Just kidding.
This is a really cool thing, and particularly relevent today because of the sudden expanse in outbreaks of bird flu around the world, today. When such a disease can suddenly and unexpectedly start killing and incapacitating humans in frightening numbers, it's a cause to celebrate when even a small part of that disease is newly known and understood.
I took my flu shot, last year, and got sick from it. This year, I may take it again, just in case Hitchcock was a wee bit off in his depiction of the dangers posed by our avian friends.;-)
~UP
All I have to do is read the comments, and I know what my response will be.
There's a problem which has been around for many hundreds of years prior to the invention of the Personal Computer, indeed, it has been around before even the Industrial Revolution. It is something which many, perhaps rightfully, believe to be a mental disorder. That problem is, to express it in "nerd" terms, a binary outlook on the world.
Under this problem, one believes that everything is either good OR bad, black OR white, present OR nonexistent, etc. I think most of you already know what I'm going to say next, and a good deal are likely to stop reading at this point because it's been said so many times before, but I'm going to say it, anyway. The world is full of color and number, beyond the arbitrarily set demarkations of 0s and 1s.
Here I'd like to introduce two of my own personal adages. Nothing is ever so simple as to be yes or no/black or white/etc. if you will take the time to look deeper than just the bare surface; and also, there is an exception to every rule, even the rule that there is an exception to every rule.
The second, though recursive, is applicable to just about everything. The first applies specifically to issues, world views, and "studies" like this one. As others have said before me, and more will say again after my time in this world passes, anything taken to an extreme is unhealthy if not destructive. But, and this must be determined on a case-to-case, personal level, doing, consuming, etc. anything within a certain limit will not do enough harm to be of concern (unless, of course, you're a hypochondriac).
Is spending time on the internet harmful to one's health? That's hard to say for sure, due to the ever-growing amount and quality of mediums that the internet provides. Assuming an otherwise healthy body, is sitting around and using the internet harmful? See the last sentence of the preceding paragraph.
All of this being said and understood, one can readily see that such studies are non-issues when all they conclude is that something is either good or bad (1s and 0s, again). The fact that they raise awareness of a topic is usually beneficial, granted, but if a study is so simple as to have such oversimplified results, except for what the researchers may learn, that study is irrelevant.
The harm we cause ourselves is not brought by what mediums, ideologies, places, and polities (among others) that we live in, but by what we choose to limit ourselves to. If one limits oneself to sitting in a chair for twelve hours a day, awake but relatively immobile, then it is that choice which brings about the onset of harm or potential for harm.
That being said, I'm going to go finish some work and then go outside, hopefully before the sun sets.
Consider that Microsoft has allowed at least one patch through that introduced major bugs into the game. Also consider that, by Pitchford's words, we are now informed that Gearbox is only supplying the fixes, and that Microsoft is the one which is testing the patches and rolling them into an update.
And it's taking so long as to make Pitchford publicly angry.
I can see three possibilities: either the Microsoft lead for the Halo PC patches is incompetent, not enough money and/or men have been allocated to that particular project by Microsoft, or Microsoft is playing dirty with both Gearbox and the paying public. Note that the first and second explanations could also be the last, though that may not necessarily be the case.
I'm no fan of Microsoft or how it usually plays with plebs and politicians, but I have to give them the benefit of the doubt. It could simply be that the Microsoft lead doesn't know what he or she is doing in getting these patches out, that Pitchford can't get Microsoft to put a new lead in, and public pressure by fans hasn't had an effect. It could be that Microsoft simply didn't anticipate the number and complexity of the patches Gearbox has been issuing, and is now reluctant to make changes to the personnell and/or funding levels.
Hell, it could even be Gearbox trying to shift some blame in order to get out from underneath the heat that a portion of the Halo PC fanbase has been giving them.
Or (and most of you have probably been salivating in anticipation of this one) it could be that Microsoft has an ulterior motive and is malevolently, quietly, and intentionally sabotaging Halo PC and Mac updates. Reasons for this could be to boost xbox and Halo xbox sales due to a difference in the ammount of profit gained, internal politics against Bungie for making sure that an outside company did the port (or making sure the port was made at all), or any other of a number of reasons.
I'm not trying to excuse Microsoft or Gearbox here, or lay any blame at either company's feet; but if patches are being delayed intentionally, as Pitchford (and some critics) has suggested, then there is reason for anger and outcry.
What kind of outcry is left to the individual Halo PC fan / Microsoft basher.
Yes, yes, a substantial portion of Kazaa and other file-sharing programs/networks are in use illegally.
However, there is also a substantial portion which is used for, among other things, advertisements, legal restores (example: a long time ago, I used a file sharing network to backup an mp3 which I legally owned... the original had been corrupted during a backup to a bad CD; I lost a lot of data, but most of it didn't turn out to be important, luckily), and semi-legal file transfers (where the host might be in, say, Japan where the file is illegal, but the downloader is in the US where there is no copyright and is therefore legal).
With all due respect, sir, I think you're focusing on the negative side of file sharing.
I think some parents are starting to realize that legislation of restriction is not often needed. The store owner and parents in the article are correct; the kids don't purchase the games, the parents are the ones deciding what games their children get to buy, and violence does not spring from video games but from the roots of bad and inadequate parenting.
Even when I was in my late teens, I stayed away from games which seemed morally offensive to me. I have avoided Carmageddon to this day because I don't like the idea of running over pedestrians for no reason at all. All of the 'good kids' I knew from childhood to my graduation from highschool either didn't partake in such things, played the games and watched the videos only sparingly, or moderately played and viewed but with the understanding that what they were looking at was not real, and retained both their sanity and morality.
