brilliant work, with only one minor comment: you think that the creators of the media (TV, games, etc.) don't know you exist? while they may not know you or pander to you personally, they are certainly aware that you exist. you are part of a target market. the creators don't know the specifics about you, but if you're buying the game/watching the show, you have certain other things in common with other players/viewers. in the case of GTA, you're probably either interested in a crime-genre game that's put together extremely well, or "just playing it to see what the hype is about." in either role (or possibly others, depending on the game/show) you are not an unknown factor to the people who are making these things. they're (in a sense) made for you, the consumer, the person who is going to buy/watch the game/show.
I certainly agree with your point about how the decisions we make are our own (if we can't be accountable for ourselves, who else will?) but when it comes down to it, the reason that the games/shows are the way they are is because of a market trend somewhere. we want to assume the role of a thug in southwest california. it may not be such a specific desire, but we have a curiosity about these things. it's not something a lot of people are willing to go out and see about. (when was the last time you went on a violent crime spree to see what it was like?)
someone somewhere said to themselves "wouldn't it be cool if I could run around, jack cars, give hookers money, sleep with them, shoot them, then reclaim my money, all in a place where that kind of thing carries no consequence beyond getting 'busted' and having to start over?" that person can't claim to have made an accurate representation of reality, but its close enough for your average consumer, plus its a lot of fun, dammit.
now the creator wants to distribute his product. why? to make money, to disseminate thoughts and ideas, to see others enjoying something he worked hard on, the list goes on. (we're not limiting the marketed creation to merely GTA at this point; this applies to everything ever created and then displayed in some manner) point being, the person who created whatever you're enjoying was not creating it in a social vacuum. they were well aware that, even if what they were doing was intended to be personal, there are probably others out there that would enjoy it on some level. when we're talking about video games and TV shows, the people that create them and distribute them had better be damn sure that there are a whole lot of "others" out there just itching to drop some cash and spend some time.
I think we can all agree that some video games and TV shows are violent on some level. they wouldn't be if we didn't want to watch it. (trust me, no one makes a TV show that no one wants to watch) the problem we seem to have is distinguishing between conscious and unconscious action, but it seems pretty clear to me that blaming the video game companies and TV show producers for products that society wants (or even demands) is a silly thing to do. we need to reclaim our actions and start taking responsibility for what we do. time was, spilling hot coffee (no pun intended) in your lap was considered a stupid thing to do, but if it happened, you learned, you spent a week without sex, and you tried not to do it again. now, you can sue a multi-national corporation for not telling you that the hot coffee you ordered was indeed, as requested, "hot." where does it stop? where is the line that, when crossed, means that all actions you take are not your own? IMO, this is the real question. when are we as a society going to realize that the easier it is to blame others for our problems, the worse our problems are going to get
I have a feeling that introductory working models of this idea will be involved in merely hiding a stationary object, such as a base tent or other important thing. Under close scrutiny, it would obviously have visible flaws, but with a cursory glance, or from a great distance it has potential. However, this is assuming your enemy isn't using any sort of IR device... There are all sorts of holes in the theory but I have a feeling that the first models will be more of a learning experience than anything, really. Sort of a springboard to more advanced models and techniques. Early forms of advanced technology usually are...
I ask: wheres the challenge in cooperating? The only difficulty that exists is if someone decides that they don't want to cooperate. Will there be a "coerce" function in this game? Cooperation game... That has to be the strangest idea for a video game. Why don't we make a game where the objective is to publish a violent game despite the protests and whinings of christian groups and others who think that simple games inspire people to kill? Come on people, if the person who plays this is so unbalanced that they are inspired to kill after playing it, its pretty obvious that they are unbalanced enough to kill WITHOUT playing it. Please, stop trying to ruin fun for others simply because you don't believe in it. I don't believe in religion but I don't try to prevent people from praying or making those really crappy christian cartoons...
