This is my post. I wrote it. Is is a creative and inventive work which benefits society at large. Moreover, it is a concrete example of intellectual property. This post, that you are reading right now, belongs to me. It is mine.
This post is mine in the same way that my house, or car or clothes are mine. These words that I have written are given as much protection as freedom of speech or to vote. They need it. If just anyone is allowed to come along and copy them, or alter them, or include them in another work without my permission, then it will be as though my right to speak freely has been taken away, or I have been disenfranchised.
If someone else reads these words without paying me, or worse sells them to others to read, I will have been robbed. It will be as if my home was burned down, or my family sold into slavery. An injustice of the highest order.
These words need protections. Strong protections. This post needs to be defended, even as it is copied endless and effortlessly across millions of computers, each recopying it hundreds of times, at negligible expense. The worth of these words is worth more than all the bits it occupies in cyberspace. Indeed, their worth is worth more than the worth of cyberspace, and even society itself.
For if these words, if this post cannot be afforded the most stringent, uncompromising and sacred protection that our society has to offer, then our society will not be worth the bits it is represented on. The reality of digital worldwide transmission must not be allowed to compromise the most fundamental rights we have. The protection of this post is a challenge which our civilization must meet, or else our civilization must fall.
None of the materials provided in this post site may be used, reproduced or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or the use of any information storage and retrieval system, without express permission in writing from the author, along with suitable monetary compensation.
Unauthorized use of the materials in this post are subject to prosecution to the fullest exent allowable by law.
Does anyone read To Kill a Mockingbird or Scarlet Letter for entertainment? Hardly. People read these books to explore the human condition and take a hard look at where society fails the individual.
If that was really the case, then the majority of people who read these books would be better off with a philosophy book which brought forth various examples and debated them rather than a long drawn out affair concerning only one story. The truth is people are reading these books for entertainment, as well as to explore various topics. The two outcomes are not mutually exclusive.
Does anyone play an "adult" videogame to explore the human condition. Heck no. It's all about juvenille self-indulgence.
So it's impossible for "Metal Gear Solid" to advocate an anti-nuclear stance while still being a 3D action game? It's impossible for Vandal Hearts to analyze the outcomes and effects of political revolutions on society while still being a turn based fantasy RPG? It's impossible for any video game to have or deliver any deeper meaning or message than Pong or Super Mario Brothers?
I take it you're the kind of person who regards "growth" and "fun" as two mutually exclusive activities.
That barrier must be overcome for video games to be accepted as a dignified medium worthy of serious topics. It's the perception that must be overcome. I challenge game designers and publishers everywhere to break down this barrier. At one point Lolita and Ulysses were nothing more than "juvenile self-indulgence"...
Fuck that. The mainstream commentators will never, ever accept video games as a legitimate artistic medium. Ever. Games like "Shadow of the Colossus", "Ico", "Symphony of the Night", "Okami" and others will never be accepted by artistic communities or by the mainstream as being any more culturally, artistically or aesthetically important or "dignified" than "Pong" or "Zombies Ate my Neighbours". Ever.
Besides, why are looking for the approval of these people anyway? Mainstream artistics regard arrangements of concrete blocks as intellectually stimulating and worthy of acclaim. Most modern artists are wasters who spend their time talking up works that can and have been drawn by 10 years olds into magnificent products of human culture. Three blank paintings do not constitute art. The people who tell you they do, have likely no talent and spend their time and money talking shit and getting high.
Video game developers are much closer to the true artists of old than all the talentless hacks that call themselves artists nowadays. Why? It's simple. Patronage.
When Caravaggio painted The Taking of Christ, or Michelangelo carved David, they didn't do it because they were trying to get a Humanities Phd, or impress their circle of bohemian friends. They did it so well because they were paid by Patrons to specifically so they would do it so well. And more to the point they produced such great works because there were a hell of a lot of other great artists who were ready to step up and do the same if they didn't deliver the goods.
I don't mean to compare video game developers directly to Renaissance artists. But I do mean to say that like Renaissance and other artists before the modern day, developers rely on patronage of their customers to stay in business. There is a lot of competition, and they need to deliver an entertaining, challenging, and yes artistic product if they want to stay in business. This fact alone means that over time, games have stepped up to the plate artistically.