The two teenagers in Tennessee who shot people from a moving car after playing GTA weren't unbalanced because of the game; rather, they were not quite sane before they played the game, and the game only inspired them to their act of violence. That is, if they'd not been playing the game, they would have simply found some other inspiration and acted in violence from it.
Some parents have begun to realize this, and have refused the sensationalist fear presented by news outlets which seek only ratings and readership. They're right to use this common sense, and those of us who have understood video games and their effects are relieved and delighted.
Good parenting is and always has been the duty and responsibility of the parent(s); if I ever have one or more children, I will be a parent with this reality in mind. Guides and the like (such as ratings) are good and accepted, though they are not always needed. (Who would expect a Mario game to involve sex, drugs, and grotesque amounts of gore?) Restrictions on youth, on the other hand, take away a part of a parent's ability to be a parent, and therefore not only restrict the rights of the youth but the rights of the aged, as well.
Thank you for either patiently reading through my rant of the hour or skipping to the end.
(Note: IANAL, so please correct me on any incorrect information herein.)
So, let me get this straight: the US federal government wants to make it illegal to enter false information in your WHOIS registration if you are assisting a crime in doing so. And impersonating someone for any reason is fraud. So, anyone who enters a name & address/email address/phone number not their own is commiting fraud. Therefore, anyone who enters a name not their own is not only "assisting" a crime, but making one... and so they not only get a fraud charge, but a "misleading information in WHOIS" charge if this bill is passed.
I can see how this bill might help U.S. federal prosecutors keep some arsehole from getting parole for another few years; if the man or woman charged with fraud is guilty (not just found guilty), I'm all for it.
But there are two problems, here. One is that it will, though not by intentional effect, extend the miscarriage of justice if or when an innocent person is found guilty for internet fraud. The second is that it's going to scare the U.S. citizens who have false information in their WHOIS but are otherwise NOT criminals into identifying themselves, to their detriment, in all probability.
So, is there a reason why, instead of the laws on fraud, there is an attempt to make privacy through anonymity illegal? I don't mean to imply conspiracy or malevolent intent... but I have to admit that a small part of me suspects the latter.
If anonymity is rendered illegal on the internet, how long will it be before it is a federal mandate that all U.S. citizens must wear nametags at all times? After all, not wearing one would only allow prosecutors to lay some extra prison times on someone who's already guilty of a crime, right?
And if they nab the wrong guy or gal, the Feds and federal prosecutors can still save themselves from embarassment by seeing the charge of not carrying identification around at all times, even if that person is innocent of any other crime.
Lastly, what about those under the age of majority who run servers or have a domain name of their own? Are they going to be tried as an adult if they decide to keep their anonymity in their WHOIS information?
Just how far can and will this be taken, and why? Is such a thing about control, direct or indirect, or is it about something else? The mind of one who has grown up in a sensationalist, reactionary, and dramatized media environment jumps immediately to the conclusion of malevolent intent (whether or not it dismisses it).
Thanks for the info. I'll check out the Surgeon General's website as soon as I get the time to do so.
I choose to think the government funded and lung association backed quitting studies are less likely to be biased then the "quitting aid" studies.
In all likelihood, you're right. Too many people tend not to realize that there is a reason that the addage of not believing everything one reads has been around for as long as it has.
Quitting smoking cold turkey has the highest success rate.
Would you mind too much if I asked for your sources of that assertion? I'm assuming you've researched this (you seem confident enough), so I'm wondering if you can point me toward one or more research studies so that I can read up on quitting gradually vs. quitting all at once. They don't have to be links, though if they're published online it would be rather convenient... all I need is the title, the authors, and date (or month, even) of publication. I can probably track it down from there.
I agree that going "cold turkey" is rather conclusive, but you also have to keep in mind that any person with a chemical dependency (aka addiction) may not be able to afford to quit cold turkey. If you quit heroin or somesuch cold turkey, you could be unable to work for days or weeks. In the case of the submitter, we want him to be able to function at work while also functioning without caffeine; ideally, he might want to graduate himself down to not intaking caffeine at all. That way, s/he doesn't go through withdrawl and get fired for being unable to stay awake at his/her desk, but s/he also gets him/herself off of caffeine.
If s/he cannot stick to his/her own graduated stepdown schedule, then that's a matter of will power... and that's another subject, entirely.
Submitter, start weaning yourself off of caffeine; don't go cold turkey, but start consuming less and less of it. What you're describing appears to me to be a chemical dependency at best... a serious medical problem at worst. Go see an M.D. about this... you deserve to stay awake for a reasonable length of time without artificially increasing your heart rate.
Also, if you absolutely cannot break your caffeine addiction, go with tea. It's much better for you than coffee, and it's just as "instant" as "instant coffee," if not more so.
I apologize, as I have not answered your question, which was the intention of your submission, and because my advice might seem like telling you what to do with your life, even though that is not its intent. I'm not a medical professional, but I have been informed by medical professionals on the subjects of caffeine and coffee, thanks to a rather serious stomach disorder.
Anyhow, good luck in finding (a) solution(s) to your problem(s).
Think about it this way: what do you do if a neighbor incessantly follows you around talking about this or that service or product? Well, most people would ask the jerk to kindly shut up. But if this only encourages the neighbor, then it would be logical to get a restraining order. If the neighbor violates the restraining order, then s/he goes to jail.
So, why can't we apply this to all forms of unrequested solicitaiton? Why can't we just make it a criminal offense to badger someone (or several someones indiscriminately) with wasteful spam, mailings, phone calls, faxes, pager spam, etc.?
