What locking mechanisms would a *cop* be willing to use? There are reasons most use firearms known for reliability, w/o internal/external locks or any "smartgun" tech. *Especially* external trigger locks, which aren't meant to be used on a loaded firearm for fairly obvious reasons.
In most situations, if you need to draw a weapon, you
a) need it quickly,
b) absolutely cannot avoid failure (namely
false inability to use).
'coz if there's an armed thug trying to beat you or your family, he isn't going to pause for a 20s intermission, and circumstances are less than optimal for such things as voice and combination locks.
Magnetized or radio rings seem to be an interesting possibility, although one would have to worry about, say, making sure that the ring can't be knocked/pulled off easily, and that there's no way to interfere with it.
That's an awfully broad level of granularity you have there.
On such issues such as health care, there's a whole spectrum of possibilities. Mr. Gore claims to be interested in fairly significantly expanding prescription drug benefits for the eldery (never mind that it's the uninsured *in general* who get screwed over... but the elderly vote the most), whereas Mr. Bush wouldn't divert as much resources in that direction.
"Assault weapons" is a remarkably silly term typically used to mean "has certain mean-looking cosmetic features". Normally, the terms single-action, double-action, semi-automatic, fully-automatic, pistol, and rifle are clear enough with grey areas between machine pistol/submachine gun and carbine/rifle. Perhaps it's useful for reporters who don't know enough and don't research enough, so they end up labelling an HK MP5 as a "rifle" (Apparently, CNN's reporters don't bother checking, say, H&K's web site, or even realizing that MP5="Machine Pistole 5".)...
Bradley, IIRC, supported mandatory registration. Gore had a somewhat more moderate stance, although he's also trying to exploit random shootings to argue for trigger locks (odd, most of these shooters aren't toddlers, and had plenty of time to remove trigger locks...). Bush... well, Texas has its reputation for a reason. IIRC, he's supporting trigger lock *sales* but not making their usage mandatory.
And on taxes, their positions also differ significantly in how much they're willing to commit (of the potentially imaginary budget surplus) and whom gets screwed in favor of whom. Bush, for instance, appears to have a serious problem with the idea that the top 20% pay 80% of the income taxes, while various others pay literally negative income taxes, while Gore appears to be noncomittal on tax cuts/hikes.
Sounds like a great way for MSFT to make Judge Jackson get REALLY angry. Somehow, I doubt he'd appreciate it if they had the audacity to try...
...then again, if it colored his judgement to the point where it made it easier to win on appeal due to provoking him into an excessive penalty, who knows?
He didn't. Jamie Mason is credited with that one, w/ additions by Wayne Throop. This parody -- and others like at -- are at LEAST 9 years old, as it's archived in a post
From: hanssgen@ira.uka.de (Stefan Haenssgen)
Date: 18 Dec 91 14:53:37 GMT
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Computer Songs & Poems Collection follows in 5 parts
Merry Xmas!
This is the COMPUTER SONGS COLLECTION V1.0, containing songs and poems about computers.
No. It's a defeat. To call this a victory is as disingenous as calling a shot-down pilot a hero solely for surviving being shot down, or to claim to be lucky for *surviving* a lightning strike. The pilot lived, but others did a better job by *not* getting shot down; being struck by lightning in the first place is hardly "lucky" unless you're a movie-monster zombie needing some energy to re-animate.
Frankly, RHAT dropped the ball. If one of the virtues of OSS is that more eyeballs can view the code, they _should have had more eyeballs_ viewing it before it was released. Clearly, they did not; their QA has failed before, failed this time, and will no doubt fail again. That other companies fail as well does NOT make this a victory, regardless of how many others there
If you really want to point at OSS security, think more about:
a) HAVING ongoing, rigorous code audits
b) NOT sacrificing security for usability, such as NOT making random programs SUID
c) NOT taking the attitude that security is unimportant enough to really even *mention* to the end user
d) NOT having such a rabid release cycle, but instead taking some time....
We're not an island, our borders are fairly porous, and there are *already* numerous firearms here.
Confiscation is therefore, essentially, impossible.
