I've seen too many Windows machines that were unstable due to "cheap memory" that had no problems running Linux to actually believe that explanation. I mean, I know Linux is great but I don't expect it to improve the quality of the hardware.
For that matter, I've also seen machines with verifiable memory errors (per Memtest86+) that had no problems running Windows and could handle everything except GCC compiles in Linux (the compiles failed with "internal compiler error" every time, which is consistent with a hardware issue). This also harms the credibility of the "cheap memory" excuse for Windows instabilities. I'm not saying that verifiable memory errors could not possibly cause stability problems; if you read this and think that's what I believe, well, you're wrong. They obviously can. I am only saying that I've seen that happen without being a tremendous showstopper, which was rather contrary to my expectations, and that this also renders me disinclined to believe easy explanations from Windows apologists.
I know that the above is anecdotal. I know that it does not constitute evidence. I don't expect it to convince you or change your mind about anything. I'm just giving a few reasons why lots of people don't believe in that explanation.
The only serious proposals I've heard involved using it to heat the building in which the machines are stored during cold weather.
Doesn't this naturally happen just by running the machines in the building?
To some degree, yes. I think those proposals had more to do with collecting the heat and integrating it into the central heating system of the building. In other words, it may be more of a problem of efficient distribution (maybe only one room or a few rooms have lots of computers and you want to heat all of the building, for example). I'm using a lot of words like "I think" and "it may" because I'm honestly rather ignorant about these systems, but I believe that's the gist of it.
Scope creep is endemic. First the drugs are illegal (copyrighted works), then the US pressures other countries to make them illegal (WTO actions), then the paraphenalia is illegal (DMCA circumvention), then they can confiscate your property if you touch the drugs (more recent acts). Then your freedoms start to get eroded in the name of the war. All of this so the pharmaceutical companies (large software publishers) can avoid competition.
The really "funny" part is that anyone actually believes that the politicians who took the first step didn't know or couldn't foresee the resulting loss of freedoms. It's like that Franklin Roosevelt quote, "in politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happened, you can bet it was planned that way." Just because the details and the storylines are intricate and very complex, doesn't mean that people cannot realize how amazingly simple the principles involved actually are.
It just tells me they might have a market to allow bot creators an interface for making mob AI! Then the players can fight against the botters according to the game rules and those that want to make game bots can improve the game by offering a challenge to players.
In order to keep unmanned botting popular, reward the bots for every player killed. If a bot manages to spawn, kill someone, collect a random item on the corpse and make it back to a "home base" then the bot can put the item on the global auction. Otherwise, another player character could kill the bot on the way back to town and claim said item(s) for themselves.
In addition to their spamfighting efforts, there's one idea I would like to see Blizzard implement. Anyone who sends any text to anyone that includes a URL should be flagged in such a way that anyone (even same faction) can kill them with no penalties. Considering that the bots are typically Level 1 characters and that lots of people are willing to camp a corpse for no good reason and they would now have a good reason, I think this would be very satisfying to the players even if it's not actually effective at dealing with spam.
"restless leg syndrome" individual who won't stop tapping the back of your seat
I think those people are just being dicks. I'm a tall individual and movie theatres have never been a venue where I've touched the seat in front. Sports arenas, taxi cabs, and amusement parks make me feel like they were made for midgets.
You're correct. They're being dicks because they know that your only effective option would probably get you involved in the criminal justice system (i.e. knocking them out) which means it isn't really an option at all and any sensible person would not do it.
Get up, walk out of the theatre, tell the manager, tell an usher, tell someone who looks important.
At the theatre I work at, we love to kick out the unruly lot that make the movies worse for everyone. Every time we walk in, they hush down, it's hard for us to know where the problems are. It's also a multiplex, with only one usher for many theatres, doing double duty, cleaning and checking the facilities.
So, do something about it. Honestly, having the balls to fix the problem is probably not their problem, more likely, they don't have anything substantive and don't want to interrupt the movie more severely than it already has been. Nothing distracts everyone in the theatre more than an argument in the seats. Make the theatre staff know it's a problem, and it'll probably be taken care of.
Why should I do their job for them? They make money by providing a place that people want to visit badly enough that they are willing to pay for doing so. I'll use one of the many other ways to see the movies of my choice and enjoy it with no such problems before I'll help the them do their jobs while paying for the privilege.
