I'm all for low-brow off-color humor, but there comes a point where a joke, even stated "ironically," isn't funny. Yours isn't funny, and it's because it lacks context. Over half your post is devoted to an inappropriate joke that doesn't have anything to do with your point. The fact that you have to throw a disclaimer in there should have been an indication that it isn't funny. Racist humor can be funny (in my opinion), but not when it's delivered like a knock-knock joke.
I'm not so sure about that. Like TapeCutter said, the notion of teenagers rebelling against their parents isn't just an edge case. It happens quite often. In fact, I'd argue that it's happening more and more, what with the pervasiveness of television and the Internet. Two Democratic parents does not a liberal child make. There's school, television, the Internet, iPods, friends, and any other number of potential influences. Think of it another way: given two Christian parents, how likely is it that the child will end up as a Christian parent? (We are interested in the child as a distributor of genes.) Fifty years ago, that answer would have been "very likely." Today, I think the answer would be "somewhat likely." Who knows what it will be in another fifty years.
But yes, I'll cede that there is a *higher* probability that a child will adopt the views of its parents. That is strictly cultural though, in my opinion. To suggest otherwise is the very essence of Lamarckism. Now if we start seeing children that automatically and predictably reject the fundamental tendency to act as social creatures that's encoded into our DNA, *then* we would have something to talk about. That would be an (alarming) evolutionary adaptation. Everything else is indicative of larger social and cultural issues.
Yeah this sounds like Larmarckian evolution to me. Which is to say it's wrong. There's no "Democrat" gene and there isn't a "fundamentalist Christian" gene either. (I mean, I suppose there *could* be, but for the sake of this discussion, these are learned traits, not hard-wired physical traits, like hair color). All this nonsense about those vile plebians polluting the gene pool is stupid (and dangerous) to me. We're not cockroaches, producing millions of offspring apiece. Humans average, what?, two offspring in their lifetimes? So the "poor people" have three kids and the WASPs have one. Big deal. Being born poor doesn't mean you stay poor. Being born Christian doesn't mean you stay Christian. Being born Democrat doesn't mean you stay Democrat. These come after the splicing and dicing of DNA.
I think it goes further than that. Just because humans are sentient and can, to some degree, exist outside of nature does not mean that we are beyond evolution. It just exhibits itself in new ways: the evolution of business models, governments, athletic competition, trade, diplomacy, etc. Or, to relate it to Slashdot: phishing attacks, spam, botnets, P2P network design, Web 2.0, GPL v3, etc. The most highly moderated conversations here are rarely the most technical; rather, they are discussions of human nature. Things change. Not for change's sake, but in reaction to the inborn tendencies of millions of years of evolution. So maybe humans won't grow a third arm any time soon, but I am confident that the world as we know it today will be far different from the world even 100 years from now. As a society, we will continue to evolve.
I've had trouble with generics myself. I don't claim to be a programming superstar though, so I might be overlooking something simple. My problem is that I cannot get a (useful) array out of a vector. No matter what I do, Vector.toArray() will only return an array of Objects. But I don't want Object[], I want something specific. And I thought that is what generics were supposed to do: declare a vector, use generics to tell Java what kind of objects are in it, and get rid of all those nasty casts. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be the case. It seems that the information is lost at runtime, do to what Google tells me is "type erasure." There is an open bug on the subject, which I think is related. Regardless, I find it rather annoying and cumbersome to work around.
Requisite warning about getting into something for reason other than love aside, UX is the Next Big Thing(TM): usability, HCI, interaction design, UX design, etc. There are a lot of disparate sub-disciplines, but the overall theme of the movement is to put the people who use your products first. In academia that sometimes translates to taking control away from the "evil developers," but most of the UX people I talk to know that multidisciplinaranism is really where it's at. Like any other successful field, UX is at its best when it's part of a well-coordinated team of people who know what they're doing. We all care about "the users," but writing good software is challenging enough without worrying about the complexities of human behavior. It goes both ways: just as UX doesn't work when the developers resist their presence, good UX people have to be technically savvy enough to know what computers can do these days. When I was in school, I watched far too many design teams fall into traps like assuming perfect natural language processing, but that's another topic altogether.