Same issue with ammunition. There are VAST quantities of ammo out there. HUD could try to blackmail/sue EVERY U.S. gun/ammo manufacturer into oblivion tomorrow, and the supply would last a LONG time, even if Customs were 100% successful in stopping imports. So the "let's mega-tax the ammo" workaround also doesn't work.
The conclusion: Deal with it. Recognize the reality that unless one makes firearms obsolete through completely insane SF technology like personal force fields, or invokes a *massive* police state with house/house searches, firearms are in the U.S. to stay.
Then read Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime". He's got some interesting stats re: CCW laws, for instance. "some" being a gross understatement, given he surveys every county in the US...
That's because MB's have different selling points than color. The gull-wing doors on DeLoreans (if memory serves) would be a closer example, as they are *very* distinctive -- basically a mark of that now defunct brand.
One strongly suspects that color and overall appearance IS a major point that drove first-time computer owners to opt for the iMac. Most of them are nowhere near hard-core, and probably don't truly care about OSes and such. Many people probably chose 'em because they looked more attractive, or matched their decor, or so forth.
Brands matter. Even little details like a lizard vs. a polo player on a shirt matter. At least in the eyes of a consumer...
Hm. The article does say that IBM will be involved in production, although not to what scale (i.e. will they be the sole producers, and how much capacity are they devoting to it?).
But IBM probably has the capacity if TM has the dough and the customers.:)
a) lack combat training/experience, b) are taught to, at most, duck and cover, c) don't fire back.
It's a lot easier to hit a motionless, defenseless target at close range, compared to your average armed perp who *really* doesn't want to go back for another 5-10.
If memory serves, that figure is basically "issues", which includes "features that they figured would have been nice to include but weren't" -- namely, potential improvements.
They're not stupid enough to ship with 65k Priority 1's...
Well, you have to take into account several cultural, geographical and political differences.
* They're far more homogeneous, and thus far less room for internal tension (and what there is, often isn't seen...). * They're far more tolerant of government. * Japan is an archipelago that shares no island with other nations. Combined with the previous point, they can control trade far more rigorously. * Traditionally, most people weren't well armed. * This means that they can control the availability of, say, firearms, with a much higher degree of rigor.
It's hard and rather pointless for most unarmed people to try rampaging.
On the other hand, occasionally they DO have problems with, say, people with swords trying to off an MP on the floor of the Diet (happened), or a kid beheading other kids.
Actually, take a look at the second study's conclusions. I'm no psychologist, but they appear to comment to the effect that women's aggressiveness was increased *more*, and then speculate on a few reasons why...
Hehehehehe. Mmmm, I've played Netrek in hockey mode before... mostly straight bronco, 'tho, and occasionally chaos. 'specially Borg-enabled chaos.
Oh my, did I hate SC-oggers...
Looks like they won't have cloaking, 'tho. That should make it MUCH more difficult to ogg. On the other hand, since there's momentum, maybe not -- if you can hit a high-enough velocity before they take out your engines/steering systems so you end up getting just as close. Or if there are ways to hide, like areas where radar doesn't work...
(Anybody ever write, say, a fully-automated OggBot? Getting one to figure out when to abort, and how to intercept w/o eating a string of torps might be something wicked.)
Folks don't, however, pre-emptively whack off limbs to stave off an unlikely case of gangrene in the case of minor cuts. Would you accept an unmarked, untested pill from a stranger in exchange for a year of auto insurance?
There's a lot of irrationality out there, such as that from folks who complain that GM foods haven't been proven safe but apparently don't realize that a) it's impossible to prove food safe; b) nobody's even tried for most foods, like, say, oranges; c) genes aren't static, anyway.
Likewise, those who feel that "nature" == "healthful" make me guffaw, considering that deadly nightshade, foxglove, sea-snake venom, cyanide compounds, and botulin are all perfectly natural. But I wouldn't go eating lots of foxglove if I were you...
Regardless of whether irrationality is conventional "wisdom", however, we cannot let this irrationality dominate our decision-making processes. To "do something" simply because masses demand that, without studying what that "something" is and what its ramifications are, and without fully understanding the situation, would be dangerous and ill-advised.
Is there, say, a risk of global warming? Perhaps. Some data suggests there is, although there is contention. That this may be worth studying does NOT mean that it would be advisable to suddenly switch to other fuel sources without examining the full effects, however. A switch to an electric car may *seem* good, but one then has to consider what byproducts the production and usage of the electricity results in... and that requires data.
