Actually accepting the self-signed certificate forever is safer than current session only. At least with the forever, you will know when the certificate has changed and may indicate a man-in-the-middle situation...
So, your premise is that botting is directly correlated to ganking?
Well not exactly. My premise is that botting would make it easier for those who would gank, not that everyone who uses a bot will exclusively gank.
It's my assertion that the number of people who would create a high level character using actual game play for the express purpose of griefing lower level characters is lower than the number of people who would use a bot to create a high level character for the same purpose. It has more to do with attention span than anything else.
I can see people who botted to be more likely to gank, since they have a less vested interest in the nuances within the game as compared to someone who actually participated in the game. However, this is not my original premise.
I have nothing against the use of guides or even addons like QuestHelper. They still require you to be online and actively participate in the game.
The bots give a player an unfair advantage by allowing the character to be leveled or gold collected without the player having to dedicate time to spend actually playing the game.
I would consider having to spend time doing monotonous farming as putting some effort in leveling your character. While coming home to see what your bot has accomplished can be considered effortless.
I don't play WoW because I generally get bored with it after about a month, so this doesn't really affect me one way or the other. Your response, however, seems mostly based on emotion. I'm looking for pragmatic reasons to not allow botting.
If you actually played WoW, you would understand the reasons against botting. However you don't, but it doesn't seems to stop you from trolling for comments...
looking for a clear explanation of what the difference is between getting to L60/70 in 10 days with a bot, or 10 days hitting the keys yourself. Neither person person gains an advantage, and to play the instances - the meat of the game, really - they're going to have to kick the bot off and take control anyway.
This is another example of your lack of understanding. WoW has PvP servers. Within these servers, Players can attack other players. Asshats use a bot to get to the highest level possible and then proceed to attack lower level characters for their own amusement. This harassment slows down the legitimate player.
Of course nothing prevents a level 70 from being an asshat, but at least without bots you would have a lower number of dedicated asshats...
It's a bot that lets you level up without playing the game for hours on end. If it was a PK bot I would understand.
If you don't want to spend the time leveling a character, then go find a different game to play.
Your argument is disingenuous, since we all know that letting a bot level your character and generate gold give you an unfair advantage over a player that actually spends time on a pvp server.
why does it matter whether or not a player puts in that time, or a bot does?
Because an honest player puts actual effort into resource acquisition, while someone who uses a bot is able to beat the honest player without expending the same amount of effort.
This frustrates the honest player and rewards the bot user.
If you don't have the time to play a game by its rules, then go find a different game to play.
So I'm not very excited about a technology which only cuts the power consumption of LCDs..
I agree. Especially when this new technology requires high voltage, and is mechanical. According to the article, no durability studies have been made yet so celebrating may be a little premature.
Well I only use the subscription service and treat it like my own personal "satellite radio" when I'm on the road. Basically, filling up my 8GB MP3 player before hitting the road.
I *much* prefer buying my music on good old fashion CDs... No DRM, and better sound.
To counter the hyperbole being spewed by the trollish story linked above, Yahoo! Music was purchased by Rhapsody. The email yesterday contained a link, which I used to transfer my account to them. Rhapsody will continue to honor my subscription rate and I can now listen to music on more devices... So what's the problem?
In fact, I'd go so far as to say sometimes Apple's anti-competitive practices make Microsoft look like angels by comparison.
The difference being that Microsoft uses it to be anti-competitive and disallow any real competition, while Apple appears to doing it as means for consistency and "look and feel". In reality, Apple may just be use boilerplate legalese to protect its IP, from competitors that are all too willing to make iPhone and iTouch knock offs.
The main reason I forgive Apple more is that, Apple hasn't gone out of its way to drive me or any of my colleagues out of business. While Microsoft on the other hand....
I am thinking about buying the N810, but I've held off because:
I'm getting conflicting reports on how well made the keyboard is. The consensus seems to be that the N800 is a better value.
The Battery life is less than advertised. But let's face it, who advertises real battery life these days?
The software isn't there yet. The biggest complaint so far is the lack of consumer friendly features. (Ironically, this is what attracts me to it)
GPS is dog slow to acquire and the mapping program is subscription based.
Don't know if it's worth getting the WiMax version (Will WiMax actually become viable?).
You can only have 10GB of storage (2GB built in + 8 GB max flash card).
The touch screen is not as accurate (or sensative) as the iTouch and most report having to use the stylus.
