [2] the queuing system and mechanics for battle were somewhat incomplete.
For [1], the storyline requires that you speak to certain characters before you can proceed, so having the option to kill those characters prior to speaking to them would completely stop story progression. The devs could have built a game that allows for a very shallow story of you simply slaughtering everything (Fallout allows unprovoked attacking). I should say that this issue is not a deficiency in the game, but something that would have been a very nice bonus if included.
For [2], there were a couple of things I disliked about the fighting system. The first glaring problem was that when my character is attacking a creature, the other party members should at least join in rather than just stand there and watch (it happens often enough). The second problem occurs after a party member gets incapacitated, when they wake up they mostly just stand and watch (also all commands queued while incap'd are discarded upon becoming awake - at least that's how I remember it).
Basically, my only real problem with KOTOR was the "stand and watch" issue. It didn't happen all the time, but it was annoying when it did. Aside from that, great game.
Which is why I always program the VCR to start 2 min prior to the scheduled time and to end 2 min after.
The only problem I've run into was when the schedule gets fouled up by 15 or so minutes (normally sports related). A recent Simpsons episode had that mis-timing problem (Fox5-NYC), which kinda ticked me off. It seems that their entire prime-time schedule was time-shifted that day.
I used to store all my important information using a large set of abaci, but then we had that earthquake ... and ... I'm sorry, but that event still gets me all emotional.
Here's the correct and more permanent link.
(when they release a new comic tomorrow, this one will still refer to the correct one)
2 + 2 = 11
all in radix-3, of course.
Since you mentioned ThinkGeek, the concept is more in lines with this one.
There are two complaints I have, with the interviewer and the one being interviewed. I'll start with my complaint with the school being interviewed.
The administration in all schools love/hate these lists. It's a crude way to provide a relative measure of a school's performance.
fta: To determine the rankings for America's Most Connected Campuses, The Princeton Review solicited data from 357 top colleges and universities around the country, asking them twenty questions about the technological sophistication of their campuses.
That tells me that the administration had the opportunity to present to the interviewer. Most importantly, they have the opportunity to even bend the truth a little. Given that, WHY would they answer 'no' to anything that was even remotely a 'yes'. Answering 'no' is guaranteed to reduce your score and a higher score means that you can brag about the rank even more during admission season.
Take the example of my alma mater: Stevens.
question: Does the school stream its campus radio or TV stations?
answer: no.
Really? Just a quick look at their website states, "WCPR is now online and accessible both on-campus and off-campus via our Internet webcast! (see the link to the right)". Yes, it does work and they've had streaming radio there for years - just check the wayback
If they answered yes to that one, they'd have 5 'no' answers and get listed in the top 25 - where I'm sure they'd love to be. Someone is not promoting the school well enough and to drop from being #1 last year to this.... As an alumnus, I'm rather disappointed.
On the complaint I have with the interviewer: IMO, the worst question is "Does tuition include a computer?". Any school that answered yes to that should be avoided. Yet a 'yes' would give you a higher score...
In defense of Forbes, they do list a lot of the details. At least one can point out the failures in their methodology to anyone interested.
When the current equipment doesn't work: dust off the old equipment.
The big problem not directly addressed however...
No matter how often they change the appearance of the currency: if an older (and easier to copy) version is still being accepted, then why bother counterfeiting the new ones? I mean, everyone still accepts the pre-1996 $20 bills worldwide.
Check out some of the related links above:
:)
Best deals: Democrats
Best deals: Republicans
Best deals: United States
Who thought buying into the system could be so transparent?
I'll take 200 shares of the junior senator from my state and 100 of the representative from my neighboring district.
Amusing sidelines: note the /. reference in the images in the article...
Checking the UID (206618), this is one VERY quiet individual.
But the thing I find weird is that pater (without writing any comments or journal or anything) somehow has a fan. I guess they know each other offline.
While on the topic of UIDs, what's with 31337 and 666?
Lately, Acclaim has become well known for one thing in particular (hint: baby Turok).
Maybe they're thinking on an abstract level, but isn't this taking the concept too far?
As long as the big boys still make that oh-so-satisfying "BOOM" when they go off, I'll be thrilled as ever.
I assume you're referring to the high flying ones, but how about the ones that explode like 100ft up? The ones that evoke an applause from all the parked cars.
In some twisted way, I actually look forward to that orchestra of car alarms typically heard after the fireworks finale (when they usually schedule the 2-minute low-altitude bombardment).
Now that I think about it, the organizers probably do that on purpose.