If you follow the links to the developer's site, they don't seem to mention requirements anywhere -- or any technical info whatsoever. For all I know, all their nifty screenshots might only work on, say, 3Dfx hardware, and owners of other stuff might get hosed. Or, maybe they've been considerate enough to support just about every 3D accelerator out there *and* provide a software-renderer for those who don't have supported cards. I can't seem to find out.
Memory? Space? Number of CDs (or DVDs if they use them)? How about server load -- if a server has 8 AI players and 8 human chaps, will a decent PII/PIII/Athlon do, or will we find ourselves wishing for a quad-Xeon with FDDI, 2GB of RAM, and nobody playing directly on that machine?
The concept *sounds* cool. If they really pulled off such distinct behaviors, then that's very very impressive. But it might be nice to know whether it's going to be playable in a given setup, first...
* So an e-mail has to be sent to one address first... and the online store doesn't appear to tell you how many slots are left, before you actually select 'order' ? Um. I'm curious about how many e-mails are going to be sent to that address -- quite possibly WAY more than 100...
So what we have is a social scientist who happens to be a member of, judging by name, an environmentalist group with an agenda, posturing about effects on intelligence?
In constrast, say, to a neurobiologist or a biochemist who does NOT have a direct interest in the results of his research, who submits to strict peer review?
But one CAN take the FPS genre in different directions.
Breaking away from the paradigm of insanely strong armor and super-characters, one could tone EVERYTHING down. Implement more of a "get shot ONCE with a shotgun at point-blank and you're going to be in pain, if not bleeding to death, and Kevlar ain't tank plating" motif. But add flexibility, through tactics (like moving slowly but quietly, allowing quiet weapons like throwing knives, etc) and technology. Flashbangs, motion sensors, climbing gear...
It'd be nice, say, to use an FPS in which you don't *have* to walk around a corner to see what's there, 'coz you can peek or use a mirror. It'd be even cooler to be able to get *directional* cues when somebody/something makes a noise -- perhaps put a radar-like display, and briefly highlight a sector to indicate approximate direction/distance. Best of all would be if enemies aren't tough simply because they can eat twenty LAWs in a row (something that would be difficult for, say, a main battle tank...) without even having their aim disrupted, and 'coz they have an infinite number of rockets... but if instead the enemies had some clue.
Some games ship with "bosses" that ignore your shots, and cheerfully keep shooting at you even when *their* shots are being 100% blocked by an obstacle (but yours aren't). Example: the shareware boss for Duke Nukem, if memory serves. He aimed from his center, but shot from his right arm...
Even Descent, on higher levels, had enemies with some* degree of self-preservation where they'd shoot and then go back behind cover.
There's so much more they could do. Fatigue modelling, enemies with ammo limits, backing away from the insanely large inventories (e.g. 100 rockets (!), 400 bullets (all "generic" belted ammo, apparently...), 100 shotgun shells, lots of power cells, multiple rifle-size weapons...)...
Still, 'tho, there should be unlimited saving allowed, as long as the game is not structured in such a way that it becomes mandatory (e.g. a stupid "puzzle" or acrobatics game. Open the wrong door, die, reload. Or have to jump gaps 15 times from platform to platform, for no particular reason except to force reloads if you fail a single time.). After all, saving is an option; nobody's making you use it unless the designers put in a LOT of trial-error-die in it (or worse, random death ala, say, Maelstrom or Nethack...).
Otherwise it just looks like an artificial way to boost game "longevity" by making people reload more often, and play the same sequences over and over and over...
Slashdot Mirror
Got a question for you.
What locking mechanisms would a *cop* be willing to use? There are reasons most use firearms known for reliability, w/o internal/external locks or any "smartgun" tech. *Especially* external trigger locks, which aren't meant to be used on a loaded firearm for fairly obvious reasons.
In most situations, if you need to draw a weapon, you
a) need it quickly,
b) absolutely cannot avoid failure (namely
false inability to use).
'coz if there's an armed thug trying to beat you or your family, he isn't going to pause for a 20s intermission, and circumstances are less than optimal for such things as voice and combination locks.
