There are people who make a living suing other people. That's ALL THEY DO. They can file a suit for a pittance. Oftentimes, the defendant just settles. If not then the plaintiff goes to court and complains. Winning about half the time.
Bottom line: Win/Lose for the plaintiff and Lose/Lose for the defendant.
I also hear that in Europe, if the plaintiff in a suit loses, they foot the bill. I think it's high time the US adopted such a plan.
I agree with you on static vs dynamic storage. It's academic.
Verant is merely saying that you can't expect them to foot the bill for other's abuses. i.e. maxing out their storage requirements by having every character slot full with the biggest backpacks in the storage slots.
I imagine that this measure is temporary as it will be countered. I fully expect them to allow you to have multiple characters per account but pay extra for each additional character in future.
Things appear to be shaping up quite like an arms race between the abusers and the proprietors.
The problem with DAOC is that it is nothing more than an analysis of EQ and trying to address the little nitpicking issues people had with it.
1. People didn't like waiting for ports in EQ. DAOC provided rentable horses.
2. There were problems with low level chars wearing hi level gear. DAOC wouldn't allow the lowbie to wear gear that was outside it's level range. I feel that if a char were personally successful due to real gains then they should be able to purchase the advanced gear - DAOC would not allow this.
3. There was the problem with gear never wearing out in EQ. DAOC solved this problem by having degradable gear. Not a bad idea really.
4. People complained that they were spending too much time getting their body back in EQ. DAOC used the concept of the headstone. Go to the headstone and pray. You get your exp back. No need to worry about lost gear at all - you already got it back. Where is the risk?
DAOC is not a bad game. It merely examined what people didn't like in EQ and tried to address them. In the end, it seemed that they handed them the game on a silver platter. At first you might be pleased! Indeed! But, you soon begin to realize that the game is not as challenging. There is no real risk and without risk there is no danger of failure. With no danger of failure there is no perceived success. Risk of failure is what makes gambling challenging - the potential rewards are great but skill has not alot to do with it though some. Risk of failure is what makes ANYTHING challenging.
Risk vs. Reward is the idea or vision of Verant. I agree with it. You risk much and through good planning and skill - not to mention a bit of luck you get the reward. If it's just handed to you on a silver platter then all you have to do is just sit there and wait for it to fall in your lap. No challenge... no risk... no fun.
Some of the good new ideas have gotten back into EQ but I hope Verant continues to try to maintain balance of play so it stays challenging.
YMMV
Don't know about physical location of servers. That is beyond the scope of the SCS or MCS issue. However, I do maintain that different servers have different economys and userbased societies - it has a direct bearing on which server different folks will want to play.
MCS or Multiple Characters per Server is a very abused thing.
1. Mules. Many characters are created just to hold lots of items or carry them places the main character cannot go. Sum up the capabilities of the main and all the mules and you have a super-character at the expense of the game company and the other players game enjoyment.
2. Low level char is acting an ass so people around him get mad at him and wont group with him. He goes and gets his high level character and spawn camps preventing others from enjoying game. Harassment is a very real thing. Now you got an alt war on your hands and it's a support nightmare due to the fact that it's hard to identify alts.
3. Hi level players decide to start alts. They twink (give hi level stuff to their own low level characters) and now the new main chars of new players are at a disadvantage. Nothing like being passed over for a group because your Bronze armor didn't stack up to the Cobalt armor of your level 10 warrior competitor.
4. The one-stop-shop. You got yer Shamans making potions, your enchanters making jewelry and fetching components for the shaman. You got yer gnome tinkering. Why would you need to do business with anyone else?
People will always find a loophole in the rules. The SCS (single character per server) idea will address some of the inequities currently brought about by the abuses of MCS (multichar per server). I'm sure that the more financially endowed players will purchase multiple accounts (like they are doing even now with MCS) so that they may continue to abuse the game - with SCS they will be forced to pay for abuses AND they will be more accountable for same.
Some ideas: To address some of the problems with SCS such as wanting to dabble with a new char class. They could have a short lived tryout character at the end of which time the user could decide whether they wanted the original char or the new char. Only one would live. HOWEVER, this would also allow the transfer of goods from one to the other i.e. the new char benefitting from the old char's accumulated wealth and items - an abuse.
They could allow users to purchase more slots per server. Would still allow abuse of trade as purchasing additional separate accounts BUT would keep users from transferring directly from one char to another - they'd need a cooperative mule.
To sum up: The SCS idea is the best one they've come up with yet to address inequities.
I think the best way to learn Linux is just to use Linux.