Now if you or any other staff are "doing double duty" or are otherwise overworked and cannot take care of these things, that's really between yourself and management. I am not interested in really effective people who are more than willing to take care of any problems I bring to their attention (at best that's a "close second"). I am interested in not having those problems in the first place, which is not unreasonable considering that these problems are easy to identify (if you missed the guy shouting into his brightly-lit cellphone, I assure you that no one else did). That you mention "arguing in the seats" is part of the problem too, methinks. "Leave this premises right now or we call the police and press trespassing charges" is rather difficult to argue with, it's just not done for PR reasons.
Besides, I recognize that any valid reason why theater staff would eject someone is a symptom. The fact that most chronological adults are actually overgrown children who never matured to the point of caring about how their actions affect other people is the actual underlying problem. Movie theaters just provide a confined space where it's more difficult than usual to avoid the results. My preference, the option that is most pleasing to me, is to decide that it's not worthwhile to me and to recognize that there are many other options. I prefer that to trying to fix what I can very easily live without.
I pay for my movie tickets but that doesn't give me the right to harass others.
I wish more people felt that way.
I have multiple reasons why I have rarely or never been inside of a movie theater for the last five years or so, but the inconsiderate actions of the other customers is one of the biggest. I should preface this by saying that I am talking about R-rated movies that do not permit children, so the people I am describing are supposedly adults. From the "restless leg syndrome" individual who won't stop tapping the back of your seat, to the cellphone users who refuse to go outside if they absolutely must take a call, to the fact that I've never seen an establishment that had the balls to eject the small minority who have no respect for everyone else, I feel like they should pay me for the experience, not the other way around. Considering how many other methods there are to enjoy whatever movies I want in an environment that I can control, movie theaters have completely lost their appeal for me.
It's not really the movie theater and I realize that. It's just that theaters are enclosed environments which demand that you pay attention, and the immature, inconsiderate, ADD, "I'm the only person who exists" chronological adults who are really just overgrown children aren't terribly compatible with that atmosphere. I think these are the same folks who would only care about the immediate convenience of having more gold in WoW and would not care about the principle of never buying anything from a spammer for any reason.
Yes, temperature gradients are a form of information, but get real guys: they are the bottom of food chain of useful computing tech. A real computer dumps heat as a side-effect of doing useful work - its more efficient to try to recover the heat as energy than to directly use it to compute. Sure, if you have a steam locomotive, it makes sense to add secondary and even tertiary energy-extractors to increase locomotion, but that is a special case: the locomotive is isolated and has big energy needs - this is not the case for computers.
I like your idea about trying to recover the heat. The only serious proposals I've heard involved using it to heat the building in which the machines are stored during cold weather. I'm a bit surprised that I haven't heard of anyone using something like a Sterling engine (maybe these could be miniaturized?) to try and do useful work with the waste heat, in much the same way that electric cars can use regenerative braking to minimize wasted energy. Or perhaps there could be a device like a solar panel that operates with lower-wavelength (i.e. infrared) photons. For laptops this might help with battery life.
I really doubt I'm the first person to think of this so there must be difficulties involved that either make this impossible or prevent it from being economical. I don't know much about Sterling engines, solar panels, or thermodynamics (as you can probably tell) but I'd appreciate if someone who understands these things could comment.
Agreed. It's 2009. The last time I remember getting a BSOD was on NT4.0. An electrician had shorted out a power line with a network cable and it fried the machine. These stability jokes really only attest to the author's cluelessness.
It's 2009. The last time I remember seeing a Windows machine with a remotely-exploitable security problem was on NT4.0. A hacker had smashed the window of the building, brushed away the broken glass, climbed in, and since this gave him physical access he had a very easy time owning the machine. You just can't protect a PC against an attacker with physical access, you know. Jokes to the contrary really only attest to the joker's cluelessness and ignorance about security.
This is the first time I've seen anyone other than me reference this excellent man and the wisdom he is willing to share.
Are you serious? I don't think I've ever seen a story about education on Slashdot which didn't feature some disciple linking to his book.
