Educate yourself on history. It's the only antidote to propaganda.
History is propaganda, the type of propaganda is determained by who is writing the history.
Good gameplay that appeals to casual gamers.
on
NYT on World of Warcraft
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
has a piece on Blizzard's World of Warcraft, discussing the game's popularity and high sales.
A few of the things I like about World of Warcraft.
1. It's not a real 'grind'. You get an experence bonus for being offline, so you don't have to feel like you need to play all the time to 'keep up' if you are the keep up type.
2. There is a good questing system, that offers rewards that are at least as good as the rewards (ie drops) you would get from just farming mobs.
3. Decent PvP system. Those who want PvP join PvP servers, and PvP combat is limited enough to not scare off newbies, but prevalent enough to be enjoyed at higher levels.
4. Things aren't too hard. Most of the professions (ie crafting) aren't too comlicated which is nice for a casual player like myself who has a full time job.:)
I think WoW is the first MMORPG to really reach out to and reward casual players, and it's succeeding.
I'm sure South Korea and China would be more than a little concerned if the US nuked North Korea. South Korea is our ally and China has more than two nukes.
Tactical nukes don't have as much fallout, I understand your point about SK and China but I am sure if NK attacked the US with nuclear weapons, NK would be no more.
The CIA briefed congress last year that North Korean missiles could probably get to California.
North Korea tested out missles/rockets that could get to California, but 2 of the 3 tests failed IIRC. It's unlikely the North Koreans would try for California with that kind of failure rate.
As others are mentioning, Japan could be a target. Japan brutally occupied Korea from 1910 to WW2. The Koreans are still pretty unhappy about that.
It is sad to even think about Japan being a target of nuclear weapons again.
Retaliation!? Isn't everyone trying to put an end to the nuclear era?
Sure, but for those that still want to live in it like North Korea, it has to be made clear to them that there will be retaliation and accountability for any nuclear attacks on the US.
People in the US talk, talk, talk, but they probably have nuclear power, are working on anti-matter bombs (much worse that nuclear ones, despite no radiation consequences),
I have no doubt the US government is working on 'better' war techonology. So what? Do you expect them to lay down and die for the world? When you say people in the US 'talk talk talk' what exactly are you talking about?
and don't follow the human rights (e.g. Guatemala) they impose on other countries! Damn, u americans are arrogants...
Nice Anti-American rant, but the US policy (Any nuclear attack on the US will lead to retaliation) is pretty much the same policy all of the nuclear powers have. So if you are looking at a reason to hate the US, look somewhere else.
I'd suggest trying to watch some of our television.:)
And we shouldn't worry that the US has more nuclear bombs than any other country?
Russia still has more nuclear bombs than any other country. They went more for 'quantity' in the cold war why the US went for 'quality'.
We shouldn't worry that Bush commands them?
Please, enough with the reactionary Bush bashing. He's not dropping 'the bomb' on anyone. If he didn't do it post 9/11 it's not coming unless the US faces nuclear attack from an actual state.
Maybe the US's hipocracy is why North Korea stopped talking.
North Korea is just running this scam for all it's worth to get more foriegn aid for it's starving populace and to ensure that South Korea is no threat. This has little to do with US foreign policy in the middle east over the past few years. That may be North Korea's excuse, but as is always in politics what people say is the cause for something, and what the actual cause is are two different things.
You're absolutely right. It's sad that in order to prevent your country from being attacked, you have to be able to assure "MAD", Mutually Assured Destruction.
Not really, the only country that can assure the US of Mutually Assured Destruction is Russia. Yet their are plenty of other countries the US wouldn't attack for economic and political reasons.
If you are getting 5% -10% of your GDP in trade with a country, there is no way you will be hostile twards it. Which is why democracy and free markets will lead to a peaceful world.
Hmm... a government hostile to ours with nuclear weapons is a real threat to us. They won't negotiate with us and they certainly won't give up their nuclear weapons. We'd better make it clear that any hostile action can be met with nuclear response.
Oh they will negotiate, they want more foreign aid. It's standard US policy that any nuclear attack on the US will lead to nuclear retalitation. That is a card North Korea can bluff with but never play. Even if they did, they would be lucky if any of their missles could hit the continental US. Sorry Hawaii ^_^.
Is really track the sales on ebay (and similar places). When someone an auction is successful, and the account switches hands, you ban both buyer and seller from the game using their credit card #s, and share this information with other mmorpgs.
I'm sure E-bay will be quick to give away credit card numbers of their customers.
Some players are morally offended by the idea that their "fun" is being corrupted, and regardless of whether you think they're hypocrites, off balance, or whatever, their $15 a month is as green as everyone else's and they will gladly take it elsewhere. Most developers think that this segment of their playerbase buys more months of service than the "farming community", and they're likely correct.