I think that the usual answer is that you can't arrest a corporation, and that it's even harder to impose penalties on an international corporation. My solution to this is rather radical: allow corporations to be criminally tried for infractions against the law. If they lose the case, they can appeal, but if they lose the appeal (or if they don't appeal), then those responsible should be arrested and punished (by fines, community service, or jail time; the usual means) according to the crime and their participation in it. A major spam corporation might then be effectively broken up; it would certainly put some more teeth into the laws and regulations regarding corporations.
As for multinational corporations... well, there do exist precidents and systems by which nations cooperate to track down and arrest criminals. It would be no more complex than it already is, but would take more manpower.
There are some oddities involving tax laws in the US which deal with all of this, but I'll let someone else who knows that subject better than I explain it, or leave it to the individual slashdotter to research it on their own.
Alright, the first thing which came to my mind was "what if a person has an accent?" What happens when the game can't understand what you're saying or, worse, misinterprets one verbal command for another? Theoretically, a stuffed up nose could turn "attack the house" into "a tank the how's," leaving the units in a strategy game to stand around looking for a tank when they should be advancing.
Joking aside, there could be (and have been) problems with voice-recognition/speech-interpretation software. Probably the only device which has the capability to correctly interpret languages through accents, slurs, and illness is the human brain... and even that fails, sometimes.
Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see some voice control for NPCs in computer and video games. I'm just not daydreaming of A.I. which can engage in arguments and intelligent debates, or a piece of software which can translate any accent correctly, even the accents of non-native language speakers (like Americans speaking Japanese or vice-versa).
So, in my opinion, there's a long way to go before we should make speech an integral and necessary part of controling actions in a game. And, to answer the question posed, that's an area where I'd like to see voice control progress. The other area is to simply include it in any relatively complicated game which has a multiplayer component.
Take, for example, Halo PC; it has no voice control built in, but the fast-paced nature of the game prohibits typing out instructions, observations, etc. If I take time to type out "watch left!" while driving across a bridge in a Warthog, I and my passenger(s) will be smoked or the warning will be made useless by the fact that we'll be across the bridge before they can read and react to it.
After we reach these two aspects of voice recognition/control in games, we can talk about where and how it should be implimented, and why. In the mean time, I'll go back to shaking my fist at my broken PC.
~UP
(P.S. My apologies for the grumpy tone of this message. I didn't get enough sleep, last night.)
While I have little doubt that, if done well, this new game will succeed, I very much doubt that it will revive or spark a revival of the arcade.
The arcade had two appeals: atmosphere and easy, library-like access to games. The atmosphere hasn't changed, and that's been a big problem. The evolution of games and gaming in general have taken the typical gamer away from the open, cacaphonic and busy, glitzy room and toward tightly-packed rows of computers where more than a handful of friends can play with and against each other in the same virtual world.
PCs and game consoles have made access even easier and more convenient. Now you don't even have to walk across a room to play the next game, because it's only a mouse-click or DVD/CD/Cartridge swap away. And best of all, you can play all of these games sitting down.
PC and console gaming has had the time not only to one-up arcade gaming, but lap it. Configurable controls, co-op modes, engaging stories, saved games, multiplayer against humans rather than bots, multiplayer with more than a handful of friends, etc. All have lured the modern gamer away from the arcade, by and large.
And all of this has been simple progress, an evolution of gaming. In the past, Centipede and Pac Man were kings of the electronic gaming domain. The equipment was too expensive, too large, and too bulky for all but the most wealthy of gamers to have home access. The best business model was to put a bunch of the giants in one room and charge a coin or two per play. That won't work, anymore, and it's not a dearth of quality games which have caused this decline; this new game would work just fine on an xbox or PS2, and that alone should be an indication of why more games like it will not cause gamers to flock to the Electronic Arcades as they once did.
Times have changed, and they will again. The arcades will go the way of the news reel, and nothing can change this. Whether or not it is for the best is a matter of personal opinion.
Bungie never announced a release date for Halo 2 up until today, so nothing's been "pushed back" or "delayed." Still... FALL!? I recognize how much of the H2 demo played by the Bungie guys was scripted and limited in scope, but it was still an example of where the engine was.
The screenshot released today shows that they have functional multiplayer now, too. Beta testing should take a few months, but it seems to me that Halo 2 is clearly past the alpha stage at this point.
So why 8-10 months more? Even IF they're still in alpha, they've got to be in late alpha by now... I just don't see how it'll take that long. Maybe that's my fault... perhaps a lack of experience with game development and emotion are clouding my vision on this. I'm willing to accept that, and I don't think that I'm "owed" anything, even an explanation... but damn it, I'm disappointed and saddened by this news.
Even on the off chance that Bungie is just screwing with our heads, I've still lost some of my confidence in them. Hell, if they ARE screwing with our heads, I'll be angry at them for toying with their fans' emotions.
I'm going to go distract myself before I get depressed.
Who owns the ET engine? If I understand correctly, it's a modified version of the Quake III engine... but will the Urban Terror people get to decide which platforms it comes out for, or will the Wolfenstein or Quake III people be able to tell them what platforms they will release for?
Will there be a Mac version, because there's a Mac version of Quake III? Will there be a Linux version, because there's a Linux version of ET? Who will decide this, in the end?
IANAL, but it seems that it might help to be one, in cases like this!
I roomed with a guy who had Quake III and played the Urban Terror mod for a while. It wasn't popular then (two years ago), and I'm wondering if it will be popular after the release of the port.
Personally, I didn't think it was all that great then, when all I had was a Mac (which couldn't really run the mod) and hadn't seen CounterStrike. It was interesting, but it didn't reach out and grab me, even though I did (and still do) tend to prefer FPSs.