Show something like Gears of War to a mainstream commentator or art critic, and they will likely deride it as "crass" and "unworthy" without drawing breath. Now actually play the game and experience the mechanics. Look at the vistas and locales on display. Listen to tracks like the "Train Wreck" theme playing. Look at the real talent and effort that has gone into the game, and this is a title that isn't even trying to be overtly artistic. Now tell me that the product as a whole is a lesser artistic work than a painting of a tin of Campbell's soup, or an episode of Lost.
I'm sure there's a lot of Slashdotters who will queue up to deride the notion that something like "Gears of War", or any video game for that matter, could in any way be considered "artistic" or "dignified". Fine. Go back to reading Nietzsche or Kafka, or watching the Seventh Seal, or whatever else makes you feel intellectually sophisticated. Meanwhile, even crass "action" video games will continue to surpass in quality the majority of what you regard as "art".
Yet the show revolves around said female lawyers earnest attempts to "find a man" amid a highly sexualised work environment. I imagine actual women working in law weren't particularly impressed.
Indeed. Even when that case is obviously unjust, or illegal.
Lawyers, like journalists, like to proclaim themselves as pillars and protectors of democratic and free society. In reality, they are often the people at the very forefront of that societies destruction. It makes you wonder why they are granted the powers and privileges that they enjoy.
Nuclear waste becomes no more toxic than a great many other industrial process after being stored for only 5 years or so.
Yes. But other industrial processes don't emit powerful radiation that can turn innocent people into mutated, mindless, brain eating hyperzombies. It's basic science!
Re:Wake me when WoW has puking bears
on
A History of Rogue
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
It needs to have two modes. An easy mode, and a real mode.
No. What Dwarf fortress needs, desperately, is a better UI. I'm not just talking about proper graphics, though that would be a part of it. Even the developers have admitted that they have streched the limits of what is possible with ASCII characters.
Currently, Dwarf fortress is like a rocket ship, with literally hundreds of knobs, buttons and switches. It's frequently impossible to figure out what is going on and how to do anything about it. Which is tragic because almost everyone who sees the game _wants_ to know what is going on and to interact with the world as much as possible.
Something like Falcon's Eye shows the way. Meaningful graphics which convey the maximium amount of information in the least time, and context sensitive menus, which only display relevant options. Better still would be the creation of a system that relied on only a few "verbs", with objects in the world as nouns. As the saying goes "Complexity is Easy. Simplicity is Hard."
You have three games with any new game before it gets old. After this you either have to completely reinvent (Resident Evil 4), or you are doomed to stagnation (Megaman) or else will run the series into the ground (Sonic the Hedgehog). You have one game to introduce things(Sonic 1/Crash Bandicoot), one sequel to experiment with and ramp it up a notch(Sonic 2/The Wrath of Cortex), and number three is the to release the perfected, definitive work(Sonic 3&K/ Crash Bandicoot Warped).
With this in mind, new IP is absolutely essential. Gamers want something fresh, and you don't necessarily need a completely new paradigm or control scheme or expierience.
Take a look at Gear of War. The lead developer openly admitted that they took inspiration from several sources. The cover system is directly out of Kill/Switch, the over the shoulder view is from Resident Evil 4. The Kryll enemies were lifted directly from the movie "Pitch Black". Basically, something can still be fresh my taking inspiration from other sources, not by making up a new world as it goes along(Summoner 2).
Eventually, people will get bored of the same old thing. Players and developers both. Even Rockstar , having released their three games; GTA 3, Vice City, and their magnum opis San Andreas, decided to almost completely overhaul their biggest IP in GTA 4, primarily because they were sick of the same old thing. Creativity will stagnate unless you are actually being creative.
Three games, release the definitive title, then move on.
By the way, you now know never to trust NoScript, and to warn anyone who tells you they're using it.
Absolutely. What many programmers and companies do not realise is that there there needs to be a large amount of trust between users and themselves. Ultimately, by installing software, users are giving huge control of their systems and software to people they have never met and who will never meet them.
If find that most people are if anything, to trusting on the Internet. Hence botnets. But even cautious people do tend to give others the benefit of the doubt. But if they should be given reason to go back on that, it can mean a permanent end to that trusting relationship.
