Personally, I cannot stand RTSes or MMOs, although I might eventually enjoy an MMO. The decision to make a game open is not a new thing. RPGs (the paper and pencil version!) did this a long, long time ago (there is probably another example, but I'm going with what I know and not doing any additional research for just this comment).
I enjoy L4D (I really like FPSes). I don't see it as open. It is definitely a led-by-the-nose experience. It's not the destination that's fun, it's how you get there, with a particular group of people at any given time. The HL/HL2 series, as well as Deus Ex and Far Cry (2 was way too repetitive), I found very enjoyable, again, being led by the nose, but having the freedom to wander around aimlessly along the way, as fits my mood at any given time.
The reason I brought up paper and pencil RPGs is because many game masters write up linear campaigns, and often fail to adapt to what the players are actually doing and how they are reacting. Campaigns written by game masters who have story arcs, which may be followed or abandoned, are lots of fun to play. I think the state-of-the-art gaming is not yet up to the task, but Elder Scrolls (turn-based FPS?) seemed like it was going along the right path.
MMOs (I've never really played, just watched for a few minutes, I can see how it can be fun), seem to be trying to go along that path, the path of open-endedness, but there isn't enough for any given player with lots of experience to actually do, other than go through the same set of missions over and over...sounds like L4D?
Now, if you could start setting up your fortress and hold it against random players trying to invade it...
Ubiquitous remote cams on the other hand are. This is only recording what the guy is actually seeing anyway. Consider that it could even moderate overzealous law enforcement. Kind of like the cams on cop cars in the US.
Then, there's the possibly apocryphal story of the four squad cars, equipped with video cameras, responding to an incident, and not one of the cameras was turned on when the alleged police abuse of force occurred...
Unfortunately, no. And he didn't do it for tax purposes, either.
Re:That is why CSI sucks
on
Forensic Discovery
·
· Score: 2, Informative
My problem with the CSI-type shows is that forensics analysts are more like Quincy, who rarely, if ever, interviewed a suspect or a witness, and got in major trouble when he did.
The "examiners" on CSI do everything except commit the crimes, give parking tickets and prosecute the suspects. If I could do half of what one of them does, I'd be an unstoppable law enforcement agent!
I'm not sure, but my Sony DVD player almost always pauses near the middle of a movie. It only pauses for a second or two, and it continues on by itself, but it is definitely annoying.
I had a CD player that would always skip badly on any disc that played more than 40 minutes (where it always skipped). It turned out that the wiring for the laser-reader bunched up and pushed the head off track. Great design flaw, eh?
Sometimes the line blurs between the company related personal information and the non-company related personal information. For example, if your job requires any travel, even if the company sponsors a credit card for you, it's still your credit card. If you have to make travel arrangements or order stuff online, you have to use your personal information in spite of the fact that it is for company business.
I think it was a perfectly ACCEPTABLE level of humiliation for prisoners.
Yes, of course, because no one was ever put in a booking cell by accident. I'm sure everyone who has ever gone into a booking cell was then booked, in due process, and later found guilty of whatever it was they were accused of doing.
Because, as everyone knows, law enforcement officials, whether elected, appointed or hired, are human and never make mistakes. Oh, yeah, and witnesses always see everything clearly and never forget any details or confuse one dark-haired, tall male wearing a denim jacket for any other dark-haired, tall male wearing a denim jacket.
As for the reason why the lawyers would remove the smarter people - well, it seems that the way that jury trials go now, there's more emphasis placed on emotion than logic. If the case tends to be weak, the attorneys need to add a bit of emotion to shock/enrage the jury.
I suppose that as a legal alien, you aren't considered a peer. This is not an insult, it's more a legal status.
If you go with the belief that criminals are basically stupid, or at least not smart enough to keep from getting caught, then perhaps the jury members with lower IQs really are their peers. I would hope that if such an unfortunate event were to occur to a member of the/. crowd, it would have been due to being framed and unjustly accused. Of course, finding a jury of our peers (not just based on citizenship, etc.), would be rather difficult!
I've lived in Texas, Maryland and California, have been eligible and still never had a summons to serve. My wife, on the other hand, has been summoned two or three times in the last three years, although she's never been selected to actually be on a jury.
Good for you! I'm glad there are other people who feel taking their responsibilities and civic duties are good things.
But, your tshirt suggestion for getting out of jury duty is just another example of the many ways people have dreamed up for avoiding something that's inconvenient to them.