While I appreciate the subtle hint that there is mindless following going on, reading what the man says and realizing to your own satisfaction that he has a good point and that it's a particularly important point that's worth mentioning doesn't make one his disciple. It's alright, I see that dismissive sort of response aimed at most people who were either ahead of their time or willing to call things what they are when most others weren't. I wouldn't really expect Gatto to be any different.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I consider our public education system to be fundamentally broken because it's very good at what it does yet that is different from what it claims to do. Gatto happens to be one of the best at explaining this, probably because he was a teacher himself and so he has the perspective of an insider. This isn't a religious thing; he provides a myriad of facts and references and reasoning (see the book, The Underground History of American Education, which is available for free on his Web site johntaylorgatto.com). You're either willing to evaluate the man's work and subject it to whatever tests of truth you think are appropriate and come to your own conclusions, or you're not, and I wouldn't expect anything I say or do to change that. What I am doing here is letting you know that the way you're categorizing people who mention him doesn't hold water.
After reading your post, and then your complaint about your post...and falling asleep a few times in between...I agree, I don't think your first post should be modded flamebait. But whining about moderation is fairly pointless. I would have modded both your posts "-1, Get To The Point Faster". The funny thing is you don't really add anything new or insightful. You just say the same thing other Slashdotters say with a lot more words.
Brevity can be hard for me. You might not think so but I actually do try to work on that from time to time:-).
The logical extension of that would be that since he has had his fill, everyone has had their fill of these games.
I didn't find that extension to be particularly logical. It sounded more like the guy had a preference to me. Now I do find it logical to say that everyone who plays these games has their own preference, but that's not the same kind of extrapolation you're making there.
I think it's a federal law you have to sustained at least one lifelong injury while in highschool to meet their No Child Left Unmaimed standards.
Yeah but usually that's taken care of by the way institutionalized schooling suffocates the spirit and retards personal development (ever seirously wonder why most adults in the USA are nothing more than overgrown children?). Oh you meant physical injury... nevermind.
Many of the lessons that he describes can simply be explained by "It's the most efficient form of education that works."
Then you missed his point. The point is that things like efficiency or this image of a great competition among nations are our goals, not healthy development of strong, mature minds that can think critically and are not easily deceived. I recommend that you read his book, The Underground History of American Education (the entire book is available for on the Web site, for free) in order to really understand the difference. Yeah it's a full book and no you won't be able to instantly read it, but believe me when I tell you that the subject is worthy.
For once I am thanking the fact that I have no atheletic skill and turned to a life of technology and computers.
Personally I balance that by enjoying the outdoors. It does not take very much effort to be able to easily handle a five-mile hike in relatively rough (i.e. difficult, but no special equipment needed) terrain and it's quite enjoyable. There is something magic about the forest that puts your mind at ease and gives you a sense of peace, especially when you find a harmony there that is often missing in the "rat race" life. Depending on where you like to go, it also can involve a lot of different movements like jumping and climbing which is why I consider it superior to simply walking around the block.
Now, I am not a doctor so this is just my personal opinion, but I also think this is a healthy sort of exercise that, assuming you are not careless or clumsy, does not carry anything like the risks of injury that most sports like American football include. That's not to say that no one ever gets hurt in the wilderness, because that certainly does happen to some people and it's not for everybody, but I've yet to hear such a story that was not the direct result of negligence on the part of the person involved. I also think that a lean, agile body is healthier than a "beefcake" body like those that American football players are often encouraged to have, for the latter is often built on what I would call a burnout lifestyle.
This is the first time I've seen anyone other than me reference this excellent man and the wisdom he is willing to share. You referenced the book The Underground History of American Education. That's an amazing thing to read, for it explains not just the problem but how it came to be this way and the sort of politics that made it override the wishes of parents.
If you ever need (depending on your audience) a shorter introduction to John Taylor Gatto and his message, you may also like his essay, The Six-Lesson Schoolteacher.
I know that you referenced truth because doing so was its own reward. It does not make you want to horde it like gold and silver, but rather to share it with whomever will listen. Knowing this, I say BLESS YOU for bringing such excellence into this discussion. To lots of us, even those of us already familiar with these things, it is a welcome sight.
if I had to choose between the two extremes, I would choose this over the "lets remove all risk from a child's environment" philosophy. Fortunately, this is a false dichotomy.
If our public schools were worthy institutions, they would teach critical thinking so that people could learn the concept of a "false dichotomy" or "excluded middle" once and for all. I'd much prefer that to having to debunk myriad instances of the idea each time they are found.
If you'll permit a fanciful image, it's like the hydra with a thousand heads. Debunking the myriad instances is like trying to cut off each head, one at a time. Learning the concept involved and moving on is like going straight for the heart of the beast and taking it down in one stroke. I know which one suits me.