Still, if there've been revisions since then (and there probably have been), and if the ET engine can provide them with better graphics (and it can, from what I've seen), I can see it becoming popular, which would be a good thing for me; I get another game (for free (as in beer)!), it takes some of the population pressure and some of the cheaters away from CounterStrike, and might add a good spark of competition, too.
Right now, I'll just wait and see what happens. Hopefully I'll get to try it out when it's released. Hopefully, they'll have a Mac port, so that I won't need to rely on my currently-broken PC in order to play any of my favored games. (I admit it, I bought the PC for gaming purposes.)
Nobody actually wins; it's like a nuclear war, in that even if you manage to get your nukes to detonate on target and they don't send any back your way, you still have to deal with the fallout.
But for the people who really, truly hate anything anti-Linux or anti-Unix, it's a twisted sort of moral victory. Microsoft catches some more heat for producing an OS with as many security holes as it has; SCO gets a DDoS attack, and through it a "piece of the virus-writer's mind." Does it actually hurt these companies? I doubt it. Whatever they lose in bandwidth/server costs or bad news, they can immediately spin into good publicity. ("See! It's those Open Source jerks bullying us again!")
The rest of us just get to sort of stand on the sidelines and shake our heads in disapproval of both "sides," while catching some of the fallout, ourselves. Anyone running Windows gets another virus thrown their way (and thus more time/productivity/money wasted), and those who support the Open Source community, if they are not a part of it or participate in it, get the sharp edge of the spin.
Have an output-only connector implanted in the brain (make it one-way wireless and have it run on body heat, perhaps); remembering or thinking of opening an application or document will cause the computer to launch the appropriate application. Output is still put onto a screen (or holographic projecter...) so that input (and thus the capability of "hacking" the human mind) is that much more difficult.
Or, failing that, the system used in Minority Report would be good. I liked the hands- and gestures-based management of the computer, recalling data, literally shoving it aside, calling up the needed information/documents/applications through hand gestures... it'd be nice, and much more intuitive than the current desktop and directory interface we have nowadays.
It had an epic plot, and I'm not lightly throwing that word around. I'm speaking literally, here; it may not have been an Odessey of the modern era, but it stands out in my mind as one of, if not the best plots in a game.
The facts that it had good atmosphere, stupendous level map design, and challenging, unique mysteries were all sweet icing on the cake. These reasons, and more than I cannot think of right now, are why the game deserves to be remade.
I suspect that only a minority of Slashdot-ers will recognize what I'm talking about, but any game in the trilogy deserves a remake on it's own; the whole trilogy deserves a remake, even more.
Lucky for us, that's already in the works. In fact, it's being simultaneously ported for Linux and Windows as well as OS X, AND it's an Open Source project. If I had any programming skills (alas, I don't), I'd be in on the project. As it stands, I'll have to wait until Pfhorge (pronounced "forge," for the uninitiated) comes out to make any contribution.
Anyhow, for those interested, the project is called Aleph One; the main site can be found here, and the SourceForge site can be found here.
"I wish we could go to their states and to their districts and tell what is happening and their constituents would see these politicians - all of them - for the sellout rats they are."
So... why don't you?
Have you let fear govern your life? Have you not forgotten FDR's words of wisdom, "There is nothing to fear but fear itself"? If so, then you have more of a concern with the paralyzation this fear has put into you than you have with anything else.
Fear is how Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq. Fear is the most potent tool in a dictator's asset box; allow yourself to fear always, and you will always be at the whim and mercy of others. Don't lose yourself to an emotion; remember to stand up and think with logic when you can.
The key term here is "making available in commerce...." Translation: only for something you can sell.
But, if you want to use a commercial database for your own personal use, educational use, certain kinds of research, etc. you can do it without getting your arse sued to hades.
Let me preface this by stating that I am no lawyer; nor am I a post-graduate law student. What I'm offering is merely the interpretation that I took away from reading the Act legislation.
For those with tin-foil or aluminium-foil hats, you can take them off for this one. As far as I was able to figure out, government, education, and non-profit databases are not covered under this Act.
The Act does, however, appear to cover IP tables and databases of any kind involving activity by IP address... meaning that the RIAA and MPAA cannot simply grab an activity log organized by IP address, or an IP address database organized by user/name, without first obtaining written permission by the ISP or a subpeona from a court. (I am unsure if this actually changes much, if anything, if it's redundant, or if it's just putting specific coverage under Federal law.)
For the most part, it looks like this law applies to corporate databases and little to nothing else. Freedom of the press, the Act providing for government transparency (I cannot recall the name of the Act at this time), and previous communication laws still apply. Further, it seems to me that the Act sets up coverage for scholarly or educational access to databases within a certain, unspecified, level; it leaves the determination of that level to the courts.
I haven't read any of the previous communication acts, but it looks to me that the only negative side-effect of this Act would be regional (or national) monopolies on phonebooks. Since, at the places I've lived, at least, phonebooks tend to be distributed without charge to the individual, it's only a matter of information accuracy and phonebook advertisements.
I suggest that EVERYONE read the Act for themselves, but it doesn't seem to me like it's something to go grey over or spike aluminum foil manufacturers stock prices.
Slashdot Mirror
It's Australian for Fosters!
~UP
Just kidding. This is a really cool thing, and particularly relevent today because of the sudden expanse in outbreaks of bird flu around the world, today. When such a disease can suddenly and unexpectedly start killing and incapacitating humans in frightening numbers, it's a cause to celebrate when even a small part of that disease is newly known and understood. I took my flu shot, last year, and got sick from it. This year, I may take it again, just in case Hitchcock was a wee bit off in his depiction of the dangers posed by our avian friends. ;-)
~UP
All I have to do is read the comments, and I know what my response will be.