It's a bit brazen, and I'd never wear that to a courtroom, mostly because I'd imagine doing so would be considered contempt of the court, but then, I don't want to get out of jury duty. I don't particularly want to serve on jury duty, especially if it's one of those long, drawn out boring (though probably significant) cases, but if called, I would serve.
Clearly manslaughter is not enough. If a measly slap on the wrist like "manslaughter" were enough, would that driver have killed those innocent people? Would he have been so careless? The purpose of the law is to deter crime. If it is not a sufficient deterrent, it must be strengthened.
The purpose of law is not to deter crime. The purpose of law enforcement is to deter crime. The purpose of law is to define what crime is.
What really needs to happen is to have a minimum IQ for serving on juries.
Unfortunately, it seems that the potential jurors with IQs above a certain point are either removed by one of the legal teams for some reason or they can figure out how to get out of jury duty.
I'm eligible for jury duty, but I've never been asked to serve. It's a civic duty, just like obeying the driving laws while driving. However, many people have come up with many ways to get out of jury duty. Everyone wants the other person to take responsibility for their actions, but few want to make sure it really happens by participating in the process, and those who do are rejected for many different reasons.
Sad, really, but it's still a system that mostly works.
You can bet that cell phones are not a danger to make planes crash. That isn't the reason they are banned. You can bet on that.
I try to leave your (correct) conclusion as an "exercise for the reader" and you go off and do all the work for everyone! Maybe next time I shouldn't be so subtle...;-)
... Part of the reason why the FAA is over-sensative over what's going on within commerical airplanes is because if the unthinkable random frequency collision were to happen, it might cause an instrument to give a wrong reading to the pilot and the result would be hundreds of people being killed.
I'm sorry, I don't buy this. If planes are so reliant on all these telemetry signals that a bunch of electronic devices in the cabin could cause them to crash because the pilots cannot possibly look at the instruments, look out the window, and figure out something's wrong, I don't know how any airline managed to stay in business or keep any sort of plane in the air before, say, 1995. Without GPS and the (incredibly consistent) global air-traffic radar systems, why, you couldn't so much as fly a plane over a country with whom your at war to drop a bomb.
Oh, wait, they did, and radar hadn't even become useful or reliable, in the early 1940s.
One of my favorite "West Wing" quotes is from the opening scene of the pilot (I think...), where Toby gets a page and calls into the whitehouse, and the flight attendant tells him he has to turn off his cell phone because the plane is approaching the airport. Paraphrasing, his response went something like, "This aircraft is equipped with a $60,000 telemetry system hooked into a multi-million dollar national air traffic control system, and you're telling me that I can cause the plane to crash with something I bought from Radio Shack for less than $30.00? Do you know how stupid you sound?"
I don't know, but something just doesn't seem right.
Maybe the new BOINC software will allow you to split your computing time between SETI and Folding?
Whoever modded the parent down should rethink their decision.
Folding at Home seems to be another distributed computing project, just like SETI. I haven't RTFA-ed, but the original post says that BOINC will allow multiple distributed programs to run. At worst, this is redundant, but it is definitely on topic for this particular part of the thread!
Surely anyone who can set up a local network can plug a hard drive into a machine and reboot it?
Well, probably, but you're assuming that they have access to modern platforms. What if they're still using 286s with MFM drives, or worse? Sure, sending a 200GB drive is great, but what if they have nothing that can read it when it gets there? Of course, I haven't RTFA, but just off the top of my head, these issues come to mind.
IMO there main alternative is:
1) a solution compatible with original RFC (that is it does not rule out any sender that the original spec would permit)
2) a completely new and different system. Redesigned from scratch.
Even if we could completely revamp SMTP, it still sits on top of TCP/IP (etc.), and there will still be ways to get around any protections we could add to SMTP.
Unfortunately, I think it will take some major overhauling of the Internet and its core protocols to solve this problem. And that means lots of work, lots of new equipment and lots of new applications, all at enormous expense.
So, what's worse, loss of bandwidth, over-burdened mail servers and everyone spending time deleting junk out of their inboxes, or everyone spending a significant amount of money, users for new e-mail programs, companies for the same programs, new mail servers and routers, ISPs and backbone providers for expensive new infrastructure, and none of it possible until all the protocols are reworked, let's say, five years from now?
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I cannot stand RTSes or MMOs, although I might eventually enjoy an MMO. The decision to make a game open is not a new thing. RPGs (the paper and pencil version!) did this a long, long time ago (there is probably another example, but I'm going with what I know and not doing any additional research for just this comment).