Magnetized or radio rings seem to be an interesting possibility, although one would have to worry about, say, making sure that the ring can't be knocked/pulled off easily, and that there's no way to interfere with it.
That's an awfully broad level of granularity you have there.
On such issues such as health care, there's a whole spectrum of possibilities. Mr. Gore claims to be interested in fairly significantly expanding prescription drug benefits for the eldery (never mind that it's the uninsured *in general* who get screwed over... but the elderly vote the most), whereas Mr. Bush wouldn't divert as much resources in that direction.
"Assault weapons" is a remarkably silly term typically used to mean "has certain mean-looking cosmetic features". Normally, the terms single-action, double-action, semi-automatic, fully-automatic, pistol, and rifle are clear enough with grey areas between machine pistol/submachine gun and carbine/rifle. Perhaps it's useful for reporters who don't know enough and don't research enough, so they end up labelling an HK MP5 as a "rifle" (Apparently, CNN's reporters don't bother checking, say, H&K's web site, or even realizing that MP5="Machine Pistole 5".)...
Bradley, IIRC, supported mandatory registration. Gore had a somewhat more moderate stance, although he's also trying to exploit random shootings to argue for trigger locks (odd, most of these shooters aren't toddlers, and had plenty of time to remove trigger locks...). Bush... well, Texas has its reputation for a reason. IIRC, he's supporting trigger lock *sales* but not making their usage mandatory.
And on taxes, their positions also differ significantly in how much they're willing to commit (of the potentially imaginary budget surplus) and whom gets screwed in favor of whom. Bush, for instance, appears to have a serious problem with the idea that the top 20% pay 80% of the income taxes, while various others pay literally negative income taxes, while Gore appears to be noncomittal on tax cuts/hikes.
So they're not really that uniform...
Sounds like a great way for MSFT to make Judge Jackson get REALLY angry. Somehow, I doubt he'd appreciate it if they had the audacity to try...
...then again, if it colored his judgement to the point where it made it easier to win on appeal due to provoking him into an excessive penalty, who knows?
*shrug*
Not his.
Here's a gzipped copy of the collection he took it from.
computer.songs. gz
Not mine, either. See inside for attributions.
He didn't. Jamie Mason is credited with that one, w/ additions by Wayne Throop. This parody -- and others like at -- are at LEAST 9 years old, as it's archived in a post
From: hanssgen@ira.uka.de (Stefan Haenssgen)
Date: 18 Dec 91 14:53:37 GMT
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Computer Songs & Poems Collection follows in 5 parts
Merry Xmas!
This is the COMPUTER SONGS COLLECTION V1.0, containing songs and poems about computers.
[snip]
Readers of RISKS may remember this piece about lasers, spiders and networking.
No. It's a defeat. To call this a victory is as disingenous as calling a shot-down pilot a hero solely for surviving being shot down, or to claim to be lucky for *surviving* a lightning strike. The pilot lived, but others did a better job by *not* getting shot down; being struck by lightning in the first place is hardly "lucky" unless you're a movie-monster zombie needing some energy to re-animate.
Frankly, RHAT dropped the ball. If one of the virtues of OSS is that more eyeballs can view the code, they _should have had more eyeballs_ viewing it before it was released. Clearly, they did not; their QA has failed before, failed this time, and will no doubt fail again. That other companies fail as well does NOT make this a victory, regardless of how many others there
If you really want to point at OSS security, think more about:
a) HAVING ongoing, rigorous code audits
b) NOT sacrificing security for usability, such as NOT making random programs SUID
c) NOT taking the attitude that security is unimportant enough to really even *mention* to the end user
d) NOT having such a rabid release cycle, but instead taking some time....
*snicker*
And, considering that women are rather more than 21% of the population, that's discrimination! Sue! Sue!
:)
We're not an island, our borders are fairly porous, and there are *already* numerous firearms here.
Confiscation is therefore, essentially, impossible.
Same issue with ammunition. There are VAST quantities of ammo out there. HUD could try to blackmail/sue EVERY U.S. gun/ammo manufacturer into oblivion tomorrow, and the supply would last a LONG time, even if Customs were 100% successful in stopping imports. So the "let's mega-tax the ammo" workaround also doesn't work.