I know someone who recently installed Google Desktop(Something I would never, ever, do). They were happy at first, as they were happy to use a multitude of Google Apps. However, trouble struck when the geniuses at Google Desktop decided that when you search using their internet search, it should also bring up search results from your Desktop index.
Imagine someones surprise when their personal computer files appear on an internet search page. It wasn't pretty. The user wanted to uninstall Google desktop, sign out of Gmail, and stop using Google search forever. As I tried to explain that the page was linking to local files, not on the internet, I realised my words were in vain. This person had simply been too shaken my the incident. From their perspective, they had been betrayed. Their personal files had been cast online, or at least, they now recognised that outcome was possible due to the control they had given to a private company.
All trust in Google, and all its products, was lost forever. The trusting and confident relationship Google had with this person had been shattered by a single incident. I've seen this happen multiple times, with multiple pieces of software. Frustration, data loss, jarring incidents. Even the smallest thing can rupture the good feelings of people towards the people whom they entrust with their data.
This is such an incident. NoScript is forever tainted, never to rise again. Hundreds of thousands of people will likely uninstall it today alone. It will cease to be recommended, and ultimately another virtually identical extension will takes its place. A good lesson to all who would be so careless with their reputations. You need your users trust to survive.
Just updated to Ubuntu 9.04 on the laptop. First thing that went wrong was the wireless card. Drivers gone and no connection. Wired ethernet on the other hand, worked flawlessly. No driver issues, no compatibility errors, nothing. It worked likely a keyboard. There's a lot to be said for the maturity of ethernet cables.
There's also a lot to be said for the reliability of cable, or rather, the unreliability of wireless. Yes, it is convienient to give devices wireless connections, but signal quality is a huge issue with location, time and simple randomness all coming into play in ways cable simply does not have trouble with. For me, a typical ping over wireless goes something like this (below numbers are made up from memory) PING 10.100.1.1 (10.100.1.1) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 10.100.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=62 time=4.35 ms 64 bytes from 10.100.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=62 time=3.67 ms 64 bytes from 10.100.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=62 time=3.56 ms 64 bytes from 10.100.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=62 time=4.45 ms 64 bytes from 10.100.1.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=62 time=1500 ms 64 bytes from 10.100.1.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=62 time=3.02 ms
Whereas the equivilent wired ping times, for a device in the same room would be PING 10.100.1.1 (10.100.1.1) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 10.100.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=62 time=1.35 ms 64 bytes from 10.100.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=62 time=1.37 ms 64 bytes from 10.100.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=62 time=1.56 ms 64 bytes from 10.100.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=62 time=1.05 ms 64 bytes from 10.100.1.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=62 time=1.41 ms 64 bytes from 10.100.1.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=62 time=1.02 ms
A wireless connection is a tradeoff of human convenience for machine efficiency. When it comes to web browsing, email and even watching youtube videos, it's more or less worthwhile for most users. However, when you get to things like voip, bittorrent and online games, wireless connections begin to sag under the weight of your demands.
Some people have a low opinion of rap, and admittedly a lot of rappers simply aren't very good. Fine. But there are some rap artists who deserve a lot more respect than they either get, or indeed might even want.
The bottom lines is, rap is poetry. Or at least, rap is our societies current form of poetry. Don't believe me? Would you believe a Nobel Laurette? Rhyming verses, set a to meter. To be sure, rappers do not frequent poetry readings or college debating societies, but these are not essential artistic qualities.
Rappers are ultimately wordsmiths rather than musicians. Most may not be spectacular, but even the weakest typically have a command of English vocabulary over and above that the general population. When you finally see something like a freestyle rap "battle", you will understand just how sharp they can be.
Now some might say that a lot of rap is "wasted" on the "gansta'" lifestyle topics. That's the choice of the artists, and frankly, it sells. But there is a lot of alternative rap out there if you are willing to be open minded about the artform.
So one bank in Texas setting a policy is hardly big news.
In Texas!!?! A bank in Texas setting a sane, progressive policy like this is akin to a mosque declaring an equal rights policy in Saudi Arabia! This is up there with Gorbachev declaring perestroika!
Actually, the British writers seem to have only recently caught on. People from countries that are or have been under English rule have been aware the true character of Westminster governance for some time.
Disclaimer: I am a 1950s socialist and have debated and contributed towards Maxist theory.