Yeah but the funny part is this segment of their playerbase is often a part of guilds/clans who screw the economy up and screw solo'ers time up by giving insane amounts of gold/items to their low level guildmates. I've run into people in World of Warcraft who were decked out in equipment and bragged about having 5GP's at level 10. I of course asked how they got it, and I got "My guildmate gave it to me!"
I don't see any way to prevent people from having their "fun" corrupted. The people buying on E-Bay are no different from the ones who get good equipment/gold from their clanmates at low levels.
Social security in Venezuela has never been privatized.
My mistake, I mistook Venezuela for Chile.
Re:Not just developing countries
on
The Sub-$100 Laptop?
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
Welcome to George W. Bush's new economy.
I'd hate to mention this, but the previous person would be the one to ask. didn't Venezuela privitized their social security a few years (ie 15-20) ago?
The people farming items and money for sale are not doing that. They are just sitting in one spot, killing easy things over and over and over. That's tedium, no fun.
And what exactly do you do for a living that is more fun that grinding in an MMO game? Just wondering:)
And I know, finally, the argument that says that if the world was using Macs instead of PCs, the hackers would be attacking the Macs. It's a game of numbers, after all. Anti-Mac pundits always mutter the same thing as they install yet another PC bug fix: there just aren't enough Macs out there to warrant a hacker's attention. Which is, of course, mostly bull.
No, it's not "mostly bull". Mac has about 2% of the desktop market. Why would your average script kiddie bother? It has barely any of the server market, thus isn't a target for hackers/kiddies after high bandwith connections to use as dumping grounds. If mac had a greater marketshare, and had more valuable machines they would be getting broken into. On top of that, there are 100's of tools out to exploit windows and mailing lists like bugtraq's and full disclosure to hang out on and find the latest bugs for windows/linux machines. There is simply no motivation for someone to bother with macs. There is no magic mac "OS architecture" that is better than Windows. I work on a mac 8 hours a day, and there is nothing special about it whatsoever.
I'm no programmer,
I am, Hi!
but I know what I read,
Don't believe everything you read. Especially from zealots.
and I know my experience: the Mac OS architecture is much more robust, much more solid, much more difficult to hack into.
You know dick, except security by obsecurity.
Apple's software is, by default, more sound and reliable, given its more stable core.
Apple software, is not reliable. I work with it every day. I watch the random crashes on G4's and G5's. I get the shitty error codes like (ERROR -15). I've seen apps crawl for no reason. I've seen safari bug, after safari bug. I've dealt with apple's BS OS upgrading system, where you can't get a safari upgrade unless you get their newest cat-named OS-X install. I've seen mac die and Kernal panic with Unix like commands all over my screen. Mac is in no way more stable than windows.
(Sometime in the later '90s, a Mac org whose name I forget ran a rather amazing hacker competition: they offered a $13,000 cash prize to anyone in the world who could hack into the company's unprotected Mac server and alter the contest's home page in any way. Needless to say, no one ever could).
Heh, because nobody cares about mac. It's convient you can't remember anything about this contest.
The title of the article includes the following statement:
Why do PC users put up with so many viruses and worms? Why isn't everyone on a Mac?
To which I say, because Macs are overpriced and don't have the software PC's do. People know how to use PC's, and a switch to a Mac isn't worth the trouble of getting used to something new. While clueless windows users might get exploited frequently, I've had my XP box running for 2 years without a reformat, and have never had any problems. Sure, I have to keep my anti-virus software up to date, check for spyware, and I use mozilla not IE, I have a hardware firewall, and a software firewall. Is it a pain in the ass? Sure, but just like your car, you have to do some maintainence sometimes. I'm much happier on my PC, doing the work and knowing I'm safe than I would be on a Mac with a false sense of security.
Mac will NEVER pass the PC on the desktop. KILL YOURSELF MAC FANBOIZ!
Please tell me that was a joke. His sexual indiscretions had no effect on his actual effectiveness as a leader.
Clinton was afraid to go after Osama after the first missle strike failed to kill him. The Republicans cried "Wag the Dog" and Clinton wasn't gutsy enough to do the right thing. Even James Carville admitted that after the first strike was unsuccessful that the public viewed it as a trick to distract them from Clintons domestic problems and Clinton was too worried about his popularity and legacy to press onward.
So his sexual indiscrestions did effect his ability to lead, as did his vanity.
Without having to worry about Britain and the rest of western Europe, Hitler may well have been able to anniliate the Sovet Union.