It has a stylus
Of course, I am also looking at the iTouch:
16GB iTouch is cheaper than a 10 GB N810.
For the same price of the 10GB N810, you can get a 32GB iTouch.
There is a potential of making money selling apps for the iTouch/iPhone, while Nokia can't seem to market the N810...
The obligatory:
The iPhone is only $299 + data plan, while the N810 is not a phone and uses DUN bluetooth protocol (which isn't a big deal for me since I have a Nokia phone).
I am seriously thinking about getting the N810 for myself, but I wouldn't try to imagine that it would actually compete against the iTouch. Hell after editing this post, I may reconsider the iTouch;D
(One of my colleagues was going through the same dilemma, and wound up with an Asus EEE)
One more thing I failed to mention before hitting the submit key. The summary is touting a computer system that only consumes 2 watts. I assume the computer system will have other components besides the CPU itself.
Since the Freescale MPC5121e mobileGT processor [freescale.com] has the PCI bus, SATA controller, PATA controller, timers, real-time clock, DMA controller, memory card controllers, Flash memory interfaces, Ethernet, 2D and 3D graphics, and USB integrated I'd like to ask which other components you're talking about.
I was thinking along the lines of the support hardware like power converter, external memory chips, and any other electrical interface or add-on functionality that the board maker wants to include on the processor board. In otherwords what is the power consumption at the power terminal of the board, not the Vin of the CPU.
Thing to remember is that a consumer friendly computing appliance that uses less than 10 watts is not something to sneer at. Of course, you can consume an additional 5 watts and become x86 compatible that will increase the available library of drivers and applications...
The CPU alone is rated at 2 watts (quoted from the flyer from silicontkx, the Freescale reference manual does not have the power requirements in the version that I have), so I can only guess what the additional power requirements for the other components.
It is not uncommon to get a PowerPC based computer system running with hardrive and standard VGA output that only consumes around 5 to 8 watts. I do run bare-bone stuff that have embedded applications, so typical home use may require more (due to graphics, faster drives, mouse, sound, etc.)
The $250 price was what attracted my attention. Right now Freescale is quoting a quantity 1 price of $999 for a MiniITX based board from silicontkx.com (It may be much cheaper to purchase direct from Silicontkx, I don't feel like getting a sales call). Here is the info for those who are interested.
The problems with the "we need to drill more domestically" solution are:
1) Most people in favor of more offshore drilling are typically the ones who are looking for a solution that requires the least amount of effort on their part. Just imagine how things would be different if people actually conserved energy instead of buying the biggest SUV they could find simply because gasoline was cheap.
2) Developing countries (eg China) have a growing demand for gasoline, which is driving up the speculative price of fuel. Why should this matter? While some in congress would like to restrict the use of domestic oil to the domestic market, a large number of congressmen do not generally support such restrictions which means we would be bidding against China even for domestic oil (I'll leave the assigning of party affiliations to you). So exactly how will this effect the cost of gasoline?
3) It will take 10 years for these new sources of oil to come to market and even begin to affect price of fuel.
4) Most people who support domestic drilling don't live near the affected areas. Meanwhile the people who live on the gulf coast will have to suffer with eyesores and pollution (even more than we have from the current level of offshore drilling).
5) The same people who don't mind drilling in areas far away from where they live, will fight tooth-and-nail against any refineries being built near them. Despite the fact that It is the lack of refineries that is the biggest influence on the price of gas and not the price of crude oil.
6) The oil companies have yet to drill all the areas for which they currently have drilling rights. Why? Well because they want to show a large amount of reserves on hand for their financial reports, AND they would rather drill closer to land where the cost of drilling is cheaper than deep water drilling. The point being, there will be more eyesores and the potential for pollution for the area being drilled.
7) Weather. Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico have negative affects on production and safety of the off-shore platforms...
8> As for ANWR, it's a wildlife reserve and should remain off limits to the greedy oil barons.
Embedded devs crop up from time to time on LKML complaining about things moving too fast and there not being enough feature stability between versions, but the general view is that most embedded developers stick with an older version and modify that to meet their needs anyway.
I too stick to the older kernel versions for my embedded stuff. However, I still get bitten by the deprecated/removed problem. I do not make commercial appliances and do not have the luxury of picking the hardware platform for the next 1000 units. Instead my work consists of adapting hardware required for a particular scientific mission, and receiving equipment from vendors. There have been more than one occasion that the manufacturer's driver only works with a kernel version that is older than our current "stable" version.