I enjoy L4D (I really like FPSes). I don't see it as open. It is definitely a led-by-the-nose experience. It's not the destination that's fun, it's how you get there, with a particular group of people at any given time. The HL/HL2 series, as well as Deus Ex and Far Cry (2 was way too repetitive), I found very enjoyable, again, being led by the nose, but having the freedom to wander around aimlessly along the way, as fits my mood at any given time.
The reason I brought up paper and pencil RPGs is because many game masters write up linear campaigns, and often fail to adapt to what the players are actually doing and how they are reacting. Campaigns written by game masters who have story arcs, which may be followed or abandoned, are lots of fun to play. I think the state-of-the-art gaming is not yet up to the task, but Elder Scrolls (turn-based FPS?) seemed like it was going along the right path.
MMOs (I've never really played, just watched for a few minutes, I can see how it can be fun), seem to be trying to go along that path, the path of open-endedness, but there isn't enough for any given player with lots of experience to actually do, other than go through the same set of missions over and over...sounds like L4D?
Now, if you could start setting up your fortress and hold it against random players trying to invade it...
No, he means that as people evolve (and becomes dumber...), the pleo will seem even more impressive!
Why don't they just paint the insides of the passenger cabins with the nanotube paint? http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/01/17 0231
I thought it was just a fake rumor on Slashdot!
Unfortunately, no. And he didn't do it for tax purposes, either.
My problem with the CSI-type shows is that forensics analysts are more like Quincy, who rarely, if ever, interviewed a suspect or a witness, and got in major trouble when he did.
The "examiners" on CSI do everything except commit the crimes, give parking tickets and prosecute the suspects. If I could do half of what one of them does, I'd be an unstoppable law enforcement agent!
I'm not sure, but my Sony DVD player almost always pauses near the middle of a movie. It only pauses for a second or two, and it continues on by itself, but it is definitely annoying.
I had a CD player that would always skip badly on any disc that played more than 40 minutes (where it always skipped). It turned out that the wiring for the laser-reader bunched up and pushed the head off track. Great design flaw, eh?
Sometimes the line blurs between the company related personal information and the non-company related personal information. For example, if your job requires any travel, even if the company sponsors a credit card for you, it's still your credit card. If you have to make travel arrangements or order stuff online, you have to use your personal information in spite of the fact that it is for company business.
Right, and if you work at one of these companies and your information gets phished, they'll take care of it for you...
You may draw the analogy ;)
But not in 3D!!!
Of course it will run any BSD or Linux
Everything does, sooner or later. It is INEVITABLE.
Let me know when you get Linux or BSD to run on your electric toothbrush!
Wow, hope I don't have to hang up on my agent to talk to those icky ticket collectors...
The worst part is when the guy at the turnstile tears your phone in half.
You mean "best," don't you?
I think it was a perfectly ACCEPTABLE level of humiliation for prisoners.
Yes, of course, because no one was ever put in a booking cell by accident. I'm sure everyone who has ever gone into a booking cell was then booked, in due process, and later found guilty of whatever it was they were accused of doing.
Because, as everyone knows, law enforcement officials, whether elected, appointed or hired, are human and never make mistakes. Oh, yeah, and witnesses always see everything clearly and never forget any details or confuse one dark-haired, tall male wearing a denim jacket for any other dark-haired, tall male wearing a denim jacket.
MSACRAS
As for the reason why the lawyers would remove the smarter people - well, it seems that the way that jury trials go now, there's more emphasis placed on emotion than logic. If the case tends to be weak, the attorneys need to add a bit of emotion to shock/enrage the jury.
/. crowd, it would have been due to being framed and unjustly accused. Of course, finding a jury of our peers (not just based on citizenship, etc.), would be rather difficult!
I suppose that as a legal alien, you aren't considered a peer. This is not an insult, it's more a legal status.
If you go with the belief that criminals are basically stupid, or at least not smart enough to keep from getting caught, then perhaps the jury members with lower IQs really are their peers. I would hope that if such an unfortunate event were to occur to a member of the
I've lived in Texas, Maryland and California, have been eligible and still never had a summons to serve. My wife, on the other hand, has been summoned two or three times in the last three years, although she's never been selected to actually be on a jury.
Good for you! I'm glad there are other people who feel taking their responsibilities and civic duties are good things.
But, your tshirt suggestion for getting out of jury duty is just another example of the many ways people have dreamed up for avoiding something that's inconvenient to them.