You may be able to point to the Soviet Union not being open-minded. From the purging of Citizens to being denounced by the co-founder, you may be able to point to things they've done that seem really really controlling and closed minded.
They have established a totally classless society. No inequality. They have had to balance quality with quantity. They have established rules that define what socialist. I would wager that in the past year they are more talked about than any other country in this publication. Their power of veto in the UN reflect this.
If you are criticizing them because they are not as free and open as the West, fine. But know that I have access to a free public health care, education, transport and many other systems, to use them as an invaluable resource. Would the USSR have been as successful if they had taken a more open and free stance? They walk a fine line between their control and community control and I think they've done a fine job with their success as evidence.
Like all rots, Wikipedia's started at the top. "Jimbo" Wales is manifestly unable to run such an important organisation. The rampant and crippling deletionism, bureaucracy, cliques, misinformation, disinformation, bias, political games, scandals, corruption and more can all be traced back to Wales. His inability and indeed, unwillingness to properly manage the site and the problems that face it have led, inevitably to the Wikipedia we have today, and will surely lead to even further degeneration. Under his watch, it has been the most duplicitous and mean spirited individuals who have risen to prominence, while the better part of its membership has left in disgust.
Wikipedia is now making forays into copyright and trademark infringement threats to bully its offsite opponents. They have to; The logic of their position demands it. If ever anything went against the spirit of copyleft and the creative commons, this is it. The Wikipedia crowd is now utterly corrupt and in no way resembles any other open source community. It is closed minded, hostile to change, riddled with bureaucracy, hostile to outsiders and new members, and now is turning its back on the very principles on which it was founded.
Wikipedia has changed. It is rotten. The altruism and goodwill of the millions who edited is ebbing away as the site stabilizes. Soon there will not be enough to stem the tide of contempt that the Wikipedians have for anyone who disagrees with them. The change has been gradual, but concrete. The goodwill party is over. Wikipedia is about to graduate, and a smiling altruistic an open encyclopedia is not what will result.
Slashdot Mirror
Attorney at Law.
This is my post. I wrote it. Is is a creative and inventive work which benefits society at large. Moreover, it is a concrete example of intellectual property. This post, that you are reading right now, belongs to me. It is mine.
This post is mine in the same way that my house, or car or clothes are mine. These words that I have written are given as much protection as freedom of speech or to vote. They need it. If just anyone is allowed to come along and copy them, or alter them, or include them in another work without my permission, then it will be as though my right to speak freely has been taken away, or I have been disenfranchised.
If someone else reads these words without paying me, or worse sells them to others to read, I will have been robbed. It will be as if my home was burned down, or my family sold into slavery. An injustice of the highest order.
These words need protections. Strong protections. This post needs to be defended, even as it is copied endless and effortlessly across millions of computers, each recopying it hundreds of times, at negligible expense. The worth of these words is worth more than all the bits it occupies in cyberspace. Indeed, their worth is worth more than the worth of cyberspace, and even society itself.
For if these words, if this post cannot be afforded the most stringent, uncompromising and sacred protection that our society has to offer, then our society will not be worth the bits it is represented on. The reality of digital worldwide transmission must not be allowed to compromise the most fundamental rights we have. The protection of this post is a challenge which our civilization must meet, or else our civilization must fall.
This post and all related materials, Copyright © ObsessiveMathsFreak 2009.
All rights reserved, worldwide.
None of the materials provided in this post site may be used, reproduced or transmitted, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or the use of any information storage and retrieval system, without express permission in writing from the author, along with suitable monetary compensation.
Unauthorized use of the materials in this post are subject to prosecution to the fullest exent allowable by law.
If that was really the case, then the majority of people who read these books would be better off with a philosophy book which brought forth various examples and debated them rather than a long drawn out affair concerning only one story. The truth is people are reading these books for entertainment, as well as to explore various topics. The two outcomes are not mutually exclusive.
So it's impossible for "Metal Gear Solid" to advocate an anti-nuclear stance while still being a 3D action game? It's impossible for Vandal Hearts to analyze the outcomes and effects of political revolutions on society while still being a turn based fantasy RPG? It's impossible for any video game to have or deliver any deeper meaning or message than Pong or Super Mario Brothers?
I take it you're the kind of person who regards "growth" and "fun" as two mutually exclusive activities.
