I would actually disagree with you here. Look, for instance, at the situation in Iraq. Gun ownership in Iraq is not as high as in America, but what is there has been enough to cause problems for American soldiers and for the ongoing conquest in Iraq.
Now, let's think about the United States. Gun ownership is much higher, and involves much more sophisticated weaponry. While Americans may not care about Iraqi children getting blown to smithereens in bombing runs, they certainly *would* care about American children getting killed. A government that turns its guns against its own armed populace is going to fall- it may take a very, very long time, but it will happen.
The government *could* possibly pacify an armed rebellion, but not without destroying its own ability to resist external conquest.
I don't know how the 1.10 patch has changed things on the realm- I can't play right now due to my CD situation. However, the closed realms are rife with Maphack users (they see the whole map and the positions and equipment of everyone on it), triggerhack (I don't even want to know what that does), Pindlebot (a program that creates random games and kills Pindleskin, looking for specific unique or set items), password hacks, and item duplication program users. Most unique and set items that one would find traded on the Realms have been duplicated; all ITH items and most Zephyr items have been hacked into the game and duplicated. Most Stones of Jordan have been duplicated.
I can't develop my point about what Blizzard could have done (and still can do) to stop almost all item duplication- I gave my word I wouldn't reveal that information. As for the core team leaving, however, Bill Roper and most of the original Blizzard developers have left and have formed a new company. Details are available when scanning the front page at diabloii.net ; there are interviews with Roper, links, and various other good stuff. In the meantime, Blizzard's creative team has been gutted- the intellectual and creative powerhouses behind the Warcrafts, Starcraft, and the two Diablo games are now part of a separate company. According to Roper, they left because of disagreements with management about creative control and various other administrative things. The problems with Blizzard have been overwhelmingly a problem with management and administration.
I have really good memories of Realm play- rushing my girlfriend to Nightmare, beating Hell Diablo into the ground (Eat THIS, you red lizardly slug!), getting my first Windforce, etc. However, I found that the Realms simply ceased to be acceptable, and while I know about the various clans, guilds, etc., I found their rules too restrictive and the attitudes cliquish.
My opposition to buying Blizzard games is mostly based on morality and disgust. Morally, I don't think I can buy a product from a company that has sued its own fans for the crime of trying to overcome the company's own failings (bnetd was written to create independent, low-lag servers for people who couldn't or wouldn't use Battle.net). I also can't justify (personally) buying from a company that could eliminate most of the problems on the Realms in roughly thirty minutes, but chooses not to.
I would argue strongly against any such "deep-rooted community"- the community on the Realms is one of "pwning," "n00b5," and "ITAM PLZ!"
I didn't stick with my first impressions- I played the game for several months until my CDs got damaged again in a move recently; I managed to get my girlfriend hooked on it and we would often play together. My impressions were built over months of gameplay and a years-long relationship with Blizzard products.
Blizzard makes good games- Warcraft, Warcraft II, Starcraft, Diablo I, and Diablo II (along with various expansions- except Hellfire; that was Sierra) have been obsessions of mine at various points. Personally, I can't wait to see what Roper et al. do- but they're not with Blizzard anymore, apparently for reasons similar to my own reasons for dissatisfaction.
Returning to an earlier point, Battle.net is now incredibly player-unfriendly; cheats, hacks, and exploits abound, spambots rule the trading channels, and player-killers ruin even strong-password-protected games. I'm actually old enough to remember original Battle.net, with Diablo and Starcraft. Despite the problems with hacks in the original Diablo, Battle.net as a whole was a much more vibrant community. Blizzard's managers have allowed it to decay, diverting key staff and refusing to take measures to protect the realms. You make references to account bannings- but those have barely scratched the surface of the problem.
I wish I could share with you the biggest problem I have with Blizzard... unfortunately, I gave my word I wouldn't share that information. Sorry:-( Suffice it to say, Blizzard has had the (nontechnological) solution to the hack problems on the realms for two years now, but has chosen not to employ it for reasons that defy explication. And that's really more than I can say.
Unfortunately, with a multiplayer game it's difficult to have a varying, multilayered plot. Diablo 2 has, indeed, always been about the combat, the items, and the experience. Some people don't like that kind of game; I think I'm going to start moving away from that sort of game myself.
I have had similar problems with Blizzard tech support, dating back all the way to *Warcraft II*. They're slow to respond, and when they do it's with an FAQ that has nothing to do with your problem. I, too, had a problematic play disc (actually, it got scratched badly after I got the game), and wasn't able to play for a year and a half because Blizzard wouldn't get me a replacement disc. I had a *hell* of a blast once I managed to get around that, but it was a PITA in the meantime.
I wrote an article on diabloii.net about my personal issues with Blizzard, specifically their lack of support, the bnetd issue, and Blizzard's relationship with Vivendi. Unfortunately, the diabloii.net site owners kept my article in the queue for months, and it was outdated. I, too, am unsure about whether I will purchase another Blizzard game- I certainly haven't bought Warcraft III.