I've grown accustomed to doing one of two things:
1) using the Linux Cross Reference to deduce the youngest version of the kernel source that will allow the driver to be compiled, or
2) replace the deprecated API calls with the new API and compile and test the driver.
I try to choose option #2 as often as possible, but it is time consuming and time is usually not something I have a lot of...
I do not have the changing API issues in other operating systems available for embedded computing.
The new way is easy.. new features and drivers get added to the latest 2.6.x-rc only and only bug fixes get added to the old kernels.
You do realize that if you substitute 2.6.x-rc with 2.7.x, you are doing the same thing we've been doing when we had the experimental branch.
The only difference is that we no longer have to update the minor number, otherwise we would be on version 2.8 (or higher) by now.
This means that if I want to be sure I'm rock solid I just install the latest patch to the kernel I'm running and I can be sure no one has tried to add new features or drivers that would otherwise destabilize my stuff.
I can see the advantages of the current version number scheme as it relates to the traditional desktop/server user.
But you're lucky enough to not have to compile a driver for a non-mainstream piece of embedded hardware, and have to spend time updating the driver code because something that was probably flagged as deprecated in 2.6.8 was removed completely in 2.6.9. However in the old system, the function would be deprecated in the 2.6 kernel and removed in the 2.8 kernel. Under the old system, a driver marked for the 2.6 kernel would compile without modification, but I would expect to have to update the driver for 2.8.
My point being that both number schemes has its advantages, it just the old system benefited me more. Now if we would tag versions that are considered a production release (like I suggested in my previous post), it would be a good compromise since you would continue to benefit from not having so many forks in the kernel and I would benefit by knowing where the removal of deprecated functions have taken place.
Haha, that's not what happened at all. The vendors forked 2.4 and backported all the fancy new 2.5 features. So most users were running something that was nothing like the 'official' kernel. Meanwhile 2.5/2.6 went into dev hell because it wasn't relevant for the people paid to develop Linux.
I just wanted to point out that the internation date format (ISO-8601) is "YYYYMMDDTHHMMSS" where the current time would be "20080716T114830" or "2008-07-16T11:48:30".
The simple fact is that the new model has actually caused Linux distros to have more stable kernels now that vendors aren't trying to constantly backport things from the unstable branch.
But in a way we are still "backporting", it just looks different. Instead of moving the bugfix from 2.7 back to 2.6, we are backporting from 2.6.x to 2.6.25.x because 2.6.x is considered too bleeding edge.
The reason we have multiple bugfix only branches like 2.6.16.x and 2.5.25.x that are still actively maintained is because they are considered reliable enough for production versions of the 2.6 kernel.
In the good old days, I could depend on 2.5 being bleeding edge and 2.4 being ready for production. Since 2.6, I either depend on a distro to track the kernel versions(which I do at home), or watch the kernel forums to see which should be the next "stable" kernel version (which we do at work).
I would hate to see the 2.6 kernel versioning disappear, since 2.4 kernel is still being used on some of our embedded boards. It's more than just nostalgia because, even though I have the brain power to assume any patches using the new numbering scheme will be for the current kernel and anything for the old kernels will have the 2.4 or 2.6 moniker, the salespeople selling the CPU boards are just now understanding what 2.4 and 2.6 version means. Nothing was more frustrating than getting a board support package for the wrong Linux kernel version, all because the sales rep assumed all Linux kernels were the same.
Anyway when we do change our numbering scheme, it would be nice if we could milestone our versions. You know like 2.6-080716-P vs 2.6-080708 this way we know that 080716 version has been generally accepted as the version reliable enough to use for production, while the 080708 version is not.
I think it had more to do with the additional copy of WoW that was loaded into RAM in order to fool anti-cheat and was not used to actually play the game.
I must admit I am not familiar with how the cheat program operates.
a standards body should be slow, not out front, writing standards for things no one knows will be successful or not
in fact, the commercial players SHOULD get proprietary, aggresive technologies out there, seeking new markets. let them play and crash and burn
then, after something proves successful, the standards body plods along and picks it up and makes it canon
Well this hasn't worked well at all. We have companies that are in the business of making money (nothing wrong with that), and one of the ways to insure a steady income is to have a captive audience. So unless a coalition of competing companies propose a standard, the successful company will have a monopoly of that particular technology. Just look at the Microsoft Word document format as a case in point.