Another common misconception is that it is possible, through methodical play, to tilt the odds in your favor at the blackjack table. This is simply not true. As a fan of blackjack, I have read several books on the subject and all of them admit that the only way to get the odds in your favor is to count cards. If you play by the rules (hit on 16 versus a 10, stand on anything above an 11 if the dealer shows a 6, etc.) the odds come CLOSE to 50/50, but still don't quite reach the point of being even. As a strict adherent to the rules, I often watch, amused, as I see people make obvious mistakes and pay dearly for them. I've watched people split 10s and end up with a pair of 16s, and double on 12s, busting with 22. It's never a pretty sight... The best advice you can offer to anyone who wants to try to make money at blackjack with minimal effort is this:
Play by ALL the rules (you can buy a small card in most casino gift shops that has a chart for how to play every possible player-dealer hand combination, they are about $1 and they are legal at all tables).
Once you know how to react in almost every situation you can start to count 10s and Aces. This isn't going TELL you whats coming up, but it will give you an idea of how likely you are to get high hands. With a 6-deck shoe, count down from 96 (10s) and 24 (Aces). This works especially well on tables where you have the option of an over/under 13 bet (a bet where you guess whether your initial 2 cards will be over or under 13. Aces are 1, and a hand of 13 loses either way). The goal with this method isn't to predict whats coming, but to tip the odds very slightly in your favor. If you play by the rules, it should help.
Dealer: "19" Homer: "Hit me" Dealer: "20" Homer: "Hit me" Dealer: "21" Homer: "Hit me" Dealer: "22" Homer: "Doh!"
I agree, it makes you wonder how often they check their equipment, this kind of thing takes time. We have a multi-billion dollar piece of equipment and we apparently don't have the money to keep it in top shape. Its worse if they regularly inspect it and just missed this problem repeatedly...
Thus my problem: I can't decide which politician to believe. I know many of you will say neither, which is generally the right answer, but this is a special case. I've heard that NASA is underfunded from some people and that it's recieving billions of dollars a year from others, which would SEEM to be enough. If they ARE getting enough money, then I'm glad my money is being wasted AND I'm being lied to, if they aren't getting enough money, I'm glad they decided to cut corners by ignoring safety... *sigh* Government...
AND WHAT ARE THEY DOING SPENDING $600 ON A HAMMER???
Speaking purely from my own tastes here, I'm of the idea that I WANT to buy my gf a diamond. It's not that it's necessary, I'm sure if I asked her about it she would tell me not to buy her one. I want to do this because its a testement to how much I care about her, as much for me as for her. Admittedly, it's a seemingly pointless gesture for that purpose, but from her perspective, she's getting a traditional proposal, and I'm proving to her and to myself that I'm willing to do sentimental things to show her I love her. She know's that a diamond is useless, really, but she can see firsthand how she makes me feel and the lengths I would go to to prove my feelings. I find something really romantic about the typical "on bended knee" thing and I look forward to doing it for her. The look on her face (that I HOPE to see...) is worth the price of a diamond alone to me. Call me crazy, but I think there are quite a few people out there who feel the same way. Just something about tradition that really makes it seem special.
Just because the scanning device and the machine attached to it are CAPABLE of reading 13-digit barcodes does NOT mean that the databases and software that deal with inventory are programmed to handle the extra digit. Anyone that works with any sort of software similar to the kind used to track shipments and inventory will tell you than an extra digit creates chaos. The real trick isn't updating the scanning equipment, it's updating everything behind the scanner that uses the barcode information, because, much like the Y2K debacle, the inventory computers simply aren't programmed to recognize anything except certain barcodes.
Granted, Coke can use an 8 digit barcode, but if you do your research, you'll learn that certain companies are able to do that because they have a large number of zeros in their company signature (digits 2 through 6 on the 12-digit system) and in their product signatures (digits 7 through 11). The scanners and software recognize this and simply insert zeros in predetermined places. The easiest place to see this is if you check shelf labels in grocery stores. They print their own and so use the 12-digit system. Other than a few zeros, the numbers are identical. Thus, even though it APPEARS as if the system can handle other barcode lengths, reality is still the 12-digit system.
This will be a tough crossover and should be quite interesting. At least we know we can stiill buy hardware from ACE.