Fuck that. The mainstream commentators will never, ever accept video games as a legitimate artistic medium. Ever. Games like "Shadow of the Colossus", "Ico", "Symphony of the Night", "Okami" and others will never be accepted by artistic communities or by the mainstream as being any more culturally, artistically or aesthetically important or "dignified" than "Pong" or "Zombies Ate my Neighbours". Ever.
Besides, why are looking for the approval of these people anyway? Mainstream artistics regard arrangements of concrete blocks as intellectually stimulating and worthy of acclaim. Most modern artists are wasters who spend their time talking up works that can and have been drawn by 10 years olds into magnificent products of human culture. Three blank paintings do not constitute art. The people who tell you they do, have likely no talent and spend their time and money talking shit and getting high.
Video game developers are much closer to the true artists of old than all the talentless hacks that call themselves artists nowadays. Why? It's simple. Patronage.
When Caravaggio painted The Taking of Christ, or Michelangelo carved David, they didn't do it because they were trying to get a Humanities Phd, or impress their circle of bohemian friends. They did it so well because they were paid by Patrons to specifically so they would do it so well. And more to the point they produced such great works because there were a hell of a lot of other great artists who were ready to step up and do the same if they didn't deliver the goods.
I don't mean to compare video game developers directly to Renaissance artists. But I do mean to say that like Renaissance and other artists before the modern day, developers rely on patronage of their customers to stay in business. There is a lot of competition, and they need to deliver an entertaining, challenging, and yes artistic product if they want to stay in business. This fact alone means that over time, games have stepped up to the plate artistically.
Show something like Gears of War to a mainstream commentator or art critic, and they will likely deride it as "crass" and "unworthy" without drawing breath. Now actually play the game and experience the mechanics. Look at the vistas and locales on display. Listen to tracks like the "Train Wreck" theme playing. Look at the real talent and effort that has gone into the game, and this is a title that isn't even trying to be overtly artistic. Now tell me that the product as a whole is a lesser artistic work than a painting of a tin of Campbell's soup, or an episode of Lost.
I'm sure there's a lot of Slashdotters who will queue up to deride the notion that something like "Gears of War", or any video game for that matter, could in any way be considered "artistic" or "dignified". Fine. Go back to reading Nietzsche or Kafka, or watching the Seventh Seal, or whatever else makes you feel intellectually sophisticated. Meanwhile, even crass "action" video games will continue to surpass in quality the majority of what you regard as "art".
Back then, protestantism meant something quite different to what it means in the modern US.
They reverse the polarity, engage the deflector arrays and Kirk gives a dramatic command to "fire". Standard stuff really.
Yet the show revolves around said female lawyers earnest attempts to "find a man" amid a highly sexualised work environment. I imagine actual women working in law weren't particularly impressed.
Indeed. Even when that case is obviously unjust, or illegal.
Lawyers, like journalists, like to proclaim themselves as pillars and protectors of democratic and free society. In reality, they are often the people at the very forefront of that societies destruction. It makes you wonder why they are granted the powers and privileges that they enjoy.
Yes. But other industrial processes don't emit powerful radiation that can turn innocent people into mutated, mindless, brain eating hyperzombies. It's basic science!
No. What Dwarf fortress needs, desperately, is a better UI. I'm not just talking about proper graphics, though that would be a part of it. Even the developers have admitted that they have streched the limits of what is possible with ASCII characters.
Currently, Dwarf fortress is like a rocket ship, with literally hundreds of knobs, buttons and switches. It's frequently impossible to figure out what is going on and how to do anything about it. Which is tragic because almost everyone who sees the game _wants_ to know what is going on and to interact with the world as much as possible.
Something like Falcon's Eye shows the way. Meaningful graphics which convey the maximium amount of information in the least time, and context sensitive menus, which only display relevant options. Better still would be the creation of a system that relied on only a few "verbs", with objects in the world as nouns. As the saying goes "Complexity is Easy. Simplicity is Hard."
One, or both, of you have not been putting in enough effort.
That is, unless you call someone names until you make them cry.
This law will further criminalize every teenager in America.
Compare this to the standard financial maxim
1) To starting to move, we need subsidies.
2) To keep moving, we need zero regulation.
3) When we stop moving, tax payers must bail us out.
AC. ... you don't have a brother.