It's a bit brazen, and I'd never wear that to a courtroom, mostly because I'd imagine doing so would be considered contempt of the court, but then, I don't want to get out of jury duty. I don't particularly want to serve on jury duty, especially if it's one of those long, drawn out boring (though probably significant) cases, but if called, I would serve.
Clearly manslaughter is not enough. If a measly slap on the wrist like "manslaughter" were enough, would that driver have killed those innocent people? Would he have been so careless? The purpose of the law is to deter crime. If it is not a sufficient deterrent, it must be strengthened.
The purpose of law is not to deter crime. The purpose of law enforcement is to deter crime. The purpose of law is to define what crime is.
What really needs to happen is to have a minimum IQ for serving on juries.
Unfortunately, it seems that the potential jurors with IQs above a certain point are either removed by one of the legal teams for some reason or they can figure out how to get out of jury duty.
I'm eligible for jury duty, but I've never been asked to serve. It's a civic duty, just like obeying the driving laws while driving. However, many people have come up with many ways to get out of jury duty. Everyone wants the other person to take responsibility for their actions, but few want to make sure it really happens by participating in the process, and those who do are rejected for many different reasons.
Sad, really, but it's still a system that mostly works.
You can bet that cell phones are not a danger to make planes crash. That isn't the reason they are banned. You can bet on that.
;-)
I try to leave your (correct) conclusion as an "exercise for the reader" and you go off and do all the work for everyone! Maybe next time I shouldn't be so subtle...
... Part of the reason why the FAA is over-sensative over what's going on within commerical airplanes is because if the unthinkable random frequency collision were to happen, it might cause an instrument to give a wrong reading to the pilot and the result would be hundreds of people being killed.
I'm sorry, I don't buy this. If planes are so reliant on all these telemetry signals that a bunch of electronic devices in the cabin could cause them to crash because the pilots cannot possibly look at the instruments, look out the window, and figure out something's wrong, I don't know how any airline managed to stay in business or keep any sort of plane in the air before, say, 1995. Without GPS and the (incredibly consistent) global air-traffic radar systems, why, you couldn't so much as fly a plane over a country with whom your at war to drop a bomb.
Oh, wait, they did, and radar hadn't even become useful or reliable, in the early 1940s.
One of my favorite "West Wing" quotes is from the opening scene of the pilot (I think...), where Toby gets a page and calls into the whitehouse, and the flight attendant tells him he has to turn off his cell phone because the plane is approaching the airport. Paraphrasing, his response went something like, "This aircraft is equipped with a $60,000 telemetry system hooked into a multi-million dollar national air traffic control system, and you're telling me that I can cause the plane to crash with something I bought from Radio Shack for less than $30.00? Do you know how stupid you sound?"
I don't know, but something just doesn't seem right.
Silly /. reader (me)!
How did that AC -1 filter get set?
Sorry, feel free to mod me down.
Maybe the new BOINC software will allow you to split your computing time between SETI and Folding?
Whoever modded the parent down should rethink their decision.
Folding at Home seems to be another distributed computing project, just like SETI. I haven't RTFA-ed, but the original post says that BOINC will allow multiple distributed programs to run. At worst, this is redundant, but it is definitely on topic for this particular part of the thread!
Why not? Here's the link anyone could do for themselves:
e %20
;-)
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=erstwhil
I can only guess he thinks it means something totally random (to us).
Hmm. Her random son?
Surely anyone who can set up a local network can plug a hard drive into a machine and reboot it?
Well, probably, but you're assuming that they have access to modern platforms. What if they're still using 286s with MFM drives, or worse? Sure, sending a 200GB drive is great, but what if they have nothing that can read it when it gets there? Of course, I haven't RTFA, but just off the top of my head, these issues come to mind.
It reminds me of just how spoiled and lucky I am!
IMO there main alternative is:
1) a solution compatible with original RFC (that is it does not rule out any sender that the original spec would permit)
2) a completely new and different system. Redesigned from scratch.
Even if we could completely revamp SMTP, it still sits on top of TCP/IP (etc.), and there will still be ways to get around any protections we could add to SMTP.
Unfortunately, I think it will take some major overhauling of the Internet and its core protocols to solve this problem. And that means lots of work, lots of new equipment and lots of new applications, all at enormous expense.
So, what's worse, loss of bandwidth, over-burdened mail servers and everyone spending time deleting junk out of their inboxes, or everyone spending a significant amount of money, users for new e-mail programs, companies for the same programs, new mail servers and routers, ISPs and backbone providers for expensive new infrastructure, and none of it possible until all the protocols are reworked, let's say, five years from now?