"The idea that you can whack your head hundreds of times in your life and knock yourself out and get up and be fine is gone," said [retired wrestler] Nowinski.
This was a legitimate idea that people actually believed?
No, but "I'm a real tough guy, watch me prove it" is an idea that lots of people actually believe. You just used a more accurate phrasing. That's what I mean when I say that when you call things what they are, everything becomes so simple.
I don't know what the purpose is, but I have to say I like the option personally.
Does blood spatter enhance the game for you? Then go for it, but for my taste many gore effects just help to juvenilize most games; it's like endless penis jokes in an Adam Sandler movie, if I had the option to turn off "13 year old mode" I'd actually be able to enjoy the experience.
We just have different definitions of juvenile.
I think that it's quite natural for there to be blood when a character is shot with a bullet. To me, what's juvenile is to portray something completely unnatural, like a bloodless bullet wound, for the sole purpose of placating the easily offended. No one really respects that kind of people-pleasing, not even those who vehemently demand it, and for good reason. It's a subservient desire to appease that makes a mockery of real respect and of anything that is genuinely pleasing.
But I don't think it's fair to lump parents into two categories - those close-minded fundamentalists who shelter their children, and open-minded free thinkers who teach their children to make their own decisions. That's stereotypical nonsense.
I say it knowing it's stereotypical because it provides contrast. Some contrast is needed in order to get people to consider new ideas or to reconsider old ideas from a different perspective. You were not my target audience because you are clearly able to see these things for yourself and make your own decisions, so you do not need me or anyone else to talk to you about perspective. This is a good, refreshing thing to see.
Violence is part of life. Animals eat other animals, and even my three-year-old daughter is starting to understand that. But gratuitous violence which we watch for our enjoyment and amusement is not part of life and I think kids deserve to be sheltered from as much unnecessary violence as possible. We put too much emphasis on our right to be entertained, and justifying our appetite for violence in our entertainment by mocking anyone who disagrees with us (not that you are doing that) but I think a kid's right to an innocent, happy childhood should take precedence.
For the record, I have enjoyed violent FPS games since Wolfenstein 3D but when I'm playing STALKER I don't let my daughter watch because I don't want to fill her mind with violent images. She used to sit on my lap while I would play Half-Life 2 but when she started trying to tell me which gun to use I realized that maybe it would be more appropriate to shut down the game and go play soccer with her outside.
I'll save the "appreciation of violent art" discussion for when she's in her teens, when her reasoning skills really start to develop [nih.gov].
I have recently realized (and I am not the first to "discover" this) that those things which we think are "bad influences" are not the problem. How we collectively respond to them is the problem. We either get angry and rebel or fight against them, or we get timid and become subservient and dominated by them. Both of those lead to suffering. Neither of those is rooted in love and understanding. So, I do not believe that fictitious violence (emphasis on fictitious) is a problem in and of itself but it will appear to be a big problem to people who don't realize that they are making choices as to how they handle it. Young minds very well may be in that category but I don't think that any sort of universal law has decreed that this must be the case.
That was kind of a long-winded way of saying I'm glad the team put a no-blood option in the game. That actually could broaden their audience. My wife played and loved the first two Fallout games because there was a violence filter. We passed on Fallout 3 because as far as I can tell there is no such filter (at least, when I contacted the company directly to ask this question I received a useless generic form letter which did not answer the question).
This relates to the concept of a "stumbling block". A stumbling block is when something does not inherently cause a problem but a person finds that something offensive and refuses to look at it in any other way. As an adult woman, your wife is perfectly capable of dealing with the Fallout series in all its uncensored expression. I strongly doubt she is truly so delicate and frail and helpless as to be unable to handle that (it would be difficult to listen to how reasonable you are and believe that this would be the case). She just really doesn't like it. So the violence filter is a way of removing a stumbling block so that she can enjoy a thing that she otherwise wouldn't like. That's about as big of a deal as this whole issue ever had to be. Compare that to all the controversy and media attention and lobbying and groups advocating censorship and all of that and you will probably come to see why I think those things are something like madness.
And the way his post was written, it was pretty easy to see it as condescending.
I really don't think it was. There's this perception that is slowly creeping into the mass consciousness like any sort of worm. The perception is that anyone who says what he genuinely thinks and is unashamed of it must be arrogant or condescending because everyone else is falling over themselves to follow up their opinions with "as long as that doesn't offend you". This is a perversion and it's designed to make you timid and it's designed to make you accept the validity of ideas that simply don't work on the basis that your ideas must not be any better.