Ehh, not *quite* everyone. I'm an active Halo player, have played a lot of Quake and Quake 2, Ghost Recon, and Medal of Honor. Haven't played Half-Life... come to think of it, from what I've seen of Counter-Strike and Half-Life, I'm not interested in playing it.
Ah, excellent. In that case, more power to you and I'm very glad for you. Your company appears to have some strength.
Unfortunately, not everyone is in a similar position of buying strength. I'm glad WINE has worked out well for you; I actually rather like the software.
You are absolutely and totally correct- except that plants don't move, and emissions from plants travel at a fixed distance and usually a fixed speed between the source of the emissions and the sensor. On the road, there is no such guarantee, and the sensor- and the emission source- is subject to orders of magnitude more variability and much more environmental exposure, and hence a great deal more likelihood of false reports.
Now, if the spectroscopic sensor were embedded in the tailpipe or mounted on the bumper pointed at the tailpipe, that would work well- but civil libertarians would (probably justifiably) be up in arms over such heavy-handed law enforcement.
Eventually, this system will probably work for cars- I doubt by 2010, but eventually. However, until it's reliable and prevents innocent, law-abiding drivers from being unfairly targeted, I don't think it's proper or fair to implement it.
Do they honestly think this will work? Honestly? I mean, given the inherently unpredictable effects wind patterns, temperature, barometric pressure, precipitation, and even sunlight have on the often wildly fluctuating pollutant emissions coming from the cars in question, the false positive and false negative rates will make lie detectors look valid by comparison. And of course there will be no compensation for the driver if the sensor is triggered inappropriately.
Will it really? Why? As long as WINE is on your system and you're having no problems, why should the supplier go to the extra trouble to make the software Windows-ready? In a non-competitive environment (and I get the feeling that's the situation here), the supplier can do whatever it feels like and you can't really complain.
Now, if there's competition, great. Write all of the competition (and your supplier) a note, saying "The first company to include full, stable Linux support gets the sale." *THEN* there's incentive.
Personally, I find the whole "WINE=betrayal of the open source community" a bunch of bullcrap, but in order to avoid being stuck by WINE you have to be proactive.
Umm... wrong. *Very* wrong. Users that buy Winmodems may get Windows with their system... but has it occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, they might want to *try* Linux? That perhaps they're tired of Windows crashes and want to move to something better? If their sole connection to the internet is via a modem, and there isn't a Linux driver available for it, they probably won't buy a new modem just to get it to work in Linux; they'll go back to using Windows. I was an exception- I bought a new modem. Turns out it was a WinModem, too. The frustration led me to abandon Linux for two years.
Had this project been around, I might not have left Linux behind. I might have relegated my WinXP partition to games.
Yes, the Linux/*BSD community tends to know enough to avoid WinModems. However, if Linux is to gain a foothold on the desktop, hardware compatibility is a must. Linux won't be free if you have to buy new hardware for it, now will it?
1) It was Columbia, not Challenger; both tragedies, of course, were due to the bureaucrats not listening to the people that actually understood what they were doing. Very, very bad.
2) The problem with the foam was the velocity, not the composition of the material. This foam looks to be quite useful, although I'm a bit skeptical about outgassing rendering the foam useless before it can even be applied. And yes, I know it was a joke.
FYI, the Total Perspective Vortex was in the novels. I haven't heard the radio series yet, but it exists (as part of an intensely detailed simulation in the HHG editor's office) in the novels.
I agree with you mostly, but I take exception to the "blowhard" comment about Moseley-Braun. She's a very intelligent, knowledgable woman- she just doesn't have a chance of getting elected. She'd probably be a decent president, though, again, her campaign is largely symbolic.
Sharpton, though, is one of the biggest blowhards there is.
The XBox has DRM built-in, and modifying it could be seen as tampering with the DRM interface- thus falling under provisions of the DMCA, yadda yadda. Also, procurement contracts or EULAs (I don't know if there are any in the XBox... um, box, since I don't own one) could forbid modification of the hardware. All of those grounds for legal action are shaky in an informed court, but there aren't very many at the moment since the American judiciary, at least, as a whole hasn't caught up with technology.
Not a problem. Just Flick the switch and you don't have to worry about it. You can have it on turbo for when you want it, and have it off when you don't.
Personally, I rather like the new look; the old "black box" thing didn't do it for me. Probably Microsoft would do well to consider some of the ideas embodied in this product for its next generation of consoles.
Wait a second... I'm offering Microsoft helpful hints for continuing its domination of the marketplace? WHAT THE HELL AM I SAYING?!?!
That's great, I'm pleased for you- but I've found WinXP telnet almost impossible to get through a firewall with. Especially when one is trying to connect to an SMTP server to find out what the heck is wrong.
On the flip side, it also presents a security nightmare for school networks. If sysadmins don't know about it- and at two high schools and an undergrad college, apparently they haven't, in any version of Windows- script kiddies and bored teens can wreak havoc with the systems, or eat up unmonitored bandwidth transferring files to CDs.