Or at least Hitler would have fought Stalin to a bloody stalemate, leaving both sides drained of resources, and would have left America as the lone superpower (or at least the cold war wouldn't have started when it did, if at all).
The lesson is, don't go abroad searching for monsters to slay. It just comes back to haunt you later on.
I don't think it was the best idea in the world. In the end, we may have saved lives by removing Sadaam from power, however I don't think America should be trying to democratize the world. It is, looking good so far and if it sparks change in the region, who knows how many lives might be saved?
My viewpoint on the whole thing goes back to Washingtons advice not to search abroad for monsters to slay.
My problem is that I don't think a single thing the Bush administration is doing is preventing terrorism. Especially the patriot act and the Iraq war. Still, Bush is spending billions of dollars to combat an invisible enemy that likely can not be defeated in such a fashion.
The patriot act is a mixed bag to me. Many of the provisions were in use already for Mafia members. I don't have a problem with the provisions that are for "suspected terrorists only". The few they threw in that can be used at any time are a little bothersome. I'd like to see them implement something where if they use these powers, they at some point have to be accountable to the court at least and run the reason they used them by a judge.
I think it is significant cause for us to go after the people responsible for those deaths (Bin Laden). Not to declare war on the Muslim world simply because portions of that population like to see Americans die. Just because a group of people hate us doesn't mean they will necessarily attack us, and it doesn't necessarily mean that they could even if they wanted to.
We haven't declared war on the Muslim world though, if we had the response to 9/11 would have been much more harsh. We are trying to "change' the muslim world in the hopes that a changed environment will prevent terrorism. I think all out war would have a better chance of success, but I am not advocating that solution either.
It also isn't significant cause for us to give up liberties here at home to help "combat" terror. Granted, I personally have not felt the affects of the powers granted the government by the patriot act, but have you read the thing? It goes against everything I think this country should stand for.
I don't see any liberties given up, except some questionable violations of search and seziure laws. I think people who are against the act would be better off stating their case logically, and asking for reform of the act rather than the typical "OMG BUSH IS A NAZI HE IS TAKING OUR LIBERTIES". I don't think the act goes against everything this country stands for (that is an extreme statement). I do think it oversteps the bounds of illegal searches. There is a need for wiretaps and and searches without a judges consent if there is either the belief that judges are being paid off, or that delay will lead to the death of innocents. Like I mentioned before, I'd just like to see some type of checks and balances worked into it. If you don't want to go to the Judge beforehand for the warrent, fine if it's a terror suspect, but you had better be able to justify it later and prove you had probable cause.
You mean besides the entire human race? This may come as a shock to you, but SS (both in this country, and in a larger global sense) is a recent thing. Most people that have lived (read: thrived) throughout history, did it without social security.
While many people replied to you with "OMG BUT OLD PPL DIE and SUFFER". I can tell you that social security for old people used to be their kids. In poor countries it still is. If you have yourself 10-12 kids, chances are a few of them will live to take care of you.
With the birthrates of today (at least among the western world) and the decay of the family unit this type of social security doesn't exist any longer.
Social security could have worked from the start, had it been implemented that each person actually pays for themselves and the government didn't touch the money. The problem is that SS was created during a bad time for our country, and the politicians have looted it as well.
While I'm not sure that President Bush has the best plan to fix Social Security, I'm glad it will be debated before we face a crisis.
am so with you on this. you'd think that as time went on, we'd be able to work *less* as a society and still live a decent life. instead, the opposite is happening. two people per household in the workforce now, some people working 2, 3 jobs. it's sick.
You can thank globalization for this. Two people in a middle class home have to work nowadays to make a decent living. If they have children, well rought luck. The kids will have to be raised by daycare, the TV or the internet. This has been masqueraded by the big media and the government as "Womens Rights" when in truth it is the murder of the family unit which was sacrificed at the alter of globalization.
Unless of course, it was one of your family or friends who died in there. I personally think all life is important, so 3500 is a significant number of people to die for me, especially if their death was preventable.
It is certainly a horrible thing, but it isn't a number that should cause us to give up our freedoms for security.
What freedoms have you given up? Please explain. The only freedom I've seen curtailed in this country is the second amendment. By the way, if a few people in those planes on 9/11 had guns, do you think the terrorists would have managed to crash those planes into the twin towers and the pentagon? Even if the terrorists had guns?
Far more Americans have died in the past to provide us with the freedoms we have in this country. We shouldn't disgrace their sacrifices because we sleep better with our own government peeking through our windows at night.
Really? Who in the government was peeking through your window?
I suppose I agree with Afghanistan. Terrorisim is a threat, it just isn't a siginificant one.
