Some of both. "Fast User Switching" isn't so fast compared to opening a root shell, so I still count it as a problem. I'm not too familiar with "run as". As I understand it, it's not really a solution either, although maybe it could be. Unless it is used automatically (with a password prompt, of course), it's not really working the way a good system ought to.
The two big problems with LUAs have been that there was no way to perform super-user actions without logging out and logging back in, even if you the person have greater privileges than the account you have logged in with. I do believe Vista has fixed this. The other problem is that lazy application developers chronically write software that assumes unnecessary super-user privileges. Now Microsoft has (finally) chosen to curtail their reckless practices, and they would rather complain than get with the program.
Your version has two problems. First is that picking up the gun would be a losing move. Are we trying to make people think or are we trying to tell them what to think? You're delivering your moral too early and in too ham-fisted a way. Picking up the gun can't be the end because it wasn't the end.
Second, you've got all this provocation without any release. If people are worried about violent games stimulating real-world violent behavior I'm ten times as worried about taking the experiences that have pushed people towards the edge and putting them the context of a school massacre. Think about it. Anyone who played your game would know about the Columbine shooting. They might very well know that the solution to their problems is to go out in their very own little blaze of glory. The last thing the world needs is a game to remind them of that then end with "No you may not pick up that gun." In the real world there's no one to say no -- you just sneak it in and open up.
If you're going to push players toward the edge then it's your responsibility to bring them back again. I don't know how to do that, but I know it needs to happen. My version would be Doom style (for extra relevance points). It would start like your game and wind the player up. Then you would get the gun and start shooting. There would be a lot of pleading and crying and bleeding. If the first part of the game went right, the player would be incensed enough not to care. The player would always have the option to suicide. Once they did, the "look what you have done" phase would begin. Perhaps you would get to see a kill breakdown showing what each of your victims had done to you, and what you had done to them. I would like something more though. Most of these victims would have done nothing to you, of course. At this point the player calms down and reflects, hopefully thinking about the hell they created and its justification. If they never wanted to create it there would be no point at all to the game. I don't think we can understand insanity without becoming temporarily insane ourselves.
I'm pretty sure freedom of speech was intended to stop dickheads like you from attempting to sanitize public discourse so much that it has no meaning. Shooting children in a game strikes me as a *very good* way to think about doing it in real life. And that is exactly what we all need to do if we want any kind of insight into people who would actually perpetrate a massacre. Maybe you have no curiosity about things that discomfit you, but other people have a drive to understand the world around them.
"I think there are and should be sensible limits on everything."
I agree. I think there should be sensible limits on how much a person or group of persons is able to limit the freedom of others. Keep your controlling fantasies to yourself
And I'm saying that individual's protests that they do like space are completely irrelevant to the topic at hand: whether enough of their peers like it too.
Perhaps the notion that large groups can be accurately studied through statistics is informative and helpful. Perhaps one could take a step back, consider whether the interested percentage of the "iPod generation" is great enough for NASA's liking, and whether it might be beneficial for the PR arm to target this group.
Good for you and your interest in space. Good for your pals as well. Just don't forget that however much you protest that you *really do* want space exploration, you're not saying a damn thing about the majority opinion. Which is what NASA needs if they want a little thing called money.
Cue all the young people protesting that they are very interested in space exploration. Perhaps you're not representative of the population as a whole.
What's wrong with Photoshopped child pornography? If no children are being harmed, then why can't interested parties get together and imagine whatever they like?
I always hesitate to recommend Linux to people, because when that one program, piece of hardware or what have you that they just have to have comes along, it's going to be my fault that it won't work. Even if Linux is better for them in every other way, all they're going to notice is that what they want to do now won't work. A user with more nuanced technical perception might not lose sight of what they gained when there's trouble, but I don't think most people in my circle fit this description.
Many programs and pieces of hardware work great under Linux, and I encourage anyone who is interested to check it out. It's just that I don't want to push someone into making a decision that they don't fully grasp the ramifications of and then have it bite them in the ass. At least when Windows screws up it's Microsoft's fault and not mine.
Perhaps he's tired of watching his family members deal with the hassles that Windows throws in their way, and out of his love for them would like to supplant those hassles with the alternate set offered by Linux.
Looking at Ubuntu (and other distros I suppose), Windows, and OS X the match seems pretty even. All suck pretty hard in significant ways, but all have their strong points as well. Linux would be a great fit for the browse the web/write papers/listen to music crowd. Not so much for the gamers, due to the lack of commercial development, and not so much for the artists (due to the elitism), but it does what a lot of people need. The problem is, as always, getting to those people. Even if they have by some miracle heard of Linux, most will see the work required to switch as too scary or too much of a hassle for the benefits they would gain (a snappier system, better security, package managers that can pull down updates for the whole system, and so on). Oh well, maybe next year will be the year of Linux on the desktop.
So because users won't admit to you that they've broken the computer you assume that they don't blame themselves? Perhaps some people can think one thing yet say another.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you just fertile today, or do you look like that all the time?
Some of both. "Fast User Switching" isn't so fast compared to opening a root shell, so I still count it as a problem. I'm not too familiar with "run as". As I understand it, it's not really a solution either, although maybe it could be. Unless it is used automatically (with a password prompt, of course), it's not really working the way a good system ought to.