Personally, I'm a little bit split on its inclusion in WinXP- on the one hand, it's a useful, basic tool that works for most uses that don't involve firewalls, and is a nice tool for a home user. On the other hand, it's yet one more open, unsecured route through which a crafty worm writer could access yet-uninfected machines, or through which malicious children could wreak havoc for poorly informed admins.
It's things like these- the little "features" that could have been left out- that were part of the reason David Geer wrote his article, and thus doomed him to be axed by the Microsoft-worshippers at his company. He was probably stupid to write about it on company time knowing the biases of the company, but he was dead on.
You, my friend, are my hero. Not only do you have good taste in games, but you've helped me find a song I've been looking for forever.
Back on topic, the ghouls from Fallout and Fallout 2 were rather cool. There was that one old guy in Fallout 2- his best line: "His name's Bob!" Of course, when you're seeing what he's referring to it's much more funny.
The best sound effects ever, though, have to be from System Shock 2. I still wake up with Shodan's voice in my head.
I responded earlier, but now that I know some of your story I can offer a more tailored response:
1) They have absolutely no case whatsoever in the United States, in Canada, in Mexico, or any place other than China, North Korea, or any other totalitarian state. Even if it's a private institution. Classmates.com could probably sue you for patent infringement, and probably successfully, but that's not their concern. They're spouting off, they're wrong, they could well be committing barratry.
2) If they sent an email or letter to the school board accusing you of deception, you might have a (relatively weak) chance of proving defamatory statements/libel. Get a copy of that letter. Even if for defensive purposes, get a copy of that letter. They're attempting to cast aspersions on your good moral character, and not only is that wrong, it's reason to countersue if they continue to countersue.
3) It should be obvious by now, but don't delete any messages. Keep 'em.
4) Make sure your classmates know that you're being accused falsely, that you have not broken any laws regarding the school, and that any emails they receive from the alumni association are false, potentially defamatory, and should be ignored.
5) Make sure you know a lawyer, and that he's familiar with your situation. Read all of their emails, but don't respond unless you really need to. If you need to, call your lawyer.
Yes, it's legal. Assuming your school wasn't a private school, you can hook up as many people as you want for whatever price you want- as long as you make it clear that you're not an employee or affiliate of the school.. You're matchmaking based on a common interest, i.e. that school.
If they contact you about it again, tell them politely that you're exercising your rights as a public citizen and serving as a resource for alumni. If they would like to cooperate with you to avoid competiting services, that would be lovely; however, in the interests of alumni relations you would suggest that they cease their threats of legal action to avoid the inevitable bad press and probable decline in alumni support, as well as the embarrassing and ultimately expensive legal battle. If you keep getting problems, use your alumni network to find legal representation.
If it's a private school, though, you may well be screwed. I doubt it, but you may.
I'm not exactly a fan of Microsoft, but I think you're missing something here. First of all, *as you said*, it's a beta. A downloaded, incomplete, officially disavoved beta. Crikeys, man.
You mentioned the graphics being a problem. Has it occurred to you that those might be *beta* textures, mostly untouched by the graphics department? Because that was the first thought that popped into *my* head. Having seen betas of other games- and, yes, even ports from one system to another- I think it's rather safe for me to say that this is a common practice. Engine comes first. Pretty graphics come later, since they increase loading time before final optimization.
AI was also not near completion when that beta was leaked, from what I've heard- so you should be pleasantly surprised when it comes out.
The level design in the original Halo was spotty sometimes, I agree- that's why I didn't play the game for the single player environment. There were some designs that were somewhat interesting, but the campaign wasn't exactly the game's most shining moment.
If I remember correctly, the first level in the X-box version also had some cooperative action going on. I can't be sure from what you're saying whether it was a substantive change or not- guess I'll just have to wait until the game comes out.
If you can afford to buy it, buy it or don't play it. Obviously you've made up your mind about the game beforehand, so don't play it when it comes out. Play one of the "real games" you're so excited about and keep comparing to an unreleasable beta.
Bungie *started* development on the PC, yes. Then came the Microsoft deal, and yes, they did sell out. It's part of the game industry. Microsoft used the title very, very successfully to sell the X-box, and people bought into it. Tough cookies. If you don't like it, again, don't play it. Don't give the rest of us some sanctimonious bullshit about that somehow justifying your piracy. It doesn't.
I don't buy it, and I'm glad you haven't been modded up. What you're failing to realize is that the immigrants from India (and loads of other countries) end up becoming Americans when they live and work here, and end up contributing productively to the economy.
I get the feeling that when you say "Americans" you mean "Americans I'm comfortable with," which means "people who don't speak with accents and who have a similar skin color-" because if not I fail entirely to see the reason behind your statement. Our country is composed of immigrants and descendents of immigrants- hell, even the Native Americans are immigrants, if you trace it back far enough. You, yourself are the descendent of immigrants. So why spread FUD about people with roots analogous to your own?