There's a problem which has been around for many hundreds of years prior to the invention of the Personal Computer, indeed, it has been around before even the Industrial Revolution. It is something which many, perhaps rightfully, believe to be a mental disorder. That problem is, to express it in "nerd" terms, a binary outlook on the world.
Under this problem, one believes that everything is either good OR bad, black OR white, present OR nonexistent, etc. I think most of you already know what I'm going to say next, and a good deal are likely to stop reading at this point because it's been said so many times before, but I'm going to say it, anyway. The world is full of color and number, beyond the arbitrarily set demarkations of 0s and 1s.
Here I'd like to introduce two of my own personal adages. Nothing is ever so simple as to be yes or no/black or white/etc. if you will take the time to look deeper than just the bare surface; and also, there is an exception to every rule, even the rule that there is an exception to every rule.
The second, though recursive, is applicable to just about everything. The first applies specifically to issues, world views, and "studies" like this one. As others have said before me, and more will say again after my time in this world passes, anything taken to an extreme is unhealthy if not destructive. But, and this must be determined on a case-to-case, personal level, doing, consuming, etc. anything within a certain limit will not do enough harm to be of concern (unless, of course, you're a hypochondriac).
Is spending time on the internet harmful to one's health? That's hard to say for sure, due to the ever-growing amount and quality of mediums that the internet provides. Assuming an otherwise healthy body, is sitting around and using the internet harmful? See the last sentence of the preceding paragraph.
All of this being said and understood, one can readily see that such studies are non-issues when all they conclude is that something is either good or bad (1s and 0s, again). The fact that they raise awareness of a topic is usually beneficial, granted, but if a study is so simple as to have such oversimplified results, except for what the researchers may learn, that study is irrelevant.
The harm we cause ourselves is not brought by what mediums, ideologies, places, and polities (among others) that we live in, but by what we choose to limit ourselves to. If one limits oneself to sitting in a chair for twelve hours a day, awake but relatively immobile, then it is that choice which brings about the onset of harm or potential for harm.
That being said, I'm going to go finish some work and then go outside, hopefully before the sun sets.
~UP
Consider that Microsoft has allowed at least one patch through that introduced major bugs into the game. Also consider that, by Pitchford's words, we are now informed that Gearbox is only supplying the fixes, and that Microsoft is the one which is testing the patches and rolling them into an update.
And it's taking so long as to make Pitchford publicly angry.
I can see three possibilities: either the Microsoft lead for the Halo PC patches is incompetent, not enough money and/or men have been allocated to that particular project by Microsoft, or Microsoft is playing dirty with both Gearbox and the paying public. Note that the first and second explanations could also be the last, though that may not necessarily be the case.
I'm no fan of Microsoft or how it usually plays with plebs and politicians, but I have to give them the benefit of the doubt. It could simply be that the Microsoft lead doesn't know what he or she is doing in getting these patches out, that Pitchford can't get Microsoft to put a new lead in, and public pressure by fans hasn't had an effect. It could be that Microsoft simply didn't anticipate the number and complexity of the patches Gearbox has been issuing, and is now reluctant to make changes to the personnell and/or funding levels.
Hell, it could even be Gearbox trying to shift some blame in order to get out from underneath the heat that a portion of the Halo PC fanbase has been giving them.
Or (and most of you have probably been salivating in anticipation of this one) it could be that Microsoft has an ulterior motive and is malevolently, quietly, and intentionally sabotaging Halo PC and Mac updates. Reasons for this could be to boost xbox and Halo xbox sales due to a difference in the ammount of profit gained, internal politics against Bungie for making sure that an outside company did the port (or making sure the port was made at all), or any other of a number of reasons.
I'm not trying to excuse Microsoft or Gearbox here, or lay any blame at either company's feet; but if patches are being delayed intentionally, as Pitchford (and some critics) has suggested, then there is reason for anger and outcry.
What kind of outcry is left to the individual Halo PC fan / Microsoft basher.
~UP
Yes, yes, a substantial portion of Kazaa and other file-sharing programs/networks are in use illegally.
However, there is also a substantial portion which is used for, among other things, advertisements, legal restores (example: a long time ago, I used a file sharing network to backup an mp3 which I legally owned... the original had been corrupted during a backup to a bad CD; I lost a lot of data, but most of it didn't turn out to be important, luckily), and semi-legal file transfers (where the host might be in, say, Japan where the file is illegal, but the downloader is in the US where there is no copyright and is therefore legal).
With all due respect, sir, I think you're focusing on the negative side of file sharing.
~UP
... but it must've been the winds of change.
I think some parents are starting to realize that legislation of restriction is not often needed. The store owner and parents in the article are correct; the kids don't purchase the games, the parents are the ones deciding what games their children get to buy, and violence does not spring from video games but from the roots of bad and inadequate parenting.
Even when I was in my late teens, I stayed away from games which seemed morally offensive to me. I have avoided Carmageddon to this day because I don't like the idea of running over pedestrians for no reason at all. All of the 'good kids' I knew from childhood to my graduation from highschool either didn't partake in such things, played the games and watched the videos only sparingly, or moderately played and viewed but with the understanding that what they were looking at was not real, and retained both their sanity and morality.
The two teenagers in Tennessee who shot people from a moving car after playing GTA weren't unbalanced because of the game; rather, they were not quite sane before they played the game, and the game only inspired them to their act of violence. That is, if they'd not been playing the game, they would have simply found some other inspiration and acted in violence from it.