The two big problems with LUAs have been that there was no way to perform super-user actions without logging out and logging back in, even if you the person have greater privileges than the account you have logged in with. I do believe Vista has fixed this. The other problem is that lazy application developers chronically write software that assumes unnecessary super-user privileges. Now Microsoft has (finally) chosen to curtail their reckless practices, and they would rather complain than get with the program.
Your version has two problems. First is that picking up the gun would be a losing move. Are we trying to make people think or are we trying to tell them what to think? You're delivering your moral too early and in too ham-fisted a way. Picking up the gun can't be the end because it wasn't the end.
Second, you've got all this provocation without any release. If people are worried about violent games stimulating real-world violent behavior I'm ten times as worried about taking the experiences that have pushed people towards the edge and putting them the context of a school massacre. Think about it. Anyone who played your game would know about the Columbine shooting. They might very well know that the solution to their problems is to go out in their very own little blaze of glory. The last thing the world needs is a game to remind them of that then end with "No you may not pick up that gun." In the real world there's no one to say no -- you just sneak it in and open up.
If you're going to push players toward the edge then it's your responsibility to bring them back again. I don't know how to do that, but I know it needs to happen. My version would be Doom style (for extra relevance points). It would start like your game and wind the player up. Then you would get the gun and start shooting. There would be a lot of pleading and crying and bleeding. If the first part of the game went right, the player would be incensed enough not to care. The player would always have the option to suicide. Once they did, the "look what you have done" phase would begin. Perhaps you would get to see a kill breakdown showing what each of your victims had done to you, and what you had done to them. I would like something more though. Most of these victims would have done nothing to you, of course. At this point the player calms down and reflects, hopefully thinking about the hell they created and its justification. If they never wanted to create it there would be no point at all to the game. I don't think we can understand insanity without becoming temporarily insane ourselves.
I'm pretty sure freedom of speech was intended to stop dickheads like you from attempting to sanitize public discourse so much that it has no meaning. Shooting children in a game strikes me as a *very good* way to think about doing it in real life. And that is exactly what we all need to do if we want any kind of insight into people who would actually perpetrate a massacre. Maybe you have no curiosity about things that discomfit you, but other people have a drive to understand the world around them.
"I think there are and should be sensible limits on everything."
I agree. I think there should be sensible limits on how much a person or group of persons is able to limit the freedom of others. Keep your controlling fantasies to yourself
But what if it requires a working sense of humor to operate? It seems that would rule out a large portion of the online community.
Um, that would be *the reason* to reach out. Preaching to the choir is great for warm fuzzies, but bad for results.
Oops. Individuals'.
And I'm saying that individual's protests that they do like space are completely irrelevant to the topic at hand: whether enough of their peers like it too.
Perhaps the notion that large groups can be accurately studied through statistics is informative and helpful. Perhaps one could take a step back, consider whether the interested percentage of the "iPod generation" is great enough for NASA's liking, and whether it might be beneficial for the PR arm to target this group.
Good for you and your interest in space. Good for your pals as well. Just don't forget that however much you protest that you *really do* want space exploration, you're not saying a damn thing about the majority opinion. Which is what NASA needs if they want a little thing called money.
Cue all the young people protesting that they are very interested in space exploration. Perhaps you're not representative of the population as a whole.
Doesn't help.
What's wrong with Photoshopped child pornography? If no children are being harmed, then why can't interested parties get together and imagine whatever they like?
I always hesitate to recommend Linux to people, because when that one program, piece of hardware or what have you that they just have to have comes along, it's going to be my fault that it won't work. Even if Linux is better for them in every other way, all they're going to notice is that what they want to do now won't work. A user with more nuanced technical perception might not lose sight of what they gained when there's trouble, but I don't think most people in my circle fit this description.
Many programs and pieces of hardware work great under Linux, and I encourage anyone who is interested to check it out. It's just that I don't want to push someone into making a decision that they don't fully grasp the ramifications of and then have it bite them in the ass. At least when Windows screws up it's Microsoft's fault and not mine.
Perhaps he's tired of watching his family members deal with the hassles that Windows throws in their way, and out of his love for them would like to supplant those hassles with the alternate set offered by Linux.
Looking at Ubuntu (and other distros I suppose), Windows, and OS X the match seems pretty even. All suck pretty hard in significant ways, but all have their strong points as well. Linux would be a great fit for the browse the web/write papers/listen to music crowd. Not so much for the gamers, due to the lack of commercial development, and not so much for the artists (due to the elitism), but it does what a lot of people need. The problem is, as always, getting to those people. Even if they have by some miracle heard of Linux, most will see the work required to switch as too scary or too much of a hassle for the benefits they would gain (a snappier system, better security, package managers that can pull down updates for the whole system, and so on). Oh well, maybe next year will be the year of Linux on the desktop.
You have done an excellent job paraphrasing my post.
So because users won't admit to you that they've broken the computer you assume that they don't blame themselves? Perhaps some people can think one thing yet say another.
Got me there. :(
At least "The Voyage Home" got #2 right.
Is this a bad time to tell you that there's an option to disable automatic updates?
That's the idea.
Where does the extra space come from when you draw two dots on a balloon then inflate it?
This supports my hypothesis that unpleasant odors attract our attention more.