The issue isn't that the government can search our library records, the bigger issue is the encroachment on other rights and control of our private information. Its essentially the same premise as spyware. Its not there to get anyone, just to obtain infomation about customers. It won't be used to incriminate you. All the same, its the issue of control. Once they have all of your marketable information, you have no say as to where that goes and who sees it. These aren't people who are looking for terrorists, so why should they have your information? Also, who wants their internet history in the hands of other people?
I don't mean to seem harsh, but I value the protection of my rights and personal information more than the off chance that a few bad people will be caught. Where will the line be drawn? The entitlement to some information will lead the government to seek entitlement to other forms of it. And then where will the line be drawn when it comes to investigation of suspicious library records? I am imagining a lot of harassed and annoyed students and researchers.
But lets play devil's advocate... Assume that a few terrorists are caught by the library trolling system. Soon, people learn that the libraries are no longer a good place for information, and the system rapidly loses effectiveness. The government moves on to another source of information and at the same time maintains its rights to the decreasingly useful information from the libraries. Soon they have information from all sorts of aspects of your life and can paint a clearer picture of what you do. Expand your search parameters here, change your guidelines there, and suddenly you can begin to find that certain aspects of a person's life make it look as if something illegal is happening. The government now will claim it has due cause to invade your privacy further to examine leads they have gathered. They will be acting on the hint of a suspicion of a premonition and it will all be considered legal. After all, we granted them access to the information, they are allowed to use it as they see fit. If our privacy is to be encroached upon, we need to define how and where the information can be used.
Of course, if the other posters are to be believed, the libraries don't actually KEEP this kind of information. In which case, rapid analysis at checkout would be the only method available, and even then I have a hard time imagining a terrorist walking out of a library with 15 books on nuclear weapons, marxism and counter-intelligence. We'd be going on a lot of wild goose chases and catching only the dumbest criminals... Hey, at least we will be able to look forward to another FOX special...
Slashdot Mirror
brilliant work, with only one minor comment: you think that the creators of the media (TV, games, etc.) don't know you exist? while they may not know you or pander to you personally, they are certainly aware that you exist. you are part of a target market. the creators don't know the specifics about you, but if you're buying the game/watching the show, you have certain other things in common with other players/viewers. in the case of GTA, you're probably either interested in a crime-genre game that's put together extremely well, or "just playing it to see what the hype is about." in either role (or possibly others, depending on the game/show) you are not an unknown factor to the people who are making these things. they're (in a sense) made for you, the consumer, the person who is going to buy/watch the game/show.
I certainly agree with your point about how the decisions we make are our own (if we can't be accountable for ourselves, who else will?) but when it comes down to it, the reason that the games/shows are the way they are is because of a market trend somewhere. we want to assume the role of a thug in southwest california. it may not be such a specific desire, but we have a curiosity about these things. it's not something a lot of people are willing to go out and see about. (when was the last time you went on a violent crime spree to see what it was like?)
someone somewhere said to themselves "wouldn't it be cool if I could run around, jack cars, give hookers money, sleep with them, shoot them, then reclaim my money, all in a place where that kind of thing carries no consequence beyond getting 'busted' and having to start over?" that person can't claim to have made an accurate representation of reality, but its close enough for your average consumer, plus its a lot of fun, dammit.
now the creator wants to distribute his product. why? to make money, to disseminate thoughts and ideas, to see others enjoying something he worked hard on, the list goes on. (we're not limiting the marketed creation to merely GTA at this point; this applies to everything ever created and then displayed in some manner) point being, the person who created whatever you're enjoying was not creating it in a social vacuum. they were well aware that, even if what they were doing was intended to be personal, there are probably others out there that would enjoy it on some level. when we're talking about video games and TV shows, the people that create them and distribute them had better be damn sure that there are a whole lot of "others" out there just itching to drop some cash and spend some time.