Learn your way around a shell first. Navigate the directories, learn the commands cd, mkdir, ls, cp, mv, etc..., learn the help commands info, man and "commandname --help", understand the concept of the symbolic link, go thru/etc and take a look at some of the important files there fstab, mtab, lilo, etc..., take a tour of/proc,/dev,/sbin,/bin and/boot. Learn about the STDIN, STDOUT, and STDERR facilities and how to redirect input and output from a running program. Also, learn how to pipe or string commands together with conditionals too. Learn job control.
Learn the boot process of Linux: bootstrap, loader, kernel, INIT, INIT scripts, shell, X etc...
Once you've got a basic understanding of the system, then venture into X and learn how it ticks (from a user point of view). Learn how to copy and paste, kill a running program, operate your windowmanager, switch virtual terminals.
Learn how to use the various package formats from tar.gz (tgz), rpm, tar.bz2, deb, zip, etc and how to compile and install programs.
Learn how not to run as root.
Most of the help you will ever need with Linux is already right there on the machine.
>I suppose within a few thousand years timeframe >there could have been a few separate origins, but >the common DNA structure tends to suggest >otherwise.
I tend to agree with the single DNA encoding design assertion. After all, if more than one form of life had "evolved" it would seem that one won out in the end as evidenced by the common DNA structure of existing life. Structure as in the encoding method not necessarily the information encoded.
I also agree that oxidization brought about a "lessening" of the probablility of additional discreet designs of encoded life.
>In the old days we'd blame that failure mode on >stiction, and could usually get the drive to come >back one last time (long enough to make a backup) >by giving the server a good solid thump in just the >right spot.
Heh, funny you mention that. At one of my former jobs, we had a very old machine running OS/2 with SCSI drives. This machine was the database bridge between the mainframe and many PC based applications. Anyway, when the machine had to be rebooted/powered down (once in a blue speckled moon) they'd have to pick the machine up and drop it just to get the drives spinning. I kid you not! But it ran forever.
Yeah, what I got from the article was this: REDUNDANCY, FAILOVER.
Evidently, IBM Mainframes have a bunch of it... PC hardware ain't got much of it.
I'd be interested to know how much of this mainframe style engineering has gone into the mini-computers such as the AS/400. I figure the AS/400 has alot of it just integrated into more silicon than the mainframes.
>The truth is pretty mundane. Linux and Windows each >have their advantages. When you promote one at the >expence of the truth, you're no longer a believer >you're a zealot.
I like your attitude. I'm sure it's very easy to administer a Windows server. If you know what you're doing.
It is also easy to administer a Linux server. If you know what you're doing.
And, as you said, "When you promote one at the expence of the truth, you're no longer a believer you're a zealot."
Bottom line: Know what the heck you're doing. P.S. People who know what they are doing usually can expect more pay than those who don't.
Do you ever wonder if the people who made the Rosetta stone weren't in fact trying to preserve language? Some forward thinking people ya know? Classical Greek is quite durable even if it isn't spoken today. Coupled with it's phonetic spelling, we know approximately how the words sounded when they were written.
We should take lessons from history in this way. Make Rosetta Stones when you encode your data so that they may be easily deciphered later.
Science Fiction... Classic Jules Verne.(Intrinsic SciFi) Asimov and Heinlein (ex: Number of the Beast) Phillip K. Dick (ex: Do androids dream...)
Science Fantasy? Larry Niven's Ringworld and related titles. The Dray Prescott series. Tides of Kregen. The Drakka! Dr. Who. George Lucas - THX1138 (I never read Orwell)
I like a good tale. One that doesn't fall all over itself breaking well known and basic rules of science. One whose storyline and storyhistory are well planned and laid out. A story that excites the senses and suspends disbelief.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, US suit laws (Tort?) are really messed up.
There are people who make a living suing other people. That's ALL THEY DO. They can file a suit for a pittance. Oftentimes, the defendant just settles. If not then the plaintiff goes to court and complains. Winning about half the time.
Bottom line: Win/Lose for the plaintiff and Lose/Lose for the defendant.
I also hear that in Europe, if the plaintiff in a suit loses, they foot the bill. I think it's high time the US adopted such a plan.
Herakles? He wasn't in the Trodian war.
Try Akileos, Aias, Paris, Oddysseos, etc...
I agree with you on static vs dynamic storage. It's academic.
Verant is merely saying that you can't expect them to foot the bill for other's abuses. i.e. maxing out their storage requirements by having every character slot full with the biggest backpacks in the storage slots.
I imagine that this measure is temporary as it will be countered. I fully expect them to allow you to have multiple characters per account but pay extra for each additional character in future.