Some parents have begun to realize this, and have refused the sensationalist fear presented by news outlets which seek only ratings and readership. They're right to use this common sense, and those of us who have understood video games and their effects are relieved and delighted.
Good parenting is and always has been the duty and responsibility of the parent(s); if I ever have one or more children, I will be a parent with this reality in mind. Guides and the like (such as ratings) are good and accepted, though they are not always needed. (Who would expect a Mario game to involve sex, drugs, and grotesque amounts of gore?) Restrictions on youth, on the other hand, take away a part of a parent's ability to be a parent, and therefore not only restrict the rights of the youth but the rights of the aged, as well.
Thank you for either patiently reading through my rant of the hour or skipping to the end.
~UP
(Note: IANAL, so please correct me on any incorrect information herein.)
So, let me get this straight: the US federal government wants to make it illegal to enter false information in your WHOIS registration if you are assisting a crime in doing so. And impersonating someone for any reason is fraud. So, anyone who enters a name & address/email address/phone number not their own is commiting fraud. Therefore, anyone who enters a name not their own is not only "assisting" a crime, but making one... and so they not only get a fraud charge, but a "misleading information in WHOIS" charge if this bill is passed.
I can see how this bill might help U.S. federal prosecutors keep some arsehole from getting parole for another few years; if the man or woman charged with fraud is guilty (not just found guilty), I'm all for it.
But there are two problems, here. One is that it will, though not by intentional effect, extend the miscarriage of justice if or when an innocent person is found guilty for internet fraud. The second is that it's going to scare the U.S. citizens who have false information in their WHOIS but are otherwise NOT criminals into identifying themselves, to their detriment, in all probability.
So, is there a reason why, instead of the laws on fraud, there is an attempt to make privacy through anonymity illegal? I don't mean to imply conspiracy or malevolent intent... but I have to admit that a small part of me suspects the latter.
If anonymity is rendered illegal on the internet, how long will it be before it is a federal mandate that all U.S. citizens must wear nametags at all times? After all, not wearing one would only allow prosecutors to lay some extra prison times on someone who's already guilty of a crime, right?
And if they nab the wrong guy or gal, the Feds and federal prosecutors can still save themselves from embarassment by seeing the charge of not carrying identification around at all times, even if that person is innocent of any other crime.
Lastly, what about those under the age of majority who run servers or have a domain name of their own? Are they going to be tried as an adult if they decide to keep their anonymity in their WHOIS information?
Just how far can and will this be taken, and why? Is such a thing about control, direct or indirect, or is it about something else? The mind of one who has grown up in a sensationalist, reactionary, and dramatized media environment jumps immediately to the conclusion of malevolent intent (whether or not it dismisses it).
~UP
Thanks for the info. I'll check out the Surgeon General's website as soon as I get the time to do so.
I choose to think the government funded and lung association backed quitting studies are less likely to be biased then the "quitting aid" studies.
In all likelihood, you're right. Too many people tend not to realize that there is a reason that the addage of not believing everything one reads has been around for as long as it has.
Anyhow, thanks again!
~UP
Quitting smoking cold turkey has the highest success rate.
Would you mind too much if I asked for your sources of that assertion? I'm assuming you've researched this (you seem confident enough), so I'm wondering if you can point me toward one or more research studies so that I can read up on quitting gradually vs. quitting all at once. They don't have to be links, though if they're published online it would be rather convenient... all I need is the title, the authors, and date (or month, even) of publication. I can probably track it down from there.
I agree that going "cold turkey" is rather conclusive, but you also have to keep in mind that any person with a chemical dependency (aka addiction) may not be able to afford to quit cold turkey. If you quit heroin or somesuch cold turkey, you could be unable to work for days or weeks. In the case of the submitter, we want him to be able to function at work while also functioning without caffeine; ideally, he might want to graduate himself down to not intaking caffeine at all. That way, s/he doesn't go through withdrawl and get fired for being unable to stay awake at his/her desk, but s/he also gets him/herself off of caffeine.
If s/he cannot stick to his/her own graduated stepdown schedule, then that's a matter of will power... and that's another subject, entirely.
~UP
Submitter, start weaning yourself off of caffeine; don't go cold turkey, but start consuming less and less of it. What you're describing appears to me to be a chemical dependency at best... a serious medical problem at worst. Go see an M.D. about this... you deserve to stay awake for a reasonable length of time without artificially increasing your heart rate.
Also, if you absolutely cannot break your caffeine addiction, go with tea. It's much better for you than coffee, and it's just as "instant" as "instant coffee," if not more so.
I apologize, as I have not answered your question, which was the intention of your submission, and because my advice might seem like telling you what to do with your life, even though that is not its intent. I'm not a medical professional, but I have been informed by medical professionals on the subjects of caffeine and coffee, thanks to a rather serious stomach disorder.
Anyhow, good luck in finding (a) solution(s) to your problem(s).
~UP
Think about it this way: what do you do if a neighbor incessantly follows you around talking about this or that service or product? Well, most people would ask the jerk to kindly shut up. But if this only encourages the neighbor, then it would be logical to get a restraining order. If the neighbor violates the restraining order, then s/he goes to jail.
So, why can't we apply this to all forms of unrequested solicitaiton? Why can't we just make it a criminal offense to badger someone (or several someones indiscriminately) with wasteful spam, mailings, phone calls, faxes, pager spam, etc.?