I just noticed the time/date stamp (I'm usually oblivious to dates), and it occurred to me that this is a very topical discussion to have today. Many of the people who died in the World Trade Center two years ago today were immigrants to the United States or here under work visas. Many of the firefighters and policemen who died were immigrants or the sons and daughters of immigrants. The immigrants "took American jobs"- and yet many became citizens or were in the process of becoming citizens, thus becoming Americans themselves. The point I'm making is that immigration- even in massive waves- has always been and will always be an important facet of the economic and cultural life of the United States, as has anti-immigrant bigotry, intolerance, and xenophobia. I invite you to reflect on this.
1) "Love thy neighbor as thyself" 2) "Give all your money to the poor" - doesn't say anything about the *worthy* poor, does it?- "and follow me; in this way shall you enter the kingdom of heaven." 3) "If a man strikes you on your cheek, turn your other cheek that he may strike you on that one." 4) "If a man asks for your cloak, give him your tunic also."
It would be wrong to deny benefits to the needy poor because of a few bad apples. Does our system need work? Absolutely: it denies benefits to those who need them. In Florida, you cannot receive social services unless you have a social security number *and* a birth certificate *and* a photo ID. The Salvation Army- such a wonderful, *Christian* organization- adds even more restrictions. My (former) stepmother and I tried to get help for a severely mentally ill man who had none of the above, and were turned away because "we have to make sure he's not defrauding the system." How many others are like him? I understand the problems inherent in a system where people pretend to be poor to get benefits- but good Lord, man, look what the restrictions we already have are doing to needy people!
Can you, in good conscience, say that in the name of fiscal responsibility, we should turn away even one person who is in honest, desperate need? Because no matter how you slice it, making it harder to get benefits hurts people who need them. If you can honestly say that... then I suggest a rereading of Jesus' words. God's work always comes above material concerns- for though money can be replaced, a unique child of God cannot.
I'm not going to touch on the first two points, except to say that we had those first two conditions in the early part of the 20th century and all the time before, and the result was a disease-breeding, undernourished, undereducated labor class that in other countries fueled the Nazi and Bolshevik revolutions. As for the third, the Libertarians I had spoken to before said that if an employer wanted to include a "no legal action" clause in a contract, then they should be allowed to do so and all legal claims against the company from that individual should be dismissed. With such a contractual system there would be no need for insurance. It was a very unsettling example they gave of the primacy of contracts they sought. If our goal is to reduce government oversight and "interference" as much as possible, pushing for that sort of measure would be consistent with that set of views.
Environmental regulations... ehh, I can see some flaws in that model even at this hour, including 1) nonspecific pollutants and development in ecologically sensitive areas. Nonspecific pollutants like CFCs and nitrogenous oxides, for instance, cause havoc at a distance, and it's impossible except in extraordinarily rare circumstances to prove that a specific polluter caused a specific type of damage. It would be rightly impossible to prove in court that a specific company caused harm. And lest you bring up "self-regulation" I'm going to say that self-regulation is a myth perpetrated by the clueless. Humans are fundamentally greedy and corporations (much as they are necessary, useful, and sometimes beneficial) are concentrated greed. And if you're going to bring up published data, on emissions there aren't enough people now who care enough to make purchasing decisions based on environmental issues now or to inform themselves on said issues- so why would people in this hypothetical utopia? It's a recipe for barely mitigated disaster.
As for getting rid of the FAA, I know it needs work, but sheesh. I'm sorry, but I don't want to live in a country in which bombs with wings are being controlled by nervous, armed people in front of a cabin of nervous, armed people with itchy trigger fingers. After all, it might be *my* house with *me* in it that gets flown into. Our current system is clunky, and I hate the current security system as much as anyone, but I find your solution absolutely *terrifying*. Even if it were only put into practice for a short period of time, the potential for absolute havoc and loss of life would be extreme.
I think the key most Libertarians miss about their party is that to replace the current sometimes clunky machinery of the modern United States government, citizens would have to spend most of their waking hours suing or defending themselves from suits- or, if the legal machinery became too clunky, engaging in or defending themselves from violence. That's fine if you're reasonably wealthy- you can afford to spend your time doing that. But in a society with limited resources, it puts too much strain on those with the least ability to absorb it.
I would say that the Libertarian party is *not* the best place to put in time or money, unless the poster enjoys strengthening those who would pronounce a death sentence on what's left of our pitiful environment and on those who depend on social programs to live. Personally, I have been fundamentally frightened by the Libertarians I have met, without fail. I accept the possibility that I've just run into a bad crop, but the Libertarians I've met are in favor of abolishing minimum wages, abolishing OSHA, eliminating the right of workers to sue their employers, eliminating all environmental regulations without exception, and even getting rid of the FAA. Three of the Libertarians I've known who have pursued these goals have run for public office with the Libertarian Party's support.
Read up on the Libertarian Party and talk to Libertarians, and then make your decision based on what you hear. Personally, given a choice between anyone and a Libertarian- even George W. Bush, whom I loathe- I would vote for the non-Libertarian- but that may just be me.
By the way, Ledge, I sincerely doubt that you're undereducated or a redneck. Scary in your support of the Libertarians, but probably not ignorant.
Slashdot Mirror
I would actually disagree with you here. Look, for instance, at the situation in Iraq. Gun ownership in Iraq is not as high as in America, but what is there has been enough to cause problems for American soldiers and for the ongoing conquest in Iraq.