Keep UX in mind. You'll find it mostly at large companies at IT hotspots like the Valley right now, but that's how it is with any emerging field. It starts at the top and permeates outward. There's a competetive advantage to well-designed software, and UX is one way to get you there.
Are you serious? You realize that 1980 was 27 years ago, right? That's nearly a generation ago. I have no love for "the industry," and that is exactly why your comment is so ridiculous. "The industry" still poses an immense danger to the future of the Internet, the sanctity of the legal system, and the democratic process. It's one of the most powerful lobbies in America today. Not bad for an industry that "destroyed itself" before I was born.
You know, this is a damed good idea. So simple that I just HAVE to look for pitfalls.
First, I read about something called the Federal Register the other day. As I understand, it is a daily publication of the GPO, responsible for creating a record of public government communication.
Where does this fit into the equation? Wikipedia says it has been operating since the 1930s. That to me suggests existing infrastructure. Could this program be adopted to handle pending Congressional legislation? Does something similar exist already? Are these even valid questions? I'm trying to get a sense of the public accounting context that exists today.
Now, once we set up a legislative mechanism to get the information in place, there are practical considerations. I happen to agree with the parent's cynicism. Open government is less corrupt government, and there will surely be resistance to a program like this. What is the likelihood that something like this would be ignored? The aforementioned Wikipedia states that the Register is for public notices not "classified." Do government agencies really bother? Would Congress bother? Would it matter, practically speaking?
Then there's the question of volume. I understand the current Register is thousands upon thousands of pages. What would be the best way to handle all this data? Pressure our Congressmen to form a committee to look into the possibility of proposing vaguely worded, easily subverted legislation that would create a billion dollar, privacy infringing, twenty-year behemoth of a program? Or dictate simply that the data should be available in a specified format (something akin to a patch) in a timely manner.
I think the latter would be better, because it would force We the People to take a little responsibility for the program. I mean really, who doesn't think that an enterprising group of dedicated people, working for free in their spare time would work more efficiently than a monstrous bureaucracy? Sound like a familiar Slashdot battle?
Either someone will rise to the challenge and write a utility to "visualize" the data in an interesting way, or not. If not, I think we have bigger problems than Congressmen not reading their bills.
Make the data (near) freely available, then leave it up to The People to figure out how to use it. That's my take.
Yeah, my problem with this is that it basically reads like any other Slashdot discussion. I mean, I know a lot of people complain about the quality of discussion here, but overall, I think it's pretty balanced. People tend to throw in the requisite IANAL disclaimers. After reading the deposition (my first, by the way), however, I have to say I'm disappointed.
What makes this guy an expert? Aside from some kind of accreditation (I forget exactly what it was), it's nothing I couldn't do over a case of beer and a movie. There's no documentation, no real insight, and no deep understanding of the issue. I don't know what the legal standard for expert testimony is, but I'm going to be sorely disappointed if that's all it takes.
Could someone explain what this means? It seems to follow just about every question. I'm only about 40 pages in, but so far, this seems like a rather heated interview. Would this be accurate? Does that mean that these constant objections are a sign of a tense exchange?
Oh I wouldn't say it's a troll. Just because a joke bombs doesn't mean it's a troll. There was nothing particularly offensive, inciting, or objectionable about the post. It was a minor variation on a number of persistent Slashdot memes. One stale joke does not a troll make.
Personally, I think it just might be THE lamest joke I have ever heard. Consider that it is already on Slashdot, posted in a Linux discussion. Now consider that it conflates two of the nerdiest tales of all time: a Tolkien war between Linux and Microsoft and the original Star Wars. Throw in some anthropomorphized chairs and a little cloak-and-dagger vagueness, and you've got the nexus of all thing dork.
Maybe that explains it, you call it a troll because you're ashamed you got the joke. So am I, man, so am I.