Oh, well then we won't worry about it. Hell why do we do AIDS research? Cancer is a MUCH greater threat than AIDS, so we should just put all of our money into that. Saying something isn't a significant threat, because it only kills a few people compared to something else is a poor line of thinking and shows disregard for human life. That is sad.
The Bush administration would like to make the case that terrorism is the gravest threat the US has ever faced, but it simply isn't. I would rather die in a terrorist attack than give up my freedoms.
But losing your life in a terrorist attack isn't the "gravest threat" that faces the US. Maybe it's the gravest threat in your eyes, but the US faces bigger issues that the loss of your life. Say, the terrorists manage to set off a small nuclear device that makes lower manhattan uninhabitable? What do you think the economic and human costs of that would be? How about a coordinated attack on major US cities?
While WW3 with Soviet Russia would have destroyed life on earth, so neither side would risk a nuclear attack, terrorists have nothing to lose and will die for their cause. After all, what do they have to lose? Their lives? They go to Allah then. And where exactly do we lauch our counter attack if we are attacked again? Nowhere. Which is why Terrorism is a greater threat to the US than Communism ever was. Communists saw the foolishness in a war they couldn't win. They didn't want to die...Islamic terrorists have no fear of death, thus there is nothing the US can threaten them with which makes them much more of a threat to the US.
It has always been about Steve Jobs. The man has insight and what could almost be considered clairvoyance when it comes to building things that people crave.
Yes, because it takes insight and clairvoyance to have less desktop marketshare than linux which is free. It takes a special kind of leader to acoomplish that!
I would reccomend Java, because not only is it a platform that has a few good books on creating Java games, but you will learn a 'in-demand' language that would actually be a future job skill. If you don't go with Java I would try C++.
For instance, his main critique is how entertainment has infiltrated our culture with a focus on trivia rather than substance. No where is this more apparent than a state recalling a governor a year after he had won reelection by a significant number, and that such a governor was run out of office in favor of an ACTOR, who many hope the U.S. Constitution will be amended so he can seek even higher office!
Yes, but by all accounts Gray Davis was doing a horrible job, and it's not like Arnold was an actor who one day woke up and said "Hey I want to be a politician!". He had been a member of the Republican party for quite awhile.
This, despite the number of conservatives who tell Hollywood actors to shut up about politics in the run up to the Iraq war.
What does one have to do with the other? I think the Conservatives bitched the most about actors who were uneducated about the issues getting involved and spreading misinformation.
Politics used to be showbusiness for ugly people, but now its nothing more than an extension of showbusiness.
Politics has always been one part showbusiness, because people have to 'like' you. It's always been like this, regardless of if it's right or wrong. Television just amplified it.
When I read this book, I can see examples that have cropped up in the 1990s that have proven his thesis true. Cell phones is one example. Ever eavesdrop on another person's public cell phonecall? I'm shocked at the trivial minutaie that people discuss with whomever they are speaking to, as if what they are doing at that moment matters to another person.
I'd hate to break this to you, but people were havng the same trivial conversations over land lines I've heard plenty of them.
What we get in a society that always seeks amusement for fear of boredom is a constant barrage of images and distractions that don't really mean anything in the end.
Yes, I think this is a problem but the deeper problem is a society that seeks amusment rather than knowledge. If you want to point to politics, I would state that the rise of ideology based cable news channels (CNN shifting to the left, Fox News on the Right) is more troubling than anything else.
The way we teach our children in schools to study for the multiple guess tests instead of teaching them interconnected facts that build a story, a history, an appreciation for the interconnectedness of our planet.
I'd worry more about social promotion. I don't know what the "fuzzy" statement about the interconnectedness of our planet is, but I worry more about high school students who graduate being able to unable to read, write or do basic math.
So, we end up with people who can pull facts out of their rears to succeed on gameshows like "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?", where one question and answer doesn't relate to the next one.
I think it's silly to point to a gameshow as an example of how our children are educated.
No wonder why people can't see a connection between our war in Iraq and our consumption of oil.
This is short sighted too. It's more like 'People can't see a connection between our mideast policy and the consumption of oil'. Even then, the war in Iraq was about a lot more than oil. I know people on the left like to make it out to be some evil crusade for oil, and while controling the region is important the true goals of the Iraq war were to impose democracy in the middle east, and use Iraq as an example of how democracy could work in the middle east. This was a neo-con objective from back around 1992. The second reason was to provide a battle ground in the middle east where terrorist could fight our soldiers rather than our civilians. People who say "ITS ONLY ABOUT OIL" are just as bad as the people who think it has nothing to do with oil.
Postman is right...a society that seeks one entertaining thrill after another cannot survive and e
Slashdot Mirror
Educate yourself on history. It's the only antidote to propaganda.