I will say that nothing prevents an open source application from competing against the proprietary program and eventually become a standard (ie. OpenOffice, and in some ways Apache).
oh it takes 10 hours to program a page that should take 10 minutes to program were everyone fascistically devoted to standards? well then you wouldn't have a job genius. you wouldn't be needed. the mess you have to deal with is proof you are needed. if it weren't messy, you'd be downsized and replaced by a perl script
Very weak argument. Most of my time is spent trying to come up with what the customer (in my case primary investigator) wants, and not screwing around with browser quirks. There are libraries available to help with the browser part. If the only thing keeping you employed is the perceived difficulties associated with "non-standard" browsers then I think you may find yourself outsourced...
Wouldn't price be an advantage? I haven't used dial up in a very long while, but I believe there are dial up ISPs that are *much* cheaper than what I spend for broadband.
If dial-up speed is fast enough for how little they use the internet, then what could possibly be a good reason to justify them spending more money?
Well other than our innate need to get other people to act and enjoy the same things we do...
It's made of trees that were grown especially for that purpose. Unlike structural or ornamental lumber, paper is not comprised of old growth forest. Just be sure to only buy paper from companies known to monitor their affluent from their mills. River pollution and NOT deforestation is the primary concern for paper.
Also unlike plastic bags, it's really biodegradable (not photodegradable like plastic bags that are covered in a landfill) and probably not as prone to kill wildlife from strangulation or entanglement.
So please stop spreading the myth about Paper and the Amazon (especially if we are talking about US paper production). This last sentence is directed at the GP...
Slashdot Mirror
Actually accepting the self-signed certificate forever is safer than current session only. At least with the forever, you will know when the certificate has changed and may indicate a man-in-the-middle situation...
Well not exactly. My premise is that botting would make it easier for those who would gank, not that everyone who uses a bot will exclusively gank.
It's my assertion that the number of people who would create a high level character using actual game play for the express purpose of griefing lower level characters is lower than the number of people who would use a bot to create a high level character for the same purpose. It has more to do with attention span than anything else.
I can see people who botted to be more likely to gank, since they have a less vested interest in the nuances within the game as compared to someone who actually participated in the game. However, this is not my original premise.
I have nothing against the use of guides or even addons like QuestHelper. They still require you to be online and actively participate in the game.
The bots give a player an unfair advantage by allowing the character to be leveled or gold collected without the player having to dedicate time to spend actually playing the game.
I would consider having to spend time doing monotonous farming as putting some effort in leveling your character. While coming home to see what your bot has accomplished can be considered effortless.
If you actually played WoW, you would understand the reasons against botting. However you don't, but it doesn't seems to stop you from trolling for comments...
This is another example of your lack of understanding. WoW has PvP servers. Within these servers, Players can attack other players. Asshats use a bot to get to the highest level possible and then proceed to attack lower level characters for their own amusement. This harassment slows down the legitimate player.
Of course nothing prevents a level 70 from being an asshat, but at least without bots you would have a lower number of dedicated asshats...
If you don't want to spend the time leveling a character, then go find a different game to play.
Your argument is disingenuous, since we all know that letting a bot level your character and generate gold give you an unfair advantage over a player that actually spends time on a pvp server.
Because an honest player puts actual effort into resource acquisition, while someone who uses a bot is able to beat the honest player without expending the same amount of effort.
This frustrates the honest player and rewards the bot user.
If you don't have the time to play a game by its rules, then go find a different game to play.
I agree. Especially when this new technology requires high voltage, and is mechanical. According to the article, no durability studies have been made yet so celebrating may be a little premature.
Well I only use the subscription service and treat it like my own personal "satellite radio" when I'm on the road. Basically, filling up my 8GB MP3 player before hitting the road.
I *much* prefer buying my music on good old fashion CDs... No DRM, and better sound.
To counter the hyperbole being spewed by the trollish story linked above, Yahoo! Music was purchased by Rhapsody. The email yesterday contained a link, which I used to transfer my account to them. Rhapsody will continue to honor my subscription rate and I can now listen to music on more devices... So what's the problem?
The difference being that Microsoft uses it to be anti-competitive and disallow any real competition, while Apple appears to doing it as means for consistency and "look and feel". In reality, Apple may just be use boilerplate legalese to protect its IP, from competitors that are all too willing to make iPhone and iTouch knock offs.