This is the second time you've proposed that without the GPLv3, OSS developers will be locked out from developing a whole generations of computers. Could you please explain this scenario for me? Is there going to be a conspiracy of hardware makers that are going to lock out OSS development?
I imagine it means we could find ourselves in a situation where the Playstation 4 or XBOX 3 actually runs Linux. But while the code is "open," licensed under the GPLv2, all the cryptographic nonsense and DRM closes it back down again. Granted we'll have the source to look for attack vectors, but until a weakness is found, we'll still have to go to Microsoft or Sony for a "developer license." Which really just means paying large sums of money so they will use their private keys to generate a "valid" crypotgraphic signature for your binary.
Now because these are game systems, they'll attract the attention of the best hackers in the world. Having the source code, even GPLv2, would be a tremendous boost to the modding scene. Imagine instead that this is your toaster, or your Buick, or your no-name cell phone -- something only you and a small number of other people are interested in. Because the source is available under the GPLv2, you can find the exact line that is creating the bug you want to fix, but because none of you know how to hack the encryption checking, you're powerless to do anything about it.
This is, I think, what the GPLv3 is trying to prevent.
Re:The Supreme Court disagrees
on
RIAA Sues a Child
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I have to wonder whether it might just BE morally okay to download music? When you have millions of people that doing something that is clearlly illegal, it generally leads to debate on the subject. I don't want to state whether music should actually be free, but there is room for discussion.
Look at other issue: abortion, prohibition, drug use, speeding, underage drinking, etc. All of the issues are rather actively debated -- whether they should be illegal, to what extent they should be permitted (if any), and what the penalties should be if they are found to be illegal.
I think this is what you're seeing with P2P. There is a system and set of laws in place that is not entirely in sync. with society. Hence we are debating what, if anything needs to be done. Should we revise copyright law? Should we sue the infringers? Is this a new extension of "theft?" Should penalties be reduced? What kinds of alternative distribution exist? And so on.
I think it is a fascinating process to watch, if only because real progress is made through the extremes; the RIAA powergrab, for example, or widespread infringement by college students. Time will tell what the appropriate solutions look like.
Maybe you could argue such a point for the suite, but I don't see how you could do so for Firefox and Thunderbird. Those packages can still claim pre-1.0 innocence. Note that I'm not judging the validity of these charges, just where they should, and should not, apply.
Now imagine they deployed said system and you read a Slashdot article along the lines of "WalMart gift cards track shoppers movements."
It's a good idea, don't get me wrong, but you should realize you're suggesting the same kind of automated, computer-controlled heuristical overloard situation that is so loathed by the YRO crowd. This is why it is important to consider the technology we deploy carefully!
Indeed. The iPod is so well liked because it actually works. It amazes me that so many billion-dollar companies think they can throw an MP3 player on their devices and the user will come a-flockin'. It amazes me that, after the iPod has dominated for as long as it has, none of the companies have picked on the fact that maybe, just maybe, users would like to be able to use their devices without taking instructional classes. It amazes me that all these companies are so focued on their plans for market domination that they completely neglect the users. Ahh well, all the better for Apple I suppose.
I wouldn't say useless. Being able to see how the program reads and writes a file is much more useful than trying to guess what that program is doing. The open source community has done a good job guessing... imagine how much easier their jobs would be if they could observe the precise behaviour of the actual program.
Re:Someone please explain this to me.
on
Mozilla 1.7 Released
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Not good enough.
How many times have you watched users click "OK" to install Comet Cursor or Bonzai Buddy or Weather Bug or whatever else.
Malicious XPIs already exist. So do "stupid" users. If Firefox continues to gain marketshare, the combination will be just as annoying as the IE mess is now.
Isn't it ridiculously obvious that you can't trust the user to make an informed decision about button to click by now?
It's nice to see IU on top again. Wireless covers just about every square inch of campus. Granted, service is a bit spotty in Dunn Woods, but come on now! It is nice to be able to find a nice spot in the shade and people-watch. With wireless, I can catch up on email, or IM my friends (some in class, even). It sure beats sitting on the computer *inside*.