History is propaganda, the type of propaganda is determained by who is writing the history.
has a piece on Blizzard's World of Warcraft, discussing the game's popularity and high sales.
:)
A few of the things I like about World of Warcraft.
1. It's not a real 'grind'. You get an experence bonus for being offline, so you don't have to feel like you need to play all the time to 'keep up' if you are the keep up type.
2. There is a good questing system, that offers rewards that are at least as good as the rewards (ie drops) you would get from just farming mobs.
3. Decent PvP system. Those who want PvP join PvP servers, and PvP combat is limited enough to not scare off newbies, but prevalent enough to be enjoyed at higher levels.
4. Things aren't too hard. Most of the professions (ie crafting) aren't too comlicated which is nice for a casual player like myself who has a full time job.
I think WoW is the first MMORPG to really reach out to and reward casual players, and it's succeeding.
I'm sure South Korea and China would be more than a little concerned if the US nuked North Korea. South Korea is our ally and China has more than two nukes.
Tactical nukes don't have as much fallout, I understand your point about SK and China but I am sure if NK attacked the US with nuclear weapons, NK would be no more.
The CIA briefed congress last year that North Korean missiles could probably get to California.
North Korea tested out missles/rockets that could get to California, but 2 of the 3 tests failed IIRC. It's unlikely the North Koreans would try for California with that kind of failure rate.
As others are mentioning, Japan could be a target. Japan brutally occupied Korea from 1910 to WW2. The Koreans are still pretty unhappy about that.
It is sad to even think about Japan being a target of nuclear weapons again.
Retaliation!? Isn't everyone trying to put an end to the nuclear era?
:)
Sure, but for those that still want to live in it like North Korea, it has to be made clear to them that there will be retaliation and accountability for any nuclear attacks on the US.
People in the US talk, talk, talk, but they probably have nuclear power, are working on anti-matter bombs (much worse that nuclear ones, despite no radiation consequences),
I have no doubt the US government is working on 'better' war techonology. So what? Do you expect them to lay down and die for the world? When you say people in the US 'talk talk talk' what exactly are you talking about?
and don't follow the human rights (e.g. Guatemala) they impose on other countries! Damn, u americans are arrogants...
Nice Anti-American rant, but the US policy (Any nuclear attack on the US will lead to retaliation) is pretty much the same policy all of the nuclear powers have. So if you are looking at a reason to hate the US, look somewhere else.
I'd suggest trying to watch some of our television.
And we shouldn't worry that the US has more nuclear bombs than any other country?
Russia still has more nuclear bombs than any other country. They went more for 'quantity' in the cold war why the US went for 'quality'.
We shouldn't worry that Bush commands them?
Please, enough with the reactionary Bush bashing. He's not dropping 'the bomb' on anyone. If he didn't do it post 9/11 it's not coming unless the US faces nuclear attack from an actual state.
Maybe the US's hipocracy is why North Korea stopped talking.
North Korea is just running this scam for all it's worth to get more foriegn aid for it's starving populace and to ensure that South Korea is no threat. This has little to do with US foreign policy in the middle east over the past few years. That may be North Korea's excuse, but as is always in politics what people say is the cause for something, and what the actual cause is are two different things.
You're absolutely right. It's sad that in order to prevent your country from being attacked, you have to be able to assure "MAD", Mutually Assured Destruction.
Not really, the only country that can assure the US of Mutually Assured Destruction is Russia. Yet their are plenty of other countries the US wouldn't attack for economic and political reasons.
If you are getting 5% -10% of your GDP in trade with a country, there is no way you will be hostile twards it. Which is why democracy and free markets will lead to a peaceful world.
Hmm... a government hostile to ours with nuclear weapons is a real threat to us. They won't negotiate with us and they certainly won't give up their nuclear weapons. We'd better make it clear that any hostile action can be met with nuclear response.
Oh they will negotiate, they want more foreign aid. It's standard US policy that any nuclear attack on the US will lead to nuclear retalitation. That is a card North Korea can bluff with but never play. Even if they did, they would be lucky if any of their missles could hit the continental US. Sorry Hawaii ^_^.
Is really track the sales on ebay (and similar places). When someone an auction is successful, and the account switches hands, you ban both buyer and seller from the game using their credit card #s, and share this information with other mmorpgs.
I'm sure E-bay will be quick to give away credit card numbers of their customers.
Some players are morally offended by the idea that their "fun" is being corrupted, and regardless of whether you think they're hypocrites, off balance, or whatever, their $15 a month is as green as everyone else's and they will gladly take it elsewhere. Most developers think that this segment of their playerbase buys more months of service than the "farming community", and they're likely correct.