It's like we've forgotten that everything anyone says is just that person's perspective until and unless that person makes a positive unmistakable claim that what he says is some kind of universal truth. If such a claim is made, it may need to be tested, but even that is not a big deal. Now the assumption is that you are speaking for all people at all times whenever you say the slightest thing, so you better be subservient and apologetic about it lest you offend. I reject this notion. Let the offended deal with their own offense and recognize that they had a choice about whether to even read what I write and a second choice about whether to allow that to bother them.
Likewise, if that guy really was genuinely condescending, let that be his problem. Being that way won't make him happy, I assure you. In fact it will make him suffer. That much is his choice. Whether I see it and decide to resent him for it is my choice as to whether I will also needlessly suffer and be part of the problem. It's that simple. It's a self-correcting deal so there is no need for me to control or censor anyone. That's the folly of hypersensitive, knee-jerk moderators -- they do not understand this.
I'd ask "who modded this flamebait" and ask them to speak up, but they won't (not even as AC to preserve the mod) because they have already shown that they lack the courage to take me on and point out why they believe I am wrong. That's not because I am so great and intimidating (I am not, nor do I care to be) but because they cannot identify a flaw in what I said. They just did not like hearing it and so that must mean I did something wrong. Isn't that how it works when you think that your likes and dislikes are the universal yardstick? You don't see the arrogance of that, do you?
So why was this flamebait? Because I said that there are ignorant parents who do damage to their children by failing to prepare them for the world despite all good intentions? Look at the world around you and tell me if you really doubt that this is the case. Then tell me if there is not a mentality and a process by which things became this way which must be dealt with first if anything is to change.
So I ask again, why is this flamebait? Because I took a controversy like the one about violence in video games and showed how trivial it is? The idea that there needs to be a rehashed controversy every time it becomes generally noticed that a video game is violent is just one idea out of many, many possible ideas. The laws of physics don't mandate that this must be the case. There are other ways of doing things.
Here's the part I think some of you might have a real problem with. You want to entertain this idea that all viewpoints are equally valid and are the sole business of the people who hold them. That does sound nice, I wonder what could be wrong with that? There is such a thing as truth; if you claim that there isn't I will merely ask you "really? is that... true?" and it will contradict itself. A well-reasoned viewpoint that is rooted in truth and open to new information, even if it may contradict existing beliefs, is always superior (that is, leads to a more harmonious life with less needless suffering) compared to a more fantastic viewpoint. All viewpoints are not equal. These silly controversies like the one over violent video games always come down to the most vocal group trying to decide what is appropriate for everyone else -- usually this is expressed in the form of censorship. So, this also fails the "sole business of the people who hold them" criteria as well and replaces it with something much uglier. That uglier thing is "we know what's good for you." I'm sure their intentions are pure.
Just to clear up any remaining confusion, I'll quote the definition of "Flamebait" from the Slashdot FAQ. The section is called "What do the choices in the moderation drop-down boxes mean?" Even for people who have a hard time seeing a spade and calling it a spade, It's quite reasonable that this outlines how the term "Flamebait" is intended to be used on this site:
Flamebait -- Flamebait refers to comments whose sole purpose is to insult and enrage. If someone is not-so-subtly picking a fight (racial insults are a dead giveaway), it's Flamebait.
I challenge anyone to demonstrate for me how my posts in this thread remotely fit this definition. I only ask that you understand the meaning of "sole purpose" before you attempt this. It would not surprise me if some wise guy responds with a joke. It would really surprise me if anyone had the courage to seriously try it because you know and I know that this just isn't the case. I'm betting the mods know it too, and when they don't act in accordance with that knowledge, let them wonder why they have doublemindedness and inner conflict. What, you thought only big important things could cause those?
Also, if you do paintball mode it turns it from a game where you're killing people to a game where it's just some guys playing paintball. Does it change the gameplay? Of course not, but it does change the entire frame of reference for the violence in the game. I can see that being desirable for parents and I think it's a great idea.
I think a more specific definition of "parents" that answers the question of "what kind of parents?" would be edifying here.
That paintball mode is not desirable for all parents. It's desirable for parents who feel good about sheltering their children from the world instead of equipping their children to deal with the world (and maybe, just maybe, to build a better world). By extension it's desirable for parents who don't know the difference, too.