I wonder, at times it seems technology gets a pass, just because it is complicated.
Though the article mentions privacy concerns, it is stuff away between a half-dozen other headings. All technology is nothing more than tools. It is the context that gives the tool its meaning. And in this case, the social context of the tool should very much be weighed against the abilitity to "never miss an important moment." Who defines important? And who defines what *should* be recorded, and what should not be recorded? The social implications of all technology deserve more consideration than they currently recieve, I think.
I don't know, somehow this fascinates me. I don't claim to be a psychologist, or sociologist, but there are some interesting ideas at work here.
First, why has a significant portion of TSO (or any other online game) gravitated toward general elections? I know when I play games (and I rarely do), that one of the first things I try to do is find the bounds of the game. I try to shoot my team memebers, or drive through the buildings, or contruct buildings that spell out my name. I haven't played The Sims, but if I did, I would probably try to randomly attack someone, or see if they'll have sex with one another. And I think that's human nature -- to experiment.
So why is it that the players discussed in this article are trying to graft the rules of our "the real world" onto a game? Is it experimentation? Have these players become bored with toying with the absurd limits of the game and are instead interested in finding the practical limits?
Or are people trying this out of a feeling of detachment from the real world? Are people so frustrated with the current state of affairs that they are trying to establish a utopia of sorts in their online world?
Is this a case of politically-minded people asserting themselves on an online world? And if so, are they politcal rejects (or the politically inexperienced) that would not otherwise flourish in the real world? And if either of those is the case, what of the participants of these elections? Can you then say that some people are comfortable plugging in to "the system?"
I could go on and on. It's these questions that make me want to take a few psych classes. And it's these questions that prevent me from enjoying gaming. I can't help but analyze my every move. And by that time, my city has crumbled, or someone has shot me, or my unit has been outflanked. Kind of annoying!
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I'm glad I could make an appearance.
I'm all for low-brow off-color humor, but there comes a point where a joke, even stated "ironically," isn't funny. Yours isn't funny, and it's because it lacks context. Over half your post is devoted to an inappropriate joke that doesn't have anything to do with your point. The fact that you have to throw a disclaimer in there should have been an indication that it isn't funny. Racist humor can be funny (in my opinion), but not when it's delivered like a knock-knock joke.
I'm not so sure about that. Like TapeCutter said, the notion of teenagers rebelling against their parents isn't just an edge case. It happens quite often. In fact, I'd argue that it's happening more and more, what with the pervasiveness of television and the Internet. Two Democratic parents does not a liberal child make. There's school, television, the Internet, iPods, friends, and any other number of potential influences. Think of it another way: given two Christian parents, how likely is it that the child will end up as a Christian parent? (We are interested in the child as a distributor of genes.) Fifty years ago, that answer would have been "very likely." Today, I think the answer would be "somewhat likely." Who knows what it will be in another fifty years.
But yes, I'll cede that there is a *higher* probability that a child will adopt the views of its parents. That is strictly cultural though, in my opinion. To suggest otherwise is the very essence of Lamarckism. Now if we start seeing children that automatically and predictably reject the fundamental tendency to act as social creatures that's encoded into our DNA, *then* we would have something to talk about. That would be an (alarming) evolutionary adaptation. Everything else is indicative of larger social and cultural issues.
Yeah this sounds like Larmarckian evolution to me. Which is to say it's wrong. There's no "Democrat" gene and there isn't a "fundamentalist Christian" gene either. (I mean, I suppose there *could* be, but for the sake of this discussion, these are learned traits, not hard-wired physical traits, like hair color). All this nonsense about those vile plebians polluting the gene pool is stupid (and dangerous) to me. We're not cockroaches, producing millions of offspring apiece. Humans average, what?, two offspring in their lifetimes? So the "poor people" have three kids and the WASPs have one. Big deal. Being born poor doesn't mean you stay poor. Being born Christian doesn't mean you stay Christian. Being born Democrat doesn't mean you stay Democrat. These come after the splicing and dicing of DNA.