Yeah but the funny part is this segment of their playerbase is often a part of guilds/clans who screw the economy up and screw solo'ers time up by giving insane amounts of gold/items to their low level guildmates. I've run into people in World of Warcraft who were decked out in equipment and bragged about having 5GP's at level 10. I of course asked how they got it, and I got "My guildmate gave it to me!"
I don't see any way to prevent people from having their "fun" corrupted. The people buying on E-Bay are no different from the ones who get good equipment/gold from their clanmates at low levels.
Social security in Venezuela has never been privatized.
My mistake, I mistook Venezuela for Chile.
Welcome to George W. Bush's new economy.
I'd hate to mention this, but the previous person would be the one to ask. didn't Venezuela privitized their social security a few years (ie 15-20) ago?
The people farming items and money for sale are not doing that. They are just sitting in one spot, killing easy things over and over and over. That's tedium, no fun.
:)
And what exactly do you do for a living that is more fun that grinding in an MMO game? Just wondering
This is simply a pro-apple/anti-microsft rant.
From the article:
And I know, finally, the argument that says that if the world was using Macs instead of PCs, the hackers would be attacking the Macs. It's a game of numbers, after all. Anti-Mac pundits always mutter the same thing as they install yet another PC bug fix: there just aren't enough Macs out there to warrant a hacker's attention. Which is, of course, mostly bull.
No, it's not "mostly bull". Mac has about 2% of the desktop market. Why would your average script kiddie bother? It has barely any of the server market, thus isn't a target for hackers/kiddies after high bandwith connections to use as dumping grounds. If mac had a greater marketshare, and had more valuable machines they would be getting broken into. On top of that, there are 100's of tools out to exploit windows and mailing lists like bugtraq's and full disclosure to hang out on and find the latest bugs for windows/linux machines. There is simply no motivation for someone to bother with macs. There is no magic mac "OS architecture" that is better than Windows. I work on a mac 8 hours a day, and there is nothing special about it whatsoever.
I'm no programmer,
I am, Hi!
but I know what I read,
Don't believe everything you read. Especially from zealots.
and I know my experience: the Mac OS architecture is much more robust, much more solid, much more difficult to hack into.
You know dick, except security by obsecurity.
Apple's software is, by default, more sound and reliable, given its more stable core.
Apple software, is not reliable. I work with it every day. I watch the random crashes on G4's and G5's. I get the shitty error codes like (ERROR -15). I've seen apps crawl for no reason. I've seen safari bug, after safari bug. I've dealt with apple's BS OS upgrading system, where you can't get a safari upgrade unless you get their newest cat-named OS-X install. I've seen mac die and Kernal panic with Unix like commands all over my screen. Mac is in no way more stable than windows.
(Sometime in the later '90s, a Mac org whose name I forget ran a rather amazing hacker competition: they offered a $13,000 cash prize to anyone in the world who could hack into the company's unprotected Mac server and alter the contest's home page in any way. Needless to say, no one ever could).
Heh, because nobody cares about mac. It's convient you can't remember anything about this contest.
The title of the article includes the following statement: Why do PC users put up with so many viruses and worms? Why isn't everyone on a Mac?
To which I say, because Macs are overpriced and don't have the software PC's do. People know how to use PC's, and a switch to a Mac isn't worth the trouble of getting used to something new. While clueless windows users might get exploited frequently, I've had my XP box running for 2 years without a reformat, and have never had any problems. Sure, I have to keep my anti-virus software up to date, check for spyware, and I use mozilla not IE, I have a hardware firewall, and a software firewall. Is it a pain in the ass? Sure, but just like your car, you have to do some maintainence sometimes. I'm much happier on my PC, doing the work and knowing I'm safe than I would be on a Mac with a false sense of security.
Mac will NEVER pass the PC on the desktop. KILL YOURSELF MAC FANBOIZ!
Please tell me that was a joke. His sexual indiscretions had no effect on his actual effectiveness as a leader.
Clinton was afraid to go after Osama after the first missle strike failed to kill him. The Republicans cried "Wag the Dog" and Clinton wasn't gutsy enough to do the right thing. Even James Carville admitted that after the first strike was unsuccessful that the public viewed it as a trick to distract them from Clintons domestic problems and Clinton was too worried about his popularity and legacy to press onward.
So his sexual indiscrestions did effect his ability to lead, as did his vanity.
Without having to worry about Britain and the rest of western Europe, Hitler may well have been able to anniliate the Sovet Union.
Or at least Hitler would have fought Stalin to a bloody stalemate, leaving both sides drained of resources, and would have left America as the lone superpower (or at least the cold war wouldn't have started when it did, if at all).