Now, let's think about the United States. Gun ownership is much higher, and involves much more sophisticated weaponry. While Americans may not care about Iraqi children getting blown to smithereens in bombing runs, they certainly *would* care about American children getting killed. A government that turns its guns against its own armed populace is going to fall- it may take a very, very long time, but it will happen.
The government *could* possibly pacify an armed rebellion, but not without destroying its own ability to resist external conquest.
I don't know how the 1.10 patch has changed things on the realm- I can't play right now due to my CD situation. However, the closed realms are rife with Maphack users (they see the whole map and the positions and equipment of everyone on it), triggerhack (I don't even want to know what that does), Pindlebot (a program that creates random games and kills Pindleskin, looking for specific unique or set items), password hacks, and item duplication program users. Most unique and set items that one would find traded on the Realms have been duplicated; all ITH items and most Zephyr items have been hacked into the game and duplicated. Most Stones of Jordan have been duplicated.
I can't develop my point about what Blizzard could have done (and still can do) to stop almost all item duplication- I gave my word I wouldn't reveal that information. As for the core team leaving, however, Bill Roper and most of the original Blizzard developers have left and have formed a new company. Details are available when scanning the front page at diabloii.net ; there are interviews with Roper, links, and various other good stuff. In the meantime, Blizzard's creative team has been gutted- the intellectual and creative powerhouses behind the Warcrafts, Starcraft, and the two Diablo games are now part of a separate company. According to Roper, they left because of disagreements with management about creative control and various other administrative things. The problems with Blizzard have been overwhelmingly a problem with management and administration.
I have really good memories of Realm play- rushing my girlfriend to Nightmare, beating Hell Diablo into the ground (Eat THIS, you red lizardly slug!), getting my first Windforce, etc. However, I found that the Realms simply ceased to be acceptable, and while I know about the various clans, guilds, etc., I found their rules too restrictive and the attitudes cliquish.
My opposition to buying Blizzard games is mostly based on morality and disgust. Morally, I don't think I can buy a product from a company that has sued its own fans for the crime of trying to overcome the company's own failings (bnetd was written to create independent, low-lag servers for people who couldn't or wouldn't use Battle.net). I also can't justify (personally) buying from a company that could eliminate most of the problems on the Realms in roughly thirty minutes, but chooses not to.
I would argue strongly against any such "deep-rooted community"- the community on the Realms is one of "pwning," "n00b5," and "ITAM PLZ!"
:-( Suffice it to say, Blizzard has had the (nontechnological) solution to the hack problems on the realms for two years now, but has chosen not to employ it for reasons that defy explication. And that's really more than I can say.
I didn't stick with my first impressions- I played the game for several months until my CDs got damaged again in a move recently; I managed to get my girlfriend hooked on it and we would often play together. My impressions were built over months of gameplay and a years-long relationship with Blizzard products.
Blizzard makes good games- Warcraft, Warcraft II, Starcraft, Diablo I, and Diablo II (along with various expansions- except Hellfire; that was Sierra) have been obsessions of mine at various points. Personally, I can't wait to see what Roper et al. do- but they're not with Blizzard anymore, apparently for reasons similar to my own reasons for dissatisfaction.
Returning to an earlier point, Battle.net is now incredibly player-unfriendly; cheats, hacks, and exploits abound, spambots rule the trading channels, and player-killers ruin even strong-password-protected games. I'm actually old enough to remember original Battle.net, with Diablo and Starcraft. Despite the problems with hacks in the original Diablo, Battle.net as a whole was a much more vibrant community. Blizzard's managers have allowed it to decay, diverting key staff and refusing to take measures to protect the realms. You make references to account bannings- but those have barely scratched the surface of the problem.
I wish I could share with you the biggest problem I have with Blizzard... unfortunately, I gave my word I wouldn't share that information. Sorry
Unfortunately, with a multiplayer game it's difficult to have a varying, multilayered plot. Diablo 2 has, indeed, always been about the combat, the items, and the experience. Some people don't like that kind of game; I think I'm going to start moving away from that sort of game myself.
I have had similar problems with Blizzard tech support, dating back all the way to *Warcraft II*. They're slow to respond, and when they do it's with an FAQ that has nothing to do with your problem. I, too, had a problematic play disc (actually, it got scratched badly after I got the game), and wasn't able to play for a year and a half because Blizzard wouldn't get me a replacement disc. I had a *hell* of a blast once I managed to get around that, but it was a PITA in the meantime.
I wrote an article on diabloii.net about my personal issues with Blizzard, specifically their lack of support, the bnetd issue, and Blizzard's relationship with Vivendi. Unfortunately, the diabloii.net site owners kept my article in the queue for months, and it was outdated. I, too, am unsure about whether I will purchase another Blizzard game- I certainly haven't bought Warcraft III.
Ehh, not *quite* everyone. I'm an active Halo player, have played a lot of Quake and Quake 2, Ghost Recon, and Medal of Honor. Haven't played Half-Life... come to think of it, from what I've seen of Counter-Strike and Half-Life, I'm not interested in playing it.