I think that the usual answer is that you can't arrest a corporation, and that it's even harder to impose penalties on an international corporation. My solution to this is rather radical: allow corporations to be criminally tried for infractions against the law. If they lose the case, they can appeal, but if they lose the appeal (or if they don't appeal), then those responsible should be arrested and punished (by fines, community service, or jail time; the usual means) according to the crime and their participation in it. A major spam corporation might then be effectively broken up; it would certainly put some more teeth into the laws and regulations regarding corporations.
As for multinational corporations... well, there do exist precidents and systems by which nations cooperate to track down and arrest criminals. It would be no more complex than it already is, but would take more manpower.
There are some oddities involving tax laws in the US which deal with all of this, but I'll let someone else who knows that subject better than I explain it, or leave it to the individual slashdotter to research it on their own.
~UP
Alright, the first thing which came to my mind was "what if a person has an accent?" What happens when the game can't understand what you're saying or, worse, misinterprets one verbal command for another? Theoretically, a stuffed up nose could turn "attack the house" into "a tank the how's," leaving the units in a strategy game to stand around looking for a tank when they should be advancing.
Joking aside, there could be (and have been) problems with voice-recognition/speech-interpretation software. Probably the only device which has the capability to correctly interpret languages through accents, slurs, and illness is the human brain... and even that fails, sometimes.
Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see some voice control for NPCs in computer and video games. I'm just not daydreaming of A.I. which can engage in arguments and intelligent debates, or a piece of software which can translate any accent correctly, even the accents of non-native language speakers (like Americans speaking Japanese or vice-versa).
So, in my opinion, there's a long way to go before we should make speech an integral and necessary part of controling actions in a game. And, to answer the question posed, that's an area where I'd like to see voice control progress. The other area is to simply include it in any relatively complicated game which has a multiplayer component.
Take, for example, Halo PC; it has no voice control built in, but the fast-paced nature of the game prohibits typing out instructions, observations, etc. If I take time to type out "watch left!" while driving across a bridge in a Warthog, I and my passenger(s) will be smoked or the warning will be made useless by the fact that we'll be across the bridge before they can read and react to it.
After we reach these two aspects of voice recognition/control in games, we can talk about where and how it should be implimented, and why. In the mean time, I'll go back to shaking my fist at my broken PC.
~UP
(P.S. My apologies for the grumpy tone of this message. I didn't get enough sleep, last night.)
While I have little doubt that, if done well, this new game will succeed, I very much doubt that it will revive or spark a revival of the arcade.
The arcade had two appeals: atmosphere and easy, library-like access to games. The atmosphere hasn't changed, and that's been a big problem. The evolution of games and gaming in general have taken the typical gamer away from the open, cacaphonic and busy, glitzy room and toward tightly-packed rows of computers where more than a handful of friends can play with and against each other in the same virtual world.
PCs and game consoles have made access even easier and more convenient. Now you don't even have to walk across a room to play the next game, because it's only a mouse-click or DVD/CD/Cartridge swap away. And best of all, you can play all of these games sitting down.
PC and console gaming has had the time not only to one-up arcade gaming, but lap it. Configurable controls, co-op modes, engaging stories, saved games, multiplayer against humans rather than bots, multiplayer with more than a handful of friends, etc. All have lured the modern gamer away from the arcade, by and large.
And all of this has been simple progress, an evolution of gaming. In the past, Centipede and Pac Man were kings of the electronic gaming domain. The equipment was too expensive, too large, and too bulky for all but the most wealthy of gamers to have home access. The best business model was to put a bunch of the giants in one room and charge a coin or two per play. That won't work, anymore, and it's not a dearth of quality games which have caused this decline; this new game would work just fine on an xbox or PS2, and that alone should be an indication of why more games like it will not cause gamers to flock to the Electronic Arcades as they once did.
Times have changed, and they will again. The arcades will go the way of the news reel, and nothing can change this. Whether or not it is for the best is a matter of personal opinion.
~UP
"Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of quarter-inch tapes."
Of course, this is on a slightly smaller scale, but I'm pretty sure that the quote fits.
~UP
Bungie never announced a release date for Halo 2 up until today, so nothing's been "pushed back" or "delayed." Still... FALL!? I recognize how much of the H2 demo played by the Bungie guys was scripted and limited in scope, but it was still an example of where the engine was.
The screenshot released today shows that they have functional multiplayer now, too. Beta testing should take a few months, but it seems to me that Halo 2 is clearly past the alpha stage at this point.
So why 8-10 months more? Even IF they're still in alpha, they've got to be in late alpha by now... I just don't see how it'll take that long. Maybe that's my fault... perhaps a lack of experience with game development and emotion are clouding my vision on this. I'm willing to accept that, and I don't think that I'm "owed" anything, even an explanation... but damn it, I'm disappointed and saddened by this news.
Even on the off chance that Bungie is just screwing with our heads, I've still lost some of my confidence in them. Hell, if they ARE screwing with our heads, I'll be angry at them for toying with their fans' emotions.
I'm going to go distract myself before I get depressed.
~UP
Who owns the ET engine? If I understand correctly, it's a modified version of the Quake III engine... but will the Urban Terror people get to decide which platforms it comes out for, or will the Wolfenstein or Quake III people be able to tell them what platforms they will release for?
Will there be a Mac version, because there's a Mac version of Quake III? Will there be a Linux version, because there's a Linux version of ET? Who will decide this, in the end?
IANAL, but it seems that it might help to be one, in cases like this!
~UP
I roomed with a guy who had Quake III and played the Urban Terror mod for a while. It wasn't popular then (two years ago), and I'm wondering if it will be popular after the release of the port.