The main reason I forgive Apple more is that, Apple hasn't gone out of its way to drive me or any of my colleagues out of business. While Microsoft on the other hand....
One more thing!
I was an early adopter of the Zaurus and, despite its age, my daughter still uses it and talk about how she can still find software for it...
This is what keeps the (linux based) N810 on my consideration list.
I am thinking about buying the N810, but I've held off because:
Of course, I am also looking at the iTouch:
The obligatory:
I am seriously thinking about getting the N810 for myself, but I wouldn't try to imagine that it would actually compete against the iTouch. Hell after editing this post, I may reconsider the iTouch ;D
(One of my colleagues was going through the same dilemma, and wound up with an Asus EEE)
One more thing I failed to mention before hitting the submit key. The summary is touting a computer system that only consumes 2 watts. I assume the computer system will have other components besides the CPU itself.
I was thinking along the lines of the support hardware like power converter, external memory chips, and any other electrical interface or add-on functionality that the board maker wants to include on the processor board. In otherwords what is the power consumption at the power terminal of the board, not the Vin of the CPU.
Thing to remember is that a consumer friendly computing appliance that uses less than 10 watts is not something to sneer at. Of course, you can consume an additional 5 watts and become x86 compatible that will increase the available library of drivers and applications...
I'm a little skeptical on the 2 watts figure too.
The CPU alone is rated at 2 watts (quoted from the flyer from silicontkx, the Freescale reference manual does not have the power requirements in the version that I have), so I can only guess what the additional power requirements for the other components.
It is not uncommon to get a PowerPC based computer system running with hardrive and standard VGA output that only consumes around 5 to 8 watts. I do run bare-bone stuff that have embedded applications, so typical home use may require more (due to graphics, faster drives, mouse, sound, etc.)
The $250 price was what attracted my attention. Right now Freescale is quoting a quantity 1 price of $999 for a MiniITX based board from silicontkx.com (It may be much cheaper to purchase direct from Silicontkx, I don't feel like getting a sales call). Here is the info for those who are interested.
The problems with the "we need to drill more domestically" solution are:
1) Most people in favor of more offshore drilling are typically the ones who are looking for a solution that requires the least amount of effort on their part. Just imagine how things would be different if people actually conserved energy instead of buying the biggest SUV they could find simply because gasoline was cheap.
2) Developing countries (eg China) have a growing demand for gasoline, which is driving up the speculative price of fuel. Why should this matter? While some in congress would like to restrict the use of domestic oil to the domestic market, a large number of congressmen do not generally support such restrictions which means we would be bidding against China even for domestic oil (I'll leave the assigning of party affiliations to you). So exactly how will this effect the cost of gasoline?
3) It will take 10 years for these new sources of oil to come to market and even begin to affect price of fuel.
4) Most people who support domestic drilling don't live near the affected areas. Meanwhile the people who live on the gulf coast will have to suffer with eyesores and pollution (even more than we have from the current level of offshore drilling).
5) The same people who don't mind drilling in areas far away from where they live, will fight tooth-and-nail against any refineries being built near them. Despite the fact that It is the lack of refineries that is the biggest influence on the price of gas and not the price of crude oil.
6) The oil companies have yet to drill all the areas for which they currently have drilling rights. Why? Well because they want to show a large amount of reserves on hand for their financial reports, AND they would rather drill closer to land where the cost of drilling is cheaper than deep water drilling. The point being, there will be more eyesores and the potential for pollution for the area being drilled.
7) Weather. Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico have negative affects on production and safety of the off-shore platforms...
8> As for ANWR, it's a wildlife reserve and should remain off limits to the greedy oil barons.
I too stick to the older kernel versions for my embedded stuff. However, I still get bitten by the deprecated/removed problem. I do not make commercial appliances and do not have the luxury of picking the hardware platform for the next 1000 units. Instead my work consists of adapting hardware required for a particular scientific mission, and receiving equipment from vendors. There have been more than one occasion that the manufacturer's driver only works with a kernel version that is older than our current "stable" version.
I've grown accustomed to doing one of two things:
1) using the Linux Cross Reference to deduce the youngest version of the kernel source that will allow the driver to be compiled, or
2) replace the deprecated API calls with the new API and compile and test the driver.
I try to choose option #2 as often as possible, but it is time consuming and time is usually not something I have a lot of...
I do not have the changing API issues in other operating systems available for embedded computing.