I will agree that the deal kinda sucks, though.
Ah, excellent. In that case, more power to you and I'm very glad for you. Your company appears to have some strength.
Unfortunately, not everyone is in a similar position of buying strength. I'm glad WINE has worked out well for you; I actually rather like the software.
You are absolutely and totally correct- except that plants don't move, and emissions from plants travel at a fixed distance and usually a fixed speed between the source of the emissions and the sensor. On the road, there is no such guarantee, and the sensor- and the emission source- is subject to orders of magnitude more variability and much more environmental exposure, and hence a great deal more likelihood of false reports.
Now, if the spectroscopic sensor were embedded in the tailpipe or mounted on the bumper pointed at the tailpipe, that would work well- but civil libertarians would (probably justifiably) be up in arms over such heavy-handed law enforcement.
Eventually, this system will probably work for cars- I doubt by 2010, but eventually. However, until it's reliable and prevents innocent, law-abiding drivers from being unfairly targeted, I don't think it's proper or fair to implement it.
Do they honestly think this will work? Honestly? I mean, given the inherently unpredictable effects wind patterns, temperature, barometric pressure, precipitation, and even sunlight have on the often wildly fluctuating pollutant emissions coming from the cars in question, the false positive and false negative rates will make lie detectors look valid by comparison. And of course there will be no compensation for the driver if the sensor is triggered inappropriately.
Thank God I don't live in southern California.
Will it really? Why? As long as WINE is on your system and you're having no problems, why should the supplier go to the extra trouble to make the software Windows-ready? In a non-competitive environment (and I get the feeling that's the situation here), the supplier can do whatever it feels like and you can't really complain.
Now, if there's competition, great. Write all of the competition (and your supplier) a note, saying "The first company to include full, stable Linux support gets the sale." *THEN* there's incentive.
Personally, I find the whole "WINE=betrayal of the open source community" a bunch of bullcrap, but in order to avoid being stuck by WINE you have to be proactive.
Umm... wrong. *Very* wrong. Users that buy Winmodems may get Windows with their system... but has it occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, they might want to *try* Linux? That perhaps they're tired of Windows crashes and want to move to something better? If their sole connection to the internet is via a modem, and there isn't a Linux driver available for it, they probably won't buy a new modem just to get it to work in Linux; they'll go back to using Windows. I was an exception- I bought a new modem. Turns out it was a WinModem, too. The frustration led me to abandon Linux for two years.
Had this project been around, I might not have left Linux behind. I might have relegated my WinXP partition to games.
Yes, the Linux/*BSD community tends to know enough to avoid WinModems. However, if Linux is to gain a foothold on the desktop, hardware compatibility is a must. Linux won't be free if you have to buy new hardware for it, now will it?
Two things:
1) It was Columbia, not Challenger; both tragedies, of course, were due to the bureaucrats not listening to the people that actually understood what they were doing. Very, very bad.
2) The problem with the foam was the velocity, not the composition of the material. This foam looks to be quite useful, although I'm a bit skeptical about outgassing rendering the foam useless before it can even be applied. And yes, I know it was a joke.
FYI, the Total Perspective Vortex was in the novels. I haven't heard the radio series yet, but it exists (as part of an intensely detailed simulation in the HHG editor's office) in the novels.
I agree with you mostly, but I take exception to the "blowhard" comment about Moseley-Braun. She's a very intelligent, knowledgable woman- she just doesn't have a chance of getting elected. She'd probably be a decent president, though, again, her campaign is largely symbolic.
Sharpton, though, is one of the biggest blowhards there is.
Actually, we tried that- and it turned out it was a problem on my end, probably the XP telnet service. A different telnet client solved the problem.
The XBox has DRM built-in, and modifying it could be seen as tampering with the DRM interface- thus falling under provisions of the DMCA, yadda yadda. Also, procurement contracts or EULAs (I don't know if there are any in the XBox... um, box, since I don't own one) could forbid modification of the hardware. All of those grounds for legal action are shaky in an informed court, but there aren't very many at the moment since the American judiciary, at least, as a whole hasn't caught up with technology.
Not a problem. Just Flick the switch and you don't have to worry about it. You can have it on turbo for when you want it, and have it off when you don't.
Personally, I rather like the new look; the old "black box" thing didn't do it for me. Probably Microsoft would do well to consider some of the ideas embodied in this product for its next generation of consoles.
Wait a second... I'm offering Microsoft helpful hints for continuing its domination of the marketplace? WHAT THE HELL AM I SAYING?!?!
That's great, I'm pleased for you- but I've found WinXP telnet almost impossible to get through a firewall with. Especially when one is trying to connect to an SMTP server to find out what the heck is wrong.
On the flip side, it also presents a security nightmare for school networks. If sysadmins don't know about it- and at two high schools and an undergrad college, apparently they haven't, in any version of Windows- script kiddies and bored teens can wreak havoc with the systems, or eat up unmonitored bandwidth transferring files to CDs.