Things appear to be shaping up quite like an arms race between the abusers and the proprietors.
Yeah, you're right. People with the spare cash will still find a way to exploit MMORPGs. However, now they will have to pay extra for the privelege.
Verant has issues with abusing storage priveleges so they have found a counter to it. They must expect a counter to the counter.
>And limiting to one character per account per
>server does jack shit to stop twinking for this
>crowd.
It makes em pay extra.
The problem with DAOC is that it is nothing more than an analysis of EQ and trying to address the little nitpicking issues people had with it.
1. People didn't like waiting for ports in EQ. DAOC provided rentable horses.
2. There were problems with low level chars wearing hi level gear. DAOC wouldn't allow the lowbie to wear gear that was outside it's level range. I feel that if a char were personally successful due to real gains then they should be able to purchase the advanced gear - DAOC would not allow this.
3. There was the problem with gear never wearing out in EQ. DAOC solved this problem by having degradable gear. Not a bad idea really.
4. People complained that they were spending too much time getting their body back in EQ. DAOC used the concept of the headstone. Go to the headstone and pray. You get your exp back. No need to worry about lost gear at all - you already got it back. Where is the risk?
DAOC is not a bad game. It merely examined what people didn't like in EQ and tried to address them. In the end, it seemed that they handed them the game on a silver platter. At first you might be pleased! Indeed! But, you soon begin to realize that the game is not as challenging. There is no real risk and without risk there is no danger of failure. With no danger of failure there is no perceived success. Risk of failure is what makes gambling challenging - the potential rewards are great but skill has not alot to do with it though some. Risk of failure is what makes ANYTHING challenging.
Risk vs. Reward is the idea or vision of Verant. I agree with it. You risk much and through good planning and skill - not to mention a bit of luck you get the reward. If it's just handed to you on a silver platter then all you have to do is just sit there and wait for it to fall in your lap. No challenge... no risk... no fun.
Some of the good new ideas have gotten back into EQ but I hope Verant continues to try to maintain balance of play so it stays challenging.
YMMV
Don't know about physical location of servers. That is beyond the scope of the SCS or MCS issue. However, I do maintain that different servers have different economys and userbased societies - it has a direct bearing on which server different folks will want to play.
MCS or Multiple Characters per Server is a very abused thing.
1. Mules. Many characters are created just to hold lots of items or carry them places the main character cannot go. Sum up the capabilities of the main and all the mules and you have a super-character at the expense of the game company and the other players game enjoyment.
2. Low level char is acting an ass so people around him get mad at him and wont group with him. He goes and gets his high level character and spawn camps preventing others from enjoying game. Harassment is a very real thing. Now you got an alt war on your hands and it's a support nightmare due to the fact that it's hard to identify alts.
3. Hi level players decide to start alts. They twink (give hi level stuff to their own low level characters) and now the new main chars of new players are at a disadvantage. Nothing like being passed over for a group because your Bronze armor didn't stack up to the Cobalt armor of your level 10 warrior competitor.
4. The one-stop-shop. You got yer Shamans making potions, your enchanters making jewelry and fetching components for the shaman. You got yer gnome tinkering. Why would you need to do business with anyone else?
People will always find a loophole in the rules. The SCS (single character per server) idea will address some of the inequities currently brought about by the abuses of MCS (multichar per server). I'm sure that the more financially endowed players will purchase multiple accounts (like they are doing even now with MCS) so that they may continue to abuse the game - with SCS they will be forced to pay for abuses AND they will be more accountable for same.
Some ideas:
To address some of the problems with SCS such as wanting to dabble with a new char class. They could have a short lived tryout character at the end of which time the user could decide whether they wanted the original char or the new char. Only one would live. HOWEVER, this would also allow the transfer of goods from one to the other i.e. the new char benefitting from the old char's accumulated wealth and items - an abuse.
They could allow users to purchase more slots per server. Would still allow abuse of trade as purchasing additional separate accounts BUT would keep users from transferring directly from one char to another - they'd need a cooperative mule.
To sum up:
The SCS idea is the best one they've come up with yet to address inequities.
I think the best way to learn Linux is just to use Linux.
/etc and take a look at some of the important files there fstab, mtab, lilo, etc..., take a tour of /proc, /dev, /sbin, /bin and /boot. Learn about the STDIN, STDOUT, and STDERR facilities and how to redirect input and output from a running program. Also, learn how to pipe or string commands together with conditionals too. Learn job control.