You do realize that if you substitute 2.6.x-rc with 2.7.x, you are doing the same thing we've been doing when we had the experimental branch.
The only difference is that we no longer have to update the minor number, otherwise we would be on version 2.8 (or higher) by now.
I can see the advantages of the current version number scheme as it relates to the traditional desktop/server user.
But you're lucky enough to not have to compile a driver for a non-mainstream piece of embedded hardware, and have to spend time updating the driver code because something that was probably flagged as deprecated in 2.6.8 was removed completely in 2.6.9. However in the old system, the function would be deprecated in the 2.6 kernel and removed in the 2.8 kernel. Under the old system, a driver marked for the 2.6 kernel would compile without modification, but I would expect to have to update the driver for 2.8.
My point being that both number schemes has its advantages, it just the old system benefited me more. Now if we would tag versions that are considered a production release (like I suggested in my previous post), it would be a good compromise since you would continue to benefit from not having so many forks in the kernel and I would benefit by knowing where the removal of deprecated functions have taken place.
Yep, you're right. I forgot about that part,
I agree with you.
I just wanted to point out that the internation date format (ISO-8601) is "YYYYMMDDTHHMMSS" where the current time would be "20080716T114830" or "2008-07-16T11:48:30".
But in a way we are still "backporting", it just looks different. Instead of moving the bugfix from 2.7 back to 2.6, we are backporting from 2.6.x to 2.6.25.x because 2.6.x is considered too bleeding edge.
The reason we have multiple bugfix only branches like 2.6.16.x and 2.5.25.x that are still actively maintained is because they are considered reliable enough for production versions of the 2.6 kernel.
In the good old days, I could depend on 2.5 being bleeding edge and 2.4 being ready for production. Since 2.6, I either depend on a distro to track the kernel versions(which I do at home), or watch the kernel forums to see which should be the next "stable" kernel version (which we do at work).
I would hate to see the 2.6 kernel versioning disappear, since 2.4 kernel is still being used on some of our embedded boards. It's more than just nostalgia because, even though I have the brain power to assume any patches using the new numbering scheme will be for the current kernel and anything for the old kernels will have the 2.4 or 2.6 moniker, the salespeople selling the CPU boards are just now understanding what 2.4 and 2.6 version means. Nothing was more frustrating than getting a board support package for the wrong Linux kernel version, all because the sales rep assumed all Linux kernels were the same.
Anyway when we do change our numbering scheme, it would be nice if we could milestone our versions. You know like 2.6-080716-P vs 2.6-080708 this way we know that 080716 version has been generally accepted as the version reliable enough to use for production, while the 080708 version is not.
I think it had more to do with the additional copy of WoW that was loaded into RAM in order to fool anti-cheat and was not used to actually play the game.
I must admit I am not familiar with how the cheat program operates.
Well this hasn't worked well at all. We have companies that are in the business of making money (nothing wrong with that), and one of the ways to insure a steady income is to have a captive audience. So unless a coalition of competing companies propose a standard, the successful company will have a monopoly of that particular technology. Just look at the Microsoft Word document format as a case in point.
I will say that nothing prevents an open source application from competing against the proprietary program and eventually become a standard (ie. OpenOffice, and in some ways Apache).
Very weak argument. Most of my time is spent trying to come up with what the customer (in my case primary investigator) wants, and not screwing around with browser quirks. There are libraries available to help with the browser part. If the only thing keeping you employed is the perceived difficulties associated with "non-standard" browsers then I think you may find yourself outsourced...
Wouldn't price be an advantage? I haven't used dial up in a very long while, but I believe there are dial up ISPs that are *much* cheaper than what I spend for broadband.
If dial-up speed is fast enough for how little they use the internet, then what could possibly be a good reason to justify them spending more money?
Well other than our innate need to get other people to act and enjoy the same things we do...
Paper is OK.
It's made of trees that were grown especially for that purpose. Unlike structural or ornamental lumber, paper is not comprised of old growth forest. Just be sure to only buy paper from companies known to monitor their affluent from their mills. River pollution and NOT deforestation is the primary concern for paper.
Also unlike plastic bags, it's really biodegradable (not photodegradable like plastic bags that are covered in a landfill) and probably not as prone to kill wildlife from strangulation or entanglement.
So please stop spreading the myth about Paper and the Amazon (especially if we are talking about US paper production). This last sentence is directed at the GP...
No I don't work for the paper industry.