I think we can all agree that some video games and TV shows are violent on some level. they wouldn't be if we didn't want to watch it. (trust me, no one makes a TV show that no one wants to watch) the problem we seem to have is distinguishing between conscious and unconscious action, but it seems pretty clear to me that blaming the video game companies and TV show producers for products that society wants (or even demands) is a silly thing to do. we need to reclaim our actions and start taking responsibility for what we do. time was, spilling hot coffee (no pun intended) in your lap was considered a stupid thing to do, but if it happened, you learned, you spent a week without sex, and you tried not to do it again. now, you can sue a multi-national corporation for not telling you that the hot coffee you ordered was indeed, as requested, "hot." where does it stop? where is the line that, when crossed, means that all actions you take are not your own? IMO, this is the real question. when are we as a society going to realize that the easier it is to blame others for our problems, the worse our problems are going to get
I have a feeling that introductory working models of this idea will be involved in merely hiding a stationary object, such as a base tent or other important thing. Under close scrutiny, it would obviously have visible flaws, but with a cursory glance, or from a great distance it has potential. However, this is assuming your enemy isn't using any sort of IR device... There are all sorts of holes in the theory but I have a feeling that the first models will be more of a learning experience than anything, really. Sort of a springboard to more advanced models and techniques. Early forms of advanced technology usually are...
only if you're from iowa, or if you have tourette syndrome. :o)
I ask: wheres the challenge in cooperating? The only difficulty that exists is if someone decides that they don't want to cooperate. Will there be a "coerce" function in this game? Cooperation game... That has to be the strangest idea for a video game. Why don't we make a game where the objective is to publish a violent game despite the protests and whinings of christian groups and others who think that simple games inspire people to kill? Come on people, if the person who plays this is so unbalanced that they are inspired to kill after playing it, its pretty obvious that they are unbalanced enough to kill WITHOUT playing it. Please, stop trying to ruin fun for others simply because you don't believe in it. I don't believe in religion but I don't try to prevent people from praying or making those really crappy christian cartoons...
What, your wife won't let you get one, or she just won't let you kill for one? :P
Another common misconception is that it is possible, through methodical play, to tilt the odds in your favor at the blackjack table. This is simply not true. As a fan of blackjack, I have read several books on the subject and all of them admit that the only way to get the odds in your favor is to count cards. If you play by the rules (hit on 16 versus a 10, stand on anything above an 11 if the dealer shows a 6, etc.) the odds come CLOSE to 50/50, but still don't quite reach the point of being even. As a strict adherent to the rules, I often watch, amused, as I see people make obvious mistakes and pay dearly for them. I've watched people split 10s and end up with a pair of 16s, and double on 12s, busting with 22. It's never a pretty sight... The best advice you can offer to anyone who wants to try to make money at blackjack with minimal effort is this:
Play by ALL the rules (you can buy a small card in most casino gift shops that has a chart for how to play every possible player-dealer hand combination, they are about $1 and they are legal at all tables).
Once you know how to react in almost every situation you can start to count 10s and Aces. This isn't going TELL you whats coming up, but it will give you an idea of how likely you are to get high hands. With a 6-deck shoe, count down from 96 (10s) and 24 (Aces). This works especially well on tables where you have the option of an over/under 13 bet (a bet where you guess whether your initial 2 cards will be over or under 13. Aces are 1, and a hand of 13 loses either way). The goal with this method isn't to predict whats coming, but to tip the odds very slightly in your favor. If you play by the rules, it should help.
Dealer: "19"
Homer: "Hit me"
Dealer: "20"
Homer: "Hit me"
Dealer: "21"
Homer: "Hit me"
Dealer: "22"
Homer: "Doh!"
I agree, it makes you wonder how often they check their equipment, this kind of thing takes time. We have a multi-billion dollar piece of equipment and we apparently don't have the money to keep it in top shape. Its worse if they regularly inspect it and just missed this problem repeatedly...
Thus my problem: I can't decide which politician to believe. I know many of you will say neither, which is generally the right answer, but this is a special case. I've heard that NASA is underfunded from some people and that it's recieving billions of dollars a year from others, which would SEEM to be enough. If they ARE getting enough money, then I'm glad my money is being wasted AND I'm being lied to, if they aren't getting enough money, I'm glad they decided to cut corners by ignoring safety... *sigh* Government...