I think it goes further than that. Just because humans are sentient and can, to some degree, exist outside of nature does not mean that we are beyond evolution. It just exhibits itself in new ways: the evolution of business models, governments, athletic competition, trade, diplomacy, etc. Or, to relate it to Slashdot: phishing attacks, spam, botnets, P2P network design, Web 2.0, GPL v3, etc. The most highly moderated conversations here are rarely the most technical; rather, they are discussions of human nature. Things change. Not for change's sake, but in reaction to the inborn tendencies of millions of years of evolution. So maybe humans won't grow a third arm any time soon, but I am confident that the world as we know it today will be far different from the world even 100 years from now. As a society, we will continue to evolve.
I've had trouble with generics myself. I don't claim to be a programming superstar though, so I might be overlooking something simple. My problem is that I cannot get a (useful) array out of a vector. No matter what I do, Vector.toArray() will only return an array of Objects. But I don't want Object[], I want something specific. And I thought that is what generics were supposed to do: declare a vector, use generics to tell Java what kind of objects are in it, and get rid of all those nasty casts. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be the case. It seems that the information is lost at runtime, do to what Google tells me is "type erasure." There is an open bug on the subject, which I think is related. Regardless, I find it rather annoying and cumbersome to work around.
Requisite warning about getting into something for reason other than love aside, UX is the Next Big Thing(TM): usability, HCI, interaction design, UX design, etc. There are a lot of disparate sub-disciplines, but the overall theme of the movement is to put the people who use your products first. In academia that sometimes translates to taking control away from the "evil developers," but most of the UX people I talk to know that multidisciplinaranism is really where it's at. Like any other successful field, UX is at its best when it's part of a well-coordinated team of people who know what they're doing. We all care about "the users," but writing good software is challenging enough without worrying about the complexities of human behavior. It goes both ways: just as UX doesn't work when the developers resist their presence, good UX people have to be technically savvy enough to know what computers can do these days. When I was in school, I watched far too many design teams fall into traps like assuming perfect natural language processing, but that's another topic altogether.
Keep UX in mind. You'll find it mostly at large companies at IT hotspots like the Valley right now, but that's how it is with any emerging field. It starts at the top and permeates outward. There's a competetive advantage to well-designed software, and UX is one way to get you there.
Are you serious? You realize that 1980 was 27 years ago, right? That's nearly a generation ago. I have no love for "the industry," and that is exactly why your comment is so ridiculous. "The industry" still poses an immense danger to the future of the Internet, the sanctity of the legal system, and the democratic process. It's one of the most powerful lobbies in America today. Not bad for an industry that "destroyed itself" before I was born.
You know, this is a damed good idea. So simple that I just HAVE to look for pitfalls.
First, I read about something called the Federal Register the other day. As I understand, it is a daily publication of the GPO, responsible for creating a record of public government communication.
Where does this fit into the equation? Wikipedia says it has been operating since the 1930s. That to me suggests existing infrastructure. Could this program be adopted to handle pending Congressional legislation? Does something similar exist already? Are these even valid questions? I'm trying to get a sense of the public accounting context that exists today.
Now, once we set up a legislative mechanism to get the information in place, there are practical considerations. I happen to agree with the parent's cynicism. Open government is less corrupt government, and there will surely be resistance to a program like this. What is the likelihood that something like this would be ignored? The aforementioned Wikipedia states that the Register is for public notices not "classified." Do government agencies really bother? Would Congress bother? Would it matter, practically speaking?
Then there's the question of volume. I understand the current Register is thousands upon thousands of pages. What would be the best way to handle all this data? Pressure our Congressmen to form a committee to look into the possibility of proposing vaguely worded, easily subverted legislation that would create a billion dollar, privacy infringing, twenty-year behemoth of a program? Or dictate simply that the data should be available in a specified format (something akin to a patch) in a timely manner.