Personally, I didn't think it was all that great then, when all I had was a Mac (which couldn't really run the mod) and hadn't seen CounterStrike. It was interesting, but it didn't reach out and grab me, even though I did (and still do) tend to prefer FPSs.
Still, if there've been revisions since then (and there probably have been), and if the ET engine can provide them with better graphics (and it can, from what I've seen), I can see it becoming popular, which would be a good thing for me; I get another game (for free (as in beer)!), it takes some of the population pressure and some of the cheaters away from CounterStrike, and might add a good spark of competition, too.
Right now, I'll just wait and see what happens. Hopefully I'll get to try it out when it's released. Hopefully, they'll have a Mac port, so that I won't need to rely on my currently-broken PC in order to play any of my favored games. (I admit it, I bought the PC for gaming purposes.)
~UP
Nobody actually wins; it's like a nuclear war, in that even if you manage to get your nukes to detonate on target and they don't send any back your way, you still have to deal with the fallout.
But for the people who really, truly hate anything anti-Linux or anti-Unix, it's a twisted sort of moral victory. Microsoft catches some more heat for producing an OS with as many security holes as it has; SCO gets a DDoS attack, and through it a "piece of the virus-writer's mind." Does it actually hurt these companies? I doubt it. Whatever they lose in bandwidth/server costs or bad news, they can immediately spin into good publicity. ("See! It's those Open Source jerks bullying us again!")
The rest of us just get to sort of stand on the sidelines and shake our heads in disapproval of both "sides," while catching some of the fallout, ourselves. Anyone running Windows gets another virus thrown their way (and thus more time/productivity/money wasted), and those who support the Open Source community, if they are not a part of it or participate in it, get the sharp edge of the spin.
~UP
Have an output-only connector implanted in the brain (make it one-way wireless and have it run on body heat, perhaps); remembering or thinking of opening an application or document will cause the computer to launch the appropriate application. Output is still put onto a screen (or holographic projecter...) so that input (and thus the capability of "hacking" the human mind) is that much more difficult.
Or, failing that, the system used in Minority Report would be good. I liked the hands- and gestures-based management of the computer, recalling data, literally shoving it aside, calling up the needed information/documents/applications through hand gestures... it'd be nice, and much more intuitive than the current desktop and directory interface we have nowadays.
~UP
It had an epic plot, and I'm not lightly throwing that word around. I'm speaking literally, here; it may not have been an Odessey of the modern era, but it stands out in my mind as one of, if not the best plots in a game.
The facts that it had good atmosphere, stupendous level map design, and challenging, unique mysteries were all sweet icing on the cake. These reasons, and more than I cannot think of right now, are why the game deserves to be remade.
~UP
I suspect that only a minority of Slashdot-ers will recognize what I'm talking about, but any game in the trilogy deserves a remake on it's own; the whole trilogy deserves a remake, even more.
Lucky for us, that's already in the works. In fact, it's being simultaneously ported for Linux and Windows as well as OS X, AND it's an Open Source project. If I had any programming skills (alas, I don't), I'd be in on the project. As it stands, I'll have to wait until Pfhorge (pronounced "forge," for the uninitiated) comes out to make any contribution.
Anyhow, for those interested, the project is called Aleph One; the main site can be found here, and the SourceForge site can be found here.
~UP
"I wish we could go to their states and to their districts and tell what is happening and their constituents would see these politicians - all of them - for the sellout rats they are."
So... why don't you?
Have you let fear govern your life? Have you not forgotten FDR's words of wisdom, "There is nothing to fear but fear itself"? If so, then you have more of a concern with the paralyzation this fear has put into you than you have with anything else.
Fear is how Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq. Fear is the most potent tool in a dictator's asset box; allow yourself to fear always, and you will always be at the whim and mercy of others. Don't lose yourself to an emotion; remember to stand up and think with logic when you can.
~UP
If I make a copy of a 1,000,000 entry database, then change one of the entries, is it still infringing?
Let me share some perspective: If you copy a 10,000 word book, and change one word (or sentence), is it still plagiarism?
(Hint: the answer starts with a "Y".)
~UP
The key term here is "making available in commerce...." Translation: only for something you can sell.
But, if you want to use a commercial database for your own personal use, educational use, certain kinds of research, etc. you can do it without getting your arse sued to hades.
~UP
Let me preface this by stating that I am no lawyer; nor am I a post-graduate law student. What I'm offering is merely the interpretation that I took away from reading the Act legislation.
For those with tin-foil or aluminium-foil hats, you can take them off for this one. As far as I was able to figure out, government, education, and non-profit databases are not covered under this Act.
The Act does, however, appear to cover IP tables and databases of any kind involving activity by IP address... meaning that the RIAA and MPAA cannot simply grab an activity log organized by IP address, or an IP address database organized by user/name, without first obtaining written permission by the ISP or a subpeona from a court. (I am unsure if this actually changes much, if anything, if it's redundant, or if it's just putting specific coverage under Federal law.)
For the most part, it looks like this law applies to corporate databases and little to nothing else. Freedom of the press, the Act providing for government transparency (I cannot recall the name of the Act at this time), and previous communication laws still apply. Further, it seems to me that the Act sets up coverage for scholarly or educational access to databases within a certain, unspecified, level; it leaves the determination of that level to the courts.
I haven't read any of the previous communication acts, but it looks to me that the only negative side-effect of this Act would be regional (or national) monopolies on phonebooks. Since, at the places I've lived, at least, phonebooks tend to be distributed without charge to the individual, it's only a matter of information accuracy and phonebook advertisements.
I suggest that EVERYONE read the Act for themselves, but it doesn't seem to me like it's something to go grey over or spike aluminum foil manufacturers stock prices.
~UP