Learn your way around a shell first. Navigate the directories, learn the commands cd, mkdir, ls, cp, mv, etc..., learn the help commands info, man and "commandname --help", understand the concept of the symbolic link, go thru
Learn the boot process of Linux: bootstrap, loader, kernel, INIT, INIT scripts, shell, X etc...
Once you've got a basic understanding of the system, then venture into X and learn how it ticks (from a user point of view). Learn how to copy and paste, kill a running program, operate your windowmanager, switch virtual terminals.
Learn how to use the various package formats from tar.gz (tgz), rpm, tar.bz2, deb, zip, etc and how to compile and install programs.
Learn how not to run as root.
Most of the help you will ever need with Linux is already right there on the machine.
Delightfully done! Toodle pip! Cheerio!
:P
All I can keep thinking is: Poor Hodges. I can imagine who he must have been cursing...
And there ya go. Plenty of water and iron. Wonder if we were to seed some cyanobacteria and simple plants would Mars then be more hospitable.
Seems a great place to build the Vogon fleet. But I guess that's highly improbable.
I found his answers to be both humorous and short and sweet.
Heh yeah. "The hapless rodent" - I'm still laughing.
>I suppose within a few thousand years timeframe
>there could have been a few separate origins, but
>the common DNA structure tends to suggest
>otherwise.
I tend to agree with the single DNA encoding design assertion. After all, if more than one form of life had "evolved" it would seem that one won out in the end as evidenced by the common DNA structure of existing life. Structure as in the encoding method not necessarily the information encoded.
I also agree that oxidization brought about a "lessening" of the probablility of additional discreet designs of encoded life.
>In the old days we'd blame that failure mode on
>stiction, and could usually get the drive to come
>back one last time (long enough to make a backup)
>by giving the server a good solid thump in just the
>right spot.
Heh, funny you mention that. At one of my former jobs, we had a very old machine running OS/2 with SCSI drives. This machine was the database bridge between the mainframe and many PC based applications. Anyway, when the machine had to be rebooted/powered down (once in a blue speckled moon) they'd have to pick the machine up and drop it just to get the drives spinning. I kid you not! But it ran forever.
Yeah, what I got from the article was this:
REDUNDANCY, FAILOVER.
Evidently, IBM Mainframes have a bunch of it... PC hardware ain't got much of it.
I'd be interested to know how much of this mainframe style engineering has gone into the mini-computers such as the AS/400. I figure the AS/400 has alot of it just integrated into more silicon than the mainframes.
>The truth is pretty mundane. Linux and Windows each
>have their advantages. When you promote one at the
>expence of the truth, you're no longer a believer
>you're a zealot.
I like your attitude. I'm sure it's very easy to administer a Windows server. If you know what you're doing.
It is also easy to administer a Linux server. If you know what you're doing.
And, as you said, "When you promote one at the expence of the truth, you're no longer a believer you're a zealot."
Bottom line: Know what the heck you're doing.
P.S. People who know what they are doing usually can expect more pay than those who don't.
I like the many worlds theory... it gets quite complicated though.
I'm still unable to get my playing card to fall both ways...
Do you ever wonder if the people who made the Rosetta stone weren't in fact trying to preserve language? Some forward thinking people ya know? Classical Greek is quite durable even if it isn't spoken today. Coupled with it's phonetic spelling, we know approximately how the words sounded when they were written.
We should take lessons from history in this way. Make Rosetta Stones when you encode your data so that they may be easily deciphered later.
God bless those hard working monks and muslims!
I love it! You have summed up what Star Trek has devolved into.
It used to be an exploration of what could be done with SciFi rather than a canned scripted television show.
Oh how the mighty have fallen. And, don't get me started on Babylon 5 - methinks of it as a Science Fiction version of As the World Turns(tm).
Yeah, H.G.Wells should be on the list. He was a clever storyteller.
The book was better but the movie was definately fun.
Do you want to know more? Click here citizen!
Science Fiction...
Classic Jules Verne.(Intrinsic SciFi)
Asimov and Heinlein (ex: Number of the Beast)
Phillip K. Dick (ex: Do androids dream...)
Science Fantasy?
Larry Niven's Ringworld and related titles.
The Dray Prescott series. Tides of Kregen.
The Drakka!
Dr. Who.
George Lucas - THX1138 (I never read Orwell)
I like a good tale. One that doesn't fall all over itself breaking well known and basic rules of science. One whose storyline and storyhistory are well planned and laid out. A story that excites the senses and suspends disbelief.
Gay Deceiver - Take us home!
Jules Verne was more of a visionary but I like Clarke. He's got some interesting tales to tell.