I think the latter would be better, because it would force We the People to take a little responsibility for the program. I mean really, who doesn't think that an enterprising group of dedicated people, working for free in their spare time would work more efficiently than a monstrous bureaucracy? Sound like a familiar Slashdot battle?
Either someone will rise to the challenge and write a utility to "visualize" the data in an interesting way, or not. If not, I think we have bigger problems than Congressmen not reading their bills.
Make the data (near) freely available, then leave it up to The People to figure out how to use it. That's my take.
Yeah, my problem with this is that it basically reads like any other Slashdot discussion. I mean, I know a lot of people complain about the quality of discussion here, but overall, I think it's pretty balanced. People tend to throw in the requisite IANAL disclaimers. After reading the deposition (my first, by the way), however, I have to say I'm disappointed.
What makes this guy an expert? Aside from some kind of accreditation (I forget exactly what it was), it's nothing I couldn't do over a case of beer and a movie. There's no documentation, no real insight, and no deep understanding of the issue. I don't know what the legal standard for expert testimony is, but I'm going to be sorely disappointed if that's all it takes.
"Objection: Lack of foundation"
Could someone explain what this means? It seems to follow just about every question. I'm only about 40 pages in, but so far, this seems like a rather heated interview. Would this be accurate? Does that mean that these constant objections are a sign of a tense exchange?
Or is this just how these things go?
Oh I wouldn't say it's a troll. Just because a joke bombs doesn't mean it's a troll. There was nothing particularly offensive, inciting, or objectionable about the post. It was a minor variation on a number of persistent Slashdot memes. One stale joke does not a troll make.
Personally, I think it just might be THE lamest joke I have ever heard. Consider that it is already on Slashdot, posted in a Linux discussion. Now consider that it conflates two of the nerdiest tales of all time: a Tolkien war between Linux and Microsoft and the original Star Wars. Throw in some anthropomorphized chairs and a little cloak-and-dagger vagueness, and you've got the nexus of all thing dork.
Maybe that explains it, you call it a troll because you're ashamed you got the joke. So am I, man, so am I.
This is a known attack that has received academic treatment. Check it out:
https://www.indiana.edu/~phishing/browser-recon/
Yeah it's kind of weird. Every article seems to feature:
isatrap, fud, notfud
Every Ask Slashdot article is invariably tagged:
yes, no, maybe
I noticed the same thing with the EVIL tag for a while, then it disappeared. Weird.
I imagine it means we could find ourselves in a situation where the Playstation 4 or XBOX 3 actually runs Linux. But while the code is "open," licensed under the GPLv2, all the cryptographic nonsense and DRM closes it back down again. Granted we'll have the source to look for attack vectors, but until a weakness is found, we'll still have to go to Microsoft or Sony for a "developer license." Which really just means paying large sums of money so they will use their private keys to generate a "valid" crypotgraphic signature for your binary.
Now because these are game systems, they'll attract the attention of the best hackers in the world. Having the source code, even GPLv2, would be a tremendous boost to the modding scene. Imagine instead that this is your toaster, or your Buick, or your no-name cell phone -- something only you and a small number of other people are interested in. Because the source is available under the GPLv2, you can find the exact line that is creating the bug you want to fix, but because none of you know how to hack the encryption checking, you're powerless to do anything about it.
This is, I think, what the GPLv3 is trying to prevent.
I have to wonder whether it might just BE morally okay to download music? When you have millions of people that doing something that is clearlly illegal, it generally leads to debate on the subject. I don't want to state whether music should actually be free, but there is room for discussion.
Look at other issue: abortion, prohibition, drug use, speeding, underage drinking, etc. All of the issues are rather actively debated -- whether they should be illegal, to what extent they should be permitted (if any), and what the penalties should be if they are found to be illegal.
I think this is what you're seeing with P2P. There is a system and set of laws in place that is not entirely in sync. with society. Hence we are debating what, if anything needs to be done. Should we revise copyright law? Should we sue the infringers? Is this a new extension of "theft?" Should penalties be reduced? What kinds of alternative distribution exist? And so on.