The lesson is, don't go abroad searching for monsters to slay. It just comes back to haunt you later on.
Shouldn't this be filed under 'funny'?
No, NJ politics should be filed under 'funny'
So clearly we shouldn't have invaded Iraq then.
I don't think it was the best idea in the world. In the end, we may have saved lives by removing Sadaam from power, however I don't think America should be trying to democratize the world. It is, looking good so far and if it sparks change in the region, who knows how many lives might be saved?
My viewpoint on the whole thing goes back to Washingtons advice not to search abroad for monsters to slay.
My problem is that I don't think a single thing the Bush administration is doing is preventing terrorism. Especially the patriot act and the Iraq war. Still, Bush is spending billions of dollars to combat an invisible enemy that likely can not be defeated in such a fashion.
The patriot act is a mixed bag to me. Many of the provisions were in use already for Mafia members. I don't have a problem with the provisions that are for "suspected terrorists only". The few they threw in that can be used at any time are a little bothersome. I'd like to see them implement something where if they use these powers, they at some point have to be accountable to the court at least and run the reason they used them by a judge.
I think it is significant cause for us to go after the people responsible for those deaths (Bin Laden). Not to declare war on the Muslim world simply because portions of that population like to see Americans die. Just because a group of people hate us doesn't mean they will necessarily attack us, and it doesn't necessarily mean that they could even if they wanted to.
We haven't declared war on the Muslim world though, if we had the response to 9/11 would have been much more harsh. We are trying to "change' the muslim world in the hopes that a changed environment will prevent terrorism. I think all out war would have a better chance of success, but I am not advocating that solution either.
It also isn't significant cause for us to give up liberties here at home to help "combat" terror. Granted, I personally have not felt the affects of the powers granted the government by the patriot act, but have you read the thing? It goes against everything I think this country should stand for.
I don't see any liberties given up, except some questionable violations of search and seziure laws. I think people who are against the act would be better off stating their case logically, and asking for reform of the act rather than the typical "OMG BUSH IS A NAZI HE IS TAKING OUR LIBERTIES". I don't think the act goes against everything this country stands for (that is an extreme statement). I do think it oversteps the bounds of illegal searches. There is a need for wiretaps and and searches without a judges consent if there is either the belief that judges are being paid off, or that delay will lead to the death of innocents. Like I mentioned before, I'd just like to see some type of checks and balances worked into it. If you don't want to go to the Judge beforehand for the warrent, fine if it's a terror suspect, but you had better be able to justify it later and prove you had probable cause.
You mean besides the entire human race? This may come as a shock to you, but SS (both in this country, and in a larger global sense) is a recent thing. Most people that have lived (read: thrived) throughout history, did it without social security.
While many people replied to you with "OMG BUT OLD PPL DIE and SUFFER". I can tell you that social security for old people used to be their kids. In poor countries it still is. If you have yourself 10-12 kids, chances are a few of them will live to take care of you.
With the birthrates of today (at least among the western world) and the decay of the family unit this type of social security doesn't exist any longer.
Social security could have worked from the start, had it been implemented that each person actually pays for themselves and the government didn't touch the money. The problem is that SS was created during a bad time for our country, and the politicians have looted it as well.
While I'm not sure that President Bush has the best plan to fix Social Security, I'm glad it will be debated before we face a crisis.
am so with you on this. you'd think that as time went on, we'd be able to work *less* as a society and still live a decent life. instead, the opposite is happening. two people per household in the workforce now, some people working 2, 3 jobs. it's sick.
You can thank globalization for this. Two people in a middle class home have to work nowadays to make a decent living. If they have children, well rought luck. The kids will have to be raised by daycare, the TV or the internet. This has been masqueraded by the big media and the government as "Womens Rights" when in truth it is the murder of the family unit which was sacrificed at the alter of globalization.
and not the second one?
3500 Americans is not a significant number.
Unless of course, it was one of your family or friends who died in there. I personally think all life is important, so 3500 is a significant number of people to die for me, especially if their death was preventable.
It is certainly a horrible thing, but it isn't a number that should cause us to give up our freedoms for security.
What freedoms have you given up? Please explain. The only freedom I've seen curtailed in this country is the second amendment. By the way, if a few people in those planes on 9/11 had guns, do you think the terrorists would have managed to crash those planes into the twin towers and the pentagon? Even if the terrorists had guns?
Far more Americans have died in the past to provide us with the freedoms we have in this country. We shouldn't disgrace their sacrifices because we sleep better with our own government peeking through our windows at night.
Really? Who in the government was peeking through your window?
I suppose I agree with Afghanistan. Terrorisim is a threat, it just isn't a siginificant one.