The conclusion: Deal with it. Recognize the reality that unless one makes firearms obsolete through completely insane SF technology like personal force fields, or invokes a *massive* police state with house/house searches, firearms are in the U.S. to stay.
Then read Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime". He's got some interesting stats re: CCW laws, for instance. "some" being a gross understatement, given he surveys every county in the US...
When was the last time people circle-strafed in a gunfight? Or, for that matter, stayed *standing up* in a firefight, with no cover?
Does the fact some airplanes still crash mean that maintenance is useless?
Namely, this is just proposed legislation 'ccording to that page, not something already law.
Is there actually enough support for this to pass, or is this more of a symbolic gesture?
That's because MB's have different selling points than color. The gull-wing doors on DeLoreans (if memory serves) would be a closer example, as they are *very* distinctive -- basically a mark of that now defunct brand.
One strongly suspects that color and overall appearance IS a major point that drove first-time computer owners to opt for the iMac. Most of them are nowhere near hard-core, and probably don't truly care about OSes and such. Many people probably chose 'em because they looked more attractive, or matched their decor, or so forth.
Brands matter. Even little details like a lizard vs. a polo player on a shirt matter. At least in the eyes of a consumer...
Hm. The article does say that IBM will be involved in production, although not to what scale (i.e. will they be the sole producers, and how much capacity are they devoting to it?).
:)
But IBM probably has the capacity if TM has the dough and the customers.
Most kids...
a) lack combat training/experience,
b) are taught to, at most, duck and cover,
c) don't fire back.
It's a lot easier to hit a motionless, defenseless target at close range, compared to your average armed perp who *really* doesn't want to go back for another 5-10.
If memory serves, that figure is basically "issues", which includes "features that they figured would have been nice to include but weren't" -- namely, potential improvements.
They're not stupid enough to ship with 65k Priority 1's...
Well, you have to take into account several cultural, geographical and political differences.
* They're far more homogeneous, and thus far less room for internal tension (and what there is, often isn't seen...).
* They're far more tolerant of government.
* Japan is an archipelago that shares no island with other nations. Combined with the previous point, they can control trade far more rigorously.
* Traditionally, most people weren't well armed.
* This means that they can control the availability of, say, firearms, with a much higher degree of rigor.
It's hard and rather pointless for most unarmed people to try rampaging.
On the other hand, occasionally they DO have problems with, say, people with swords trying to off an MP on the floor of the Diet (happened), or a kid beheading other kids.
And nobody would call Aum peaceful.
Actually, take a look at the second study's conclusions. I'm no psychologist, but they appear to comment to the effect that women's aggressiveness was increased *more*, and then speculate on a few reasons why...
I'm sure Leonardo "EarthDayBoy" diCaprio, owner of two SUVs, appreciates your disapproval.
IMDB bio note
;-)
Hehehehehe. Mmmm, I've played Netrek in hockey mode before... mostly straight bronco, 'tho, and occasionally chaos. 'specially Borg-enabled chaos.
Oh my, did I hate SC-oggers...
Looks like they won't have cloaking, 'tho. That should make it MUCH more difficult to ogg. On the other hand, since there's momentum, maybe not -- if you can hit a high-enough velocity before they take out your engines/steering systems so you end up getting just as close. Or if there are ways to hide, like areas where radar doesn't work...
(Anybody ever write, say, a fully-automated OggBot? Getting one to figure out when to abort, and how to intercept w/o eating a string of torps might be something wicked.)
Folks don't, however, pre-emptively whack off limbs to stave off an unlikely case of gangrene in the case of minor cuts. Would you accept an unmarked, untested pill from a stranger in exchange for a year of auto insurance?
There's a lot of irrationality out there, such as that from folks who complain that GM foods haven't been proven safe but apparently don't realize that a) it's impossible to prove food safe; b) nobody's even tried for most foods, like, say, oranges; c) genes aren't static, anyway.
Likewise, those who feel that "nature" == "healthful" make me guffaw, considering that deadly nightshade, foxglove, sea-snake venom, cyanide compounds, and botulin are all perfectly natural. But I wouldn't go eating lots of foxglove if I were you...