Personally, I'm a little bit split on its inclusion in WinXP- on the one hand, it's a useful, basic tool that works for most uses that don't involve firewalls, and is a nice tool for a home user. On the other hand, it's yet one more open, unsecured route through which a crafty worm writer could access yet-uninfected machines, or through which malicious children could wreak havoc for poorly informed admins.
It's things like these- the little "features" that could have been left out- that were part of the reason David Geer wrote his article, and thus doomed him to be axed by the Microsoft-worshippers at his company. He was probably stupid to write about it on company time knowing the biases of the company, but he was dead on.
You, my friend, are my hero. Not only do you have good taste in games, but you've helped me find a song I've been looking for forever.
Back on topic, the ghouls from Fallout and Fallout 2 were rather cool. There was that one old guy in Fallout 2- his best line: "His name's Bob!" Of course, when you're seeing what he's referring to it's much more funny.
The best sound effects ever, though, have to be from System Shock 2. I still wake up with Shodan's voice in my head.
I responded earlier, but now that I know some of your story I can offer a more tailored response:
1) They have absolutely no case whatsoever in the United States, in Canada, in Mexico, or any place other than China, North Korea, or any other totalitarian state. Even if it's a private institution. Classmates.com could probably sue you for patent infringement, and probably successfully, but that's not their concern. They're spouting off, they're wrong, they could well be committing barratry.
2) If they sent an email or letter to the school board accusing you of deception, you might have a (relatively weak) chance of proving defamatory statements/libel. Get a copy of that letter. Even if for defensive purposes, get a copy of that letter. They're attempting to cast aspersions on your good moral character, and not only is that wrong, it's reason to countersue if they continue to countersue.
3) It should be obvious by now, but don't delete any messages. Keep 'em.
4) Make sure your classmates know that you're being accused falsely, that you have not broken any laws regarding the school, and that any emails they receive from the alumni association are false, potentially defamatory, and should be ignored.
5) Make sure you know a lawyer, and that he's familiar with your situation. Read all of their emails, but don't respond unless you really need to. If you need to, call your lawyer.
Yes, it's legal. Assuming your school wasn't a private school, you can hook up as many people as you want for whatever price you want- as long as you make it clear that you're not an employee or affiliate of the school.. You're matchmaking based on a common interest, i.e. that school.
If they contact you about it again, tell them politely that you're exercising your rights as a public citizen and serving as a resource for alumni. If they would like to cooperate with you to avoid competiting services, that would be lovely; however, in the interests of alumni relations you would suggest that they cease their threats of legal action to avoid the inevitable bad press and probable decline in alumni support, as well as the embarrassing and ultimately expensive legal battle. If you keep getting problems, use your alumni network to find legal representation.
If it's a private school, though, you may well be screwed. I doubt it, but you may.
I'm not exactly a fan of Microsoft, but I think you're missing something here. First of all, *as you said*, it's a beta. A downloaded, incomplete, officially disavoved beta. Crikeys, man.
You mentioned the graphics being a problem. Has it occurred to you that those might be *beta* textures, mostly untouched by the graphics department? Because that was the first thought that popped into *my* head. Having seen betas of other games- and, yes, even ports from one system to another- I think it's rather safe for me to say that this is a common practice. Engine comes first. Pretty graphics come later, since they increase loading time before final optimization.
AI was also not near completion when that beta was leaked, from what I've heard- so you should be pleasantly surprised when it comes out.
The level design in the original Halo was spotty sometimes, I agree- that's why I didn't play the game for the single player environment. There were some designs that were somewhat interesting, but the campaign wasn't exactly the game's most shining moment.
If I remember correctly, the first level in the X-box version also had some cooperative action going on. I can't be sure from what you're saying whether it was a substantive change or not- guess I'll just have to wait until the game comes out.
If you can afford to buy it, buy it or don't play it. Obviously you've made up your mind about the game beforehand, so don't play it when it comes out. Play one of the "real games" you're so excited about and keep comparing to an unreleasable beta.
Bungie *started* development on the PC, yes. Then came the Microsoft deal, and yes, they did sell out. It's part of the game industry. Microsoft used the title very, very successfully to sell the X-box, and people bought into it. Tough cookies. If you don't like it, again, don't play it. Don't give the rest of us some sanctimonious bullshit about that somehow justifying your piracy. It doesn't.
I don't buy it, and I'm glad you haven't been modded up. What you're failing to realize is that the immigrants from India (and loads of other countries) end up becoming Americans when they live and work here, and end up contributing productively to the economy.
I get the feeling that when you say "Americans" you mean "Americans I'm comfortable with," which means "people who don't speak with accents and who have a similar skin color-" because if not I fail entirely to see the reason behind your statement. Our country is composed of immigrants and descendents of immigrants- hell, even the Native Americans are immigrants, if you trace it back far enough. You, yourself are the descendent of immigrants. So why spread FUD about people with roots analogous to your own?