Oh, well then we won't worry about it. Hell why do we do AIDS research? Cancer is a MUCH greater threat than AIDS, so we should just put all of our money into that. Saying something isn't a significant threat, because it only kills a few people compared to something else is a poor line of thinking and shows disregard for human life. That is sad.
The Bush administration would like to make the case that terrorism is the gravest threat the US has ever faced, but it simply isn't. I would rather die in a terrorist attack than give up my freedoms.
But losing your life in a terrorist attack isn't the "gravest threat" that faces the US. Maybe it's the gravest threat in your eyes, but the US faces bigger issues that the loss of your life. Say, the terrorists manage to set off a small nuclear device that makes lower manhattan uninhabitable? What do you think the economic and human costs of that would be? How about a coordinated attack on major US cities?
While WW3 with Soviet Russia would have destroyed life on earth, so neither side would risk a nuclear attack, terrorists have nothing to lose and will die for their cause. After all, what do they have to lose? Their lives? They go to Allah then. And where exactly do we lauch our counter attack if we are attacked again? Nowhere. Which is why Terrorism is a greater threat to the US than Communism ever was. Communists saw the foolishness in a war they couldn't win. They didn't want to die...Islamic terrorists have no fear of death, thus there is nothing the US can threaten them with which makes them much more of a threat to the US.
It has always been about Steve Jobs. The man has insight and what could almost be considered clairvoyance when it comes to building things that people crave.
Yes, because it takes insight and clairvoyance to have less desktop marketshare than linux which is free. It takes a special kind of leader to acoomplish that!
I would reccomend Java, because not only is it a platform that has a few good books on creating Java games, but you will learn a 'in-demand' language that would actually be a future job skill. If you don't go with Java I would try C++.
For instance, his main critique is how entertainment has infiltrated our culture with a focus on trivia rather than substance. No where is this more apparent than a state recalling a governor a year after he had won reelection by a significant number, and that such a governor was run out of office in favor of an ACTOR, who many hope the U.S. Constitution will be amended so he can seek even higher office!
Yes, but by all accounts Gray Davis was doing a horrible job, and it's not like Arnold was an actor who one day woke up and said "Hey I want to be a politician!". He had been a member of the Republican party for quite awhile.
This, despite the number of conservatives who tell Hollywood actors to shut up about politics in the run up to the Iraq war.
What does one have to do with the other? I think the Conservatives bitched the most about actors who were uneducated about the issues getting involved and spreading misinformation.
Politics used to be showbusiness for ugly people, but now its nothing more than an extension of showbusiness.
Politics has always been one part showbusiness, because people have to 'like' you. It's always been like this, regardless of if it's right or wrong. Television just amplified it.
When I read this book, I can see examples that have cropped up in the 1990s that have proven his thesis true. Cell phones is one example. Ever eavesdrop on another person's public cell phonecall? I'm shocked at the trivial minutaie that people discuss with whomever they are speaking to, as if what they are doing at that moment matters to another person.
I'd hate to break this to you, but people were havng the same trivial conversations over land lines I've heard plenty of them.
What we get in a society that always seeks amusement for fear of boredom is a constant barrage of images and distractions that don't really mean anything in the end.
Yes, I think this is a problem but the deeper problem is a society that seeks amusment rather than knowledge. If you want to point to politics, I would state that the rise of ideology based cable news channels (CNN shifting to the left, Fox News on the Right) is more troubling than anything else.
The way we teach our children in schools to study for the multiple guess tests instead of teaching them interconnected facts that build a story, a history, an appreciation for the interconnectedness of our planet.
I'd worry more about social promotion. I don't know what the "fuzzy" statement about the interconnectedness of our planet is, but I worry more about high school students who graduate being able to unable to read, write or do basic math.
So, we end up with people who can pull facts out of their rears to succeed on gameshows like "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?", where one question and answer doesn't relate to the next one.
I think it's silly to point to a gameshow as an example of how our children are educated.
No wonder why people can't see a connection between our war in Iraq and our consumption of oil.
This is short sighted too. It's more like 'People can't see a connection between our mideast policy and the consumption of oil'. Even then, the war in Iraq was about a lot more than oil. I know people on the left like to make it out to be some evil crusade for oil, and while controling the region is important the true goals of the Iraq war were to impose democracy in the middle east, and use Iraq as an example of how democracy could work in the middle east. This was a neo-con objective from back around 1992. The second reason was to provide a battle ground in the middle east where terrorist could fight our soldiers rather than our civilians. People who say "ITS ONLY ABOUT OIL" are just as bad as the people who think it has nothing to do with oil.
Postman is right...a society that seeks one entertaining thrill after another cannot survive and e