You have three games with any new game before it gets old. After this you either have to completely reinvent (Resident Evil 4), or you are doomed to stagnation (Megaman) or else will run the series into the ground (Sonic the Hedgehog). You have one game to introduce things(Sonic 1/Crash Bandicoot), one sequel to experiment with and ramp it up a notch(Sonic 2/The Wrath of Cortex), and number three is the to release the perfected, definitive work(Sonic 3&K/ Crash Bandicoot Warped).
With this in mind, new IP is absolutely essential. Gamers want something fresh, and you don't necessarily need a completely new paradigm or control scheme or expierience.
Take a look at Gear of War. The lead developer openly admitted that they took inspiration from several sources. The cover system is directly out of Kill/Switch, the over the shoulder view is from Resident Evil 4. The Kryll enemies were lifted directly from the movie "Pitch Black". Basically, something can still be fresh my taking inspiration from other sources, not by making up a new world as it goes along(Summoner 2).
Eventually, people will get bored of the same old thing. Players and developers both. Even Rockstar , having released their three games; GTA 3, Vice City, and their magnum opis San Andreas, decided to almost completely overhaul their biggest IP in GTA 4, primarily because they were sick of the same old thing. Creativity will stagnate unless you are actually being creative.
Three games, release the definitive title, then move on.
Absolutely. What many programmers and companies do not realise is that there there needs to be a large amount of trust between users and themselves. Ultimately, by installing software, users are giving huge control of their systems and software to people they have never met and who will never meet them.
If find that most people are if anything, to trusting on the Internet. Hence botnets. But even cautious people do tend to give others the benefit of the doubt. But if they should be given reason to go back on that, it can mean a permanent end to that trusting relationship.
I know someone who recently installed Google Desktop(Something I would never, ever, do). They were happy at first, as they were happy to use a multitude of Google Apps. However, trouble struck when the geniuses at Google Desktop decided that when you search using their internet search, it should also bring up search results from your Desktop index.
Imagine someones surprise when their personal computer files appear on an internet search page. It wasn't pretty. The user wanted to uninstall Google desktop, sign out of Gmail, and stop using Google search forever. As I tried to explain that the page was linking to local files, not on the internet, I realised my words were in vain. This person had simply been too shaken my the incident. From their perspective, they had been betrayed. Their personal files had been cast online, or at least, they now recognised that outcome was possible due to the control they had given to a private company.
All trust in Google, and all its products, was lost forever. The trusting and confident relationship Google had with this person had been shattered by a single incident. I've seen this happen multiple times, with multiple pieces of software. Frustration, data loss, jarring incidents. Even the smallest thing can rupture the good feelings of people towards the people whom they entrust with their data.
This is such an incident. NoScript is forever tainted, never to rise again. Hundreds of thousands of people will likely uninstall it today alone. It will cease to be recommended, and ultimately another virtually identical extension will takes its place. A good lesson to all who would be so careless with their reputations. You need your users trust to survive.
Just updated to Ubuntu 9.04 on the laptop. First thing that went wrong was the wireless card. Drivers gone and no connection. Wired ethernet on the other hand, worked flawlessly. No driver issues, no compatibility errors, nothing. It worked likely a keyboard. There's a lot to be said for the maturity of ethernet cables.
There's also a lot to be said for the reliability of cable, or rather, the unreliability of wireless. Yes, it is convienient to give devices wireless connections, but signal quality is a huge issue with location, time and simple randomness all coming into play in ways cable simply does not have trouble with. For me, a typical ping over wireless goes something like this (below numbers are made up from memory)
PING 10.100.1.1 (10.100.1.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 10.100.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=62 time=4.35 ms
64 bytes from 10.100.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=62 time=3.67 ms
64 bytes from 10.100.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=62 time=3.56 ms
64 bytes from 10.100.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=62 time=4.45 ms
64 bytes from 10.100.1.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=62 time=1500 ms
64 bytes from 10.100.1.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=62 time=3.02 ms
Whereas the equivilent wired ping times, for a device in the same room would be
PING 10.100.1.1 (10.100.1.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 10.100.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=62 time=1.35 ms
64 bytes from 10.100.1.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=62 time=1.37 ms
64 bytes from 10.100.1.1: icmp_seq=3 ttl=62 time=1.56 ms
64 bytes from 10.100.1.1: icmp_seq=4 ttl=62 time=1.05 ms
64 bytes from 10.100.1.1: icmp_seq=5 ttl=62 time=1.41 ms
64 bytes from 10.100.1.1: icmp_seq=6 ttl=62 time=1.02 ms
A wireless connection is a tradeoff of human convenience for machine efficiency. When it comes to web browsing, email and even watching youtube videos, it's more or less worthwhile for most users. However, when you get to things like voip, bittorrent and online games, wireless connections begin to sag under the weight of your demands.