I just noticed the time/date stamp (I'm usually oblivious to dates), and it occurred to me that this is a very topical discussion to have today. Many of the people who died in the World Trade Center two years ago today were immigrants to the United States or here under work visas. Many of the firefighters and policemen who died were immigrants or the sons and daughters of immigrants. The immigrants "took American jobs"- and yet many became citizens or were in the process of becoming citizens, thus becoming Americans themselves. The point I'm making is that immigration- even in massive waves- has always been and will always be an important facet of the economic and cultural life of the United States, as has anti-immigrant bigotry, intolerance, and xenophobia. I invite you to reflect on this.
The Bible also says:
1) "Love thy neighbor as thyself"
2) "Give all your money to the poor" - doesn't say anything about the *worthy* poor, does it?- "and follow me; in this way shall you enter the kingdom of heaven."
3) "If a man strikes you on your cheek, turn your other cheek that he may strike you on that one."
4) "If a man asks for your cloak, give him your tunic also."
It would be wrong to deny benefits to the needy poor because of a few bad apples. Does our system need work? Absolutely: it denies benefits to those who need them. In Florida, you cannot receive social services unless you have a social security number *and* a birth certificate *and* a photo ID. The Salvation Army- such a wonderful, *Christian* organization- adds even more restrictions. My (former) stepmother and I tried to get help for a severely mentally ill man who had none of the above, and were turned away because "we have to make sure he's not defrauding the system." How many others are like him? I understand the problems inherent in a system where people pretend to be poor to get benefits- but good Lord, man, look what the restrictions we already have are doing to needy people!
Can you, in good conscience, say that in the name of fiscal responsibility, we should turn away even one person who is in honest, desperate need? Because no matter how you slice it, making it harder to get benefits hurts people who need them. If you can honestly say that... then I suggest a rereading of Jesus' words. God's work always comes above material concerns- for though money can be replaced, a unique child of God cannot.
I'm not going to touch on the first two points, except to say that we had those first two conditions in the early part of the 20th century and all the time before, and the result was a disease-breeding, undernourished, undereducated labor class that in other countries fueled the Nazi and Bolshevik revolutions. As for the third, the Libertarians I had spoken to before said that if an employer wanted to include a "no legal action" clause in a contract, then they should be allowed to do so and all legal claims against the company from that individual should be dismissed. With such a contractual system there would be no need for insurance. It was a very unsettling example they gave of the primacy of contracts they sought. If our goal is to reduce government oversight and "interference" as much as possible, pushing for that sort of measure would be consistent with that set of views.
Environmental regulations... ehh, I can see some flaws in that model even at this hour, including 1) nonspecific pollutants and development in ecologically sensitive areas. Nonspecific pollutants like CFCs and nitrogenous oxides, for instance, cause havoc at a distance, and it's impossible except in extraordinarily rare circumstances to prove that a specific polluter caused a specific type of damage. It would be rightly impossible to prove in court that a specific company caused harm. And lest you bring up "self-regulation" I'm going to say that self-regulation is a myth perpetrated by the clueless. Humans are fundamentally greedy and corporations (much as they are necessary, useful, and sometimes beneficial) are concentrated greed. And if you're going to bring up published data, on emissions there aren't enough people now who care enough to make purchasing decisions based on environmental issues now or to inform themselves on said issues- so why would people in this hypothetical utopia? It's a recipe for barely mitigated disaster.
As for getting rid of the FAA, I know it needs work, but sheesh. I'm sorry, but I don't want to live in a country in which bombs with wings are being controlled by nervous, armed people in front of a cabin of nervous, armed people with itchy trigger fingers. After all, it might be *my* house with *me* in it that gets flown into. Our current system is clunky, and I hate the current security system as much as anyone, but I find your solution absolutely *terrifying*. Even if it were only put into practice for a short period of time, the potential for absolute havoc and loss of life would be extreme.
I think the key most Libertarians miss about their party is that to replace the current sometimes clunky machinery of the modern United States government, citizens would have to spend most of their waking hours suing or defending themselves from suits- or, if the legal machinery became too clunky, engaging in or defending themselves from violence. That's fine if you're reasonably wealthy- you can afford to spend your time doing that. But in a society with limited resources, it puts too much strain on those with the least ability to absorb it.
I would say that the Libertarian party is *not* the best place to put in time or money, unless the poster enjoys strengthening those who would pronounce a death sentence on what's left of our pitiful environment and on those who depend on social programs to live. Personally, I have been fundamentally frightened by the Libertarians I have met, without fail. I accept the possibility that I've just run into a bad crop, but the Libertarians I've met are in favor of abolishing minimum wages, abolishing OSHA, eliminating the right of workers to sue their employers, eliminating all environmental regulations without exception, and even getting rid of the FAA. Three of the Libertarians I've known who have pursued these goals have run for public office with the Libertarian Party's support.
Read up on the Libertarian Party and talk to Libertarians, and then make your decision based on what you hear. Personally, given a choice between anyone and a Libertarian- even George W. Bush, whom I loathe- I would vote for the non-Libertarian- but that may just be me.
By the way, Ledge, I sincerely doubt that you're undereducated or a redneck. Scary in your support of the Libertarians, but probably not ignorant.