AND WHAT ARE THEY DOING SPENDING $600 ON A HAMMER???
Speaking purely from my own tastes here, I'm of the idea that I WANT to buy my gf a diamond. It's not that it's necessary, I'm sure if I asked her about it she would tell me not to buy her one. I want to do this because its a testement to how much I care about her, as much for me as for her. Admittedly, it's a seemingly pointless gesture for that purpose, but from her perspective, she's getting a traditional proposal, and I'm proving to her and to myself that I'm willing to do sentimental things to show her I love her. She know's that a diamond is useless, really, but she can see firsthand how she makes me feel and the lengths I would go to to prove my feelings. I find something really romantic about the typical "on bended knee" thing and I look forward to doing it for her. The look on her face (that I HOPE to see...) is worth the price of a diamond alone to me. Call me crazy, but I think there are quite a few people out there who feel the same way. Just something about tradition that really makes it seem special.
Just because the scanning device and the machine attached to it are CAPABLE of reading 13-digit barcodes does NOT mean that the databases and software that deal with inventory are programmed to handle the extra digit. Anyone that works with any sort of software similar to the kind used to track shipments and inventory will tell you than an extra digit creates chaos. The real trick isn't updating the scanning equipment, it's updating everything behind the scanner that uses the barcode information, because, much like the Y2K debacle, the inventory computers simply aren't programmed to recognize anything except certain barcodes.
Granted, Coke can use an 8 digit barcode, but if you do your research, you'll learn that certain companies are able to do that because they have a large number of zeros in their company signature (digits 2 through 6 on the 12-digit system) and in their product signatures (digits 7 through 11). The scanners and software recognize this and simply insert zeros in predetermined places. The easiest place to see this is if you check shelf labels in grocery stores. They print their own and so use the 12-digit system. Other than a few zeros, the numbers are identical. Thus, even though it APPEARS as if the system can handle other barcode lengths, reality is still the 12-digit system.
This will be a tough crossover and should be quite interesting. At least we know we can stiill buy hardware from ACE.
The issue isn't that the government can search our library records, the bigger issue is the encroachment on other rights and control of our private information. Its essentially the same premise as spyware. Its not there to get anyone, just to obtain infomation about customers. It won't be used to incriminate you. All the same, its the issue of control. Once they have all of your marketable information, you have no say as to where that goes and who sees it. These aren't people who are looking for terrorists, so why should they have your information? Also, who wants their internet history in the hands of other people?
I don't mean to seem harsh, but I value the protection of my rights and personal information more than the off chance that a few bad people will be caught. Where will the line be drawn? The entitlement to some information will lead the government to seek entitlement to other forms of it. And then where will the line be drawn when it comes to investigation of suspicious library records? I am imagining a lot of harassed and annoyed students and researchers.
But lets play devil's advocate... Assume that a few terrorists are caught by the library trolling system. Soon, people learn that the libraries are no longer a good place for information, and the system rapidly loses effectiveness. The government moves on to another source of information and at the same time maintains its rights to the decreasingly useful information from the libraries. Soon they have information from all sorts of aspects of your life and can paint a clearer picture of what you do. Expand your search parameters here, change your guidelines there, and suddenly you can begin to find that certain aspects of a person's life make it look as if something illegal is happening. The government now will claim it has due cause to invade your privacy further to examine leads they have gathered. They will be acting on the hint of a suspicion of a premonition and it will all be considered legal. After all, we granted them access to the information, they are allowed to use it as they see fit. If our privacy is to be encroached upon, we need to define how and where the information can be used.
Of course, if the other posters are to be believed, the libraries don't actually KEEP this kind of information. In which case, rapid analysis at checkout would be the only method available, and even then I have a hard time imagining a terrorist walking out of a library with 15 books on nuclear weapons, marxism and counter-intelligence. We'd be going on a lot of wild goose chases and catching only the dumbest criminals... Hey, at least we will be able to look forward to another FOX special...