I think it is a fascinating process to watch, if only because real progress is made through the extremes; the RIAA powergrab, for example, or widespread infringement by college students. Time will tell what the appropriate solutions look like.
Maybe you could argue such a point for the suite, but I don't see how you could do so for Firefox and Thunderbird. Those packages can still claim pre-1.0 innocence. Note that I'm not judging the validity of these charges, just where they should, and should not, apply.
Now imagine they deployed said system and you read a Slashdot article along the lines of "WalMart gift cards track shoppers movements."
It's a good idea, don't get me wrong, but you should realize you're suggesting the same kind of automated, computer-controlled heuristical overloard situation that is so loathed by the YRO crowd. This is why it is important to consider the technology we deploy carefully!
Indeed. The iPod is so well liked because it actually works. It amazes me that so many billion-dollar companies think they can throw an MP3 player on their devices and the user will come a-flockin'. It amazes me that, after the iPod has dominated for as long as it has, none of the companies have picked on the fact that maybe, just maybe, users would like to be able to use their devices without taking instructional classes. It amazes me that all these companies are so focued on their plans for market domination that they completely neglect the users. Ahh well, all the better for Apple I suppose.
I wouldn't say useless. Being able to see how the program reads and writes a file is much more useful than trying to guess what that program is doing. The open source community has done a good job guessing... imagine how much easier their jobs would be if they could observe the precise behaviour of the actual program.
Not good enough.
How many times have you watched users click "OK" to install Comet Cursor or Bonzai Buddy or Weather Bug or whatever else.
Malicious XPIs already exist. So do "stupid" users. If Firefox continues to gain marketshare, the combination will be just as annoying as the IE mess is now.
Isn't it ridiculously obvious that you can't trust the user to make an informed decision about button to click by now?
No. My school (Indiana University, numbero uno) uses mostly Cisco APs; I'm not aware of any Intel products at all, truth be told.
It's nice to see IU on top again. Wireless covers just about every square inch of campus. Granted, service is a bit spotty in Dunn Woods, but come on now! It is nice to be able to find a nice spot in the shade and people-watch. With wireless, I can catch up on email, or IM my friends (some in class, even). It sure beats sitting on the computer *inside*.
I wonder, at times it seems technology gets a pass, just because it is complicated.
Though the article mentions privacy concerns, it is stuff away between a half-dozen other headings. All technology is nothing more than tools. It is the context that gives the tool its meaning. And in this case, the social context of the tool should very much be weighed against the abilitity to "never miss an important moment." Who defines important? And who defines what *should* be recorded, and what should not be recorded? The social implications of all technology deserve more consideration than they currently recieve, I think.
I don't know, somehow this fascinates me. I don't claim to be a psychologist, or sociologist, but there are some interesting ideas at work here.
First, why has a significant portion of TSO (or any other online game) gravitated toward general elections? I know when I play games (and I rarely do), that one of the first things I try to do is find the bounds of the game. I try to shoot my team memebers, or drive through the buildings, or contruct buildings that spell out my name. I haven't played The Sims, but if I did, I would probably try to randomly attack someone, or see if they'll have sex with one another. And I think that's human nature -- to experiment.
So why is it that the players discussed in this article are trying to graft the rules of our "the real world" onto a game? Is it experimentation? Have these players become bored with toying with the absurd limits of the game and are instead interested in finding the practical limits?
Or are people trying this out of a feeling of detachment from the real world? Are people so frustrated with the current state of affairs that they are trying to establish a utopia of sorts in their online world?
Is this a case of politically-minded people asserting themselves on an online world? And if so, are they politcal rejects (or the politically inexperienced) that would not otherwise flourish in the real world? And if either of those is the case, what of the participants of these elections? Can you then say that some people are comfortable plugging in to "the system?"
I could go on and on. It's these questions that make me want to take a few psych classes. And it's these questions that prevent me from enjoying gaming. I can't help but analyze my every move. And by that time, my city has crumbled, or someone has shot me, or my unit has been outflanked. Kind of annoying!