Regardless of whether irrationality is conventional "wisdom", however, we cannot let this irrationality dominate our decision-making processes. To "do something" simply because masses demand that, without studying what that "something" is and what its ramifications are, and without fully understanding the situation, would be dangerous and ill-advised.
Is there, say, a risk of global warming? Perhaps. Some data suggests there is, although there is contention. That this may be worth studying does NOT mean that it would be advisable to suddenly switch to other fuel sources without examining the full effects, however. A switch to an electric car may *seem* good, but one then has to consider what byproducts the production and usage of the electricity results in... and that requires data.
Thus, we shouldn't rush to judgement.
* Hardware/software requirements?
If you follow the links to the developer's site, they don't seem to mention requirements anywhere -- or any technical info whatsoever. For all I know, all their nifty screenshots might only work on, say, 3Dfx hardware, and owners of other stuff might get hosed. Or, maybe they've been considerate enough to support just about every 3D accelerator out there *and* provide a software-renderer for those who don't have supported cards. I can't seem to find out.
Memory? Space? Number of CDs (or DVDs if they use them)? How about server load -- if a server has 8 AI players and 8 human chaps, will a decent PII/PIII/Athlon do, or will we find ourselves wishing for a quad-Xeon with FDDI, 2GB of RAM, and nobody playing directly on that machine?
The concept *sounds* cool. If they really pulled off such distinct behaviors, then that's very very impressive. But it might be nice to know whether it's going to be playable in a given setup, first...
* So an e-mail has to be sent to one address first... and the online store doesn't appear to tell you how many slots are left, before you actually select 'order' ? Um. I'm curious about how many e-mails are going to be sent to that address -- quite possibly WAY more than 100...
*shrug*
Not a unique name by any measure. T'was also the home of the First Foundation in Asimov's "Foundation" series, if memory serves.
So what we have is a social scientist who happens to be a member of, judging by name, an environmentalist group with an agenda, posturing about effects on intelligence?
In constrast, say, to a neurobiologist or a biochemist who does NOT have a direct interest in the results of his research, who submits to strict peer review?
But one CAN take the FPS genre in different directions.
Breaking away from the paradigm of insanely strong armor and super-characters, one could tone EVERYTHING down. Implement more of a "get shot ONCE with a shotgun at point-blank and you're going to be in pain, if not bleeding to death, and Kevlar ain't tank plating" motif. But add flexibility, through tactics (like moving slowly but quietly, allowing quiet weapons like throwing knives, etc) and technology. Flashbangs, motion sensors, climbing gear...
It'd be nice, say, to use an FPS in which you don't *have* to walk around a corner to see what's there, 'coz you can peek or use a mirror. It'd be even cooler to be able to get *directional* cues when somebody/something makes a noise -- perhaps put a radar-like display, and briefly highlight a sector to indicate approximate direction/distance. Best of all would be if enemies aren't tough simply because they can eat twenty LAWs in a row (something that would be difficult for, say, a main battle tank...) without even having their aim disrupted, and 'coz they have an infinite number of rockets... but if instead the enemies had some clue.
Some games ship with "bosses" that ignore your shots, and cheerfully keep shooting at you even when *their* shots are being 100% blocked by an obstacle (but yours aren't). Example: the shareware boss for Duke Nukem, if memory serves. He aimed from his center, but shot from his right arm...
Even Descent, on higher levels, had enemies with some* degree of self-preservation where they'd shoot and then go back behind cover.
There's so much more they could do. Fatigue modelling, enemies with ammo limits, backing away from the insanely large inventories (e.g. 100 rockets (!), 400 bullets (all "generic" belted ammo, apparently...), 100 shotgun shells, lots of power cells, multiple rifle-size weapons...)...
I've known people that have done it.
Still, 'tho, there should be unlimited saving allowed, as long as the game is not structured in such a way that it becomes mandatory (e.g. a stupid "puzzle" or acrobatics game. Open the wrong door, die, reload. Or have to jump gaps 15 times from platform to platform, for no particular reason except to force reloads if you fail a single time.). After all, saving is an option; nobody's making you use it unless the designers put in a LOT of trial-error-die in it (or worse, random death ala, say, Maelstrom or Nethack...).
Otherwise it just looks like an artificial way to boost game "longevity" by making people reload more often, and play the same sequences over and over and over...