! C...cuh....coah....COMMUNIST!!!
Some people have a low opinion of rap, and admittedly a lot of rappers simply aren't very good. Fine. But there are some rap artists who deserve a lot more respect than they either get, or indeed might even want.
The bottom lines is, rap is poetry. Or at least, rap is our societies current form of poetry. Don't believe me? Would you believe a Nobel Laurette? Rhyming verses, set a to meter. To be sure, rappers do not frequent poetry readings or college debating societies, but these are not essential artistic qualities.
Rappers are ultimately wordsmiths rather than musicians. Most may not be spectacular, but even the weakest typically have a command of English vocabulary over and above that the general population. When you finally see something like a freestyle rap "battle", you will understand just how sharp they can be.
Now some might say that a lot of rap is "wasted" on the "gansta'" lifestyle topics. That's the choice of the artists, and frankly, it sells. But there is a lot of alternative rap out there if you are willing to be open minded about the artform.
I am reminded of a certain Calvin and Hobbes strip.
In Texas!!?! A bank in Texas setting a sane, progressive policy like this is akin to a mosque declaring an equal rights policy in Saudi Arabia! This is up there with Gorbachev declaring perestroika!
Is this how Slashdot finally ends? To thunderous lols?
Actually, the British writers seem to have only recently caught on. People from countries that are or have been under English rule have been aware the true character of Westminster governance for some time.
He doesn't have to. When the almighty Google decide to shut down their Gmail beta without notice you'll stop whether you like it or not.
Disclaimer: I am a 1950s socialist and have debated and contributed towards Maxist theory.
You may be able to point to the Soviet Union not being open-minded. From the purging of Citizens to being denounced by the co-founder, you may be able to point to things they've done that seem really really controlling and closed minded.
But look at what they've done and accomplished. Look at how they've come under attack themselves for their ideals or having over 1/2 of the world's population blocked from you.
They have established a totally classless society. No inequality. They have had to balance quality with quantity. They have established rules that define what socialist. I would wager that in the past year they are more talked about than any other country in this publication. Their power of veto in the UN reflect this.
If you are criticizing them because they are not as free and open as the West, fine. But know that I have access to a free public health care, education, transport and many other systems, to use them as an invaluable resource. Would the USSR have been as successful if they had taken a more open and free stance? They walk a fine line between their control and community control and I think they've done a fine job with their success as evidence.
Wikipedia Is Rotten From the Top to the Bottom.
Like all rots, Wikipedia's started at the top. "Jimbo" Wales is manifestly unable to run such an important organisation. The rampant and crippling deletionism, bureaucracy, cliques, misinformation, disinformation, bias, political games, scandals, corruption and more can all be traced back to Wales. His inability and indeed, unwillingness to properly manage the site and the problems that face it have led, inevitably to the Wikipedia we have today, and will surely lead to even further degeneration. Under his watch, it has been the most duplicitous and mean spirited individuals who have risen to prominence, while the better part of its membership has left in disgust.
Wikipedia is now making forays into copyright and trademark infringement threats to bully its offsite opponents. They have to; The logic of their position demands it. If ever anything went against the spirit of copyleft and the creative commons, this is it. The Wikipedia crowd is now utterly corrupt and in no way resembles any other open source community. It is closed minded, hostile to change, riddled with bureaucracy, hostile to outsiders and new members, and now is turning its back on the very principles on which it was founded.
Wikipedia has changed. It is rotten. The altruism and goodwill of the millions who edited is ebbing away as the site stabilizes. Soon there will not be enough to stem the tide of contempt that the Wikipedians have for anyone who disagrees with them. The change has been gradual, but concrete. The goodwill party is over. Wikipedia is about to graduate, and a smiling altruistic an open encyclopedia is not what will result.
Wikipedia Is Rotten From the Top to the Bottom.