Does that mean that little Johnny should go see the Roman Colosseum? No, you twit (not you personally, but anyone who would respond that way). Now you're going from one extreme to the other because you were overreacting the whole time and thus, extremes are all you knew. The allure of things like violence and other "forbidden fruits" is the big deal we make out of them. It's an excitement that becomes attached to the thing itself that is not inherent to the thing itself.
The opposite of making a big deal of everything is to talk to little Johnny and say "that's violence, this is why it's wrong and doesn't lead to health and harmony and happiness, ok?" and then MOVE ON. Then it's possible to appreciate a fictional work that happens to have violence. Then it's also possible to live in an infinite universe with so many possibilities you could never hope to exhaust them in a single lifetime without having the same problems come up again and again and again, the way this issue comes up every time a violent video game is released.
Because that's how fallen people (i.e. bullies) get their jollies. Sometimes one might think that no Slashdot moderator has ever seen an actual troll because they seem to have a very hard time telling the difference between a troll and a very unpopular opinion. What's funny is that if they mod me down for saying so and thus prove my point, they would do so hoping that it shuts me up and intimidates me into not pointing this out (they see that I am not a bully so they assume I must be a coward because those two things are all they know; in fact I am neither). It's funny because if they work to make my point for me, it would really be utterly hilarious but I may have a higher than average appreciation of irony.
So what makes this online FPS stand out from all the other ones?
There's Nexuiz, OpenArena, Sauerbraten, Tremulous, Urban Terror... I had my fill of first person shooters years ago and yet for some reason they're still being developed and offer little to nothing different over the last one.
I think you weren't trolling and were merely stating your opinion. The mods and one poster (who was also rewarded by the mods -- do you see the self-reinforcing nature of derision?) have effectively ridiculed you because it was very easy to do. You may not have known it but you stuck your neck out and they gleefully took a swing at it. They don't know they are making a statement about themselves and the appeal that low-hanging fruit has over them, as you may not know that this was predictable given how limited their prevailing mentality is.
What I believe you were really saying is something I mostly agree with, which is why that's easy for me to recognize. I remember when the original DOOM came out. I played the hell out of it. Somewhere after DOOM ][, I got tired of first-person shooters in general. The appeal that those had for me, which was a fast-paced challenge and a gritty environment with blood (not so unique now), was not a lasting appeal. What was a fast-paced challenge becomes repetitive gameplay and what was a realistic, gritty environment with blood got old quickly and no longer seemed more immersive. I can play almost any first-person shooter and feel this way about it. The weapons look different and the enemies look different from game to game but otherwise it has the exact same effect on me, an effect which has lost its novelty.
What's odd for me is that the one exception to this, that is, the one FPS game that I have played (though do not own myself) is Halo 3. I'm referring to the actual campaign missions; the online "deathmatch" play is no fun for me because there is no way I can invest the time to become as good as the kids who don't have jobs. I'm not sure if it's the AI or something about the game mechanics but I really have fun playing it, and that's saying something since I am no fan of MIcrosoft and I don't precisely make a secret of that fact. Generally though, I do agree with you about FPS as a genre.
Slashdot Mirror
Or C) bought cheap memory.
I've seen too many Windows machines that were unstable due to "cheap memory" that had no problems running Linux to actually believe that explanation. I mean, I know Linux is great but I don't expect it to improve the quality of the hardware.
For that matter, I've also seen machines with verifiable memory errors (per Memtest86+) that had no problems running Windows and could handle everything except GCC compiles in Linux (the compiles failed with "internal compiler error" every time, which is consistent with a hardware issue). This also harms the credibility of the "cheap memory" excuse for Windows instabilities. I'm not saying that verifiable memory errors could not possibly cause stability problems; if you read this and think that's what I believe, well, you're wrong. They obviously can. I am only saying that I've seen that happen without being a tremendous showstopper, which was rather contrary to my expectations, and that this also renders me disinclined to believe easy explanations from Windows apologists.
I know that the above is anecdotal. I know that it does not constitute evidence. I don't expect it to convince you or change your mind about anything. I'm just giving a few reasons why lots of people don't believe in that explanation.
The only serious proposals I've heard involved using it to heat the building in which the machines are stored during cold weather.
Doesn't this naturally happen just by running the machines in the building?
To some degree, yes. I think those proposals had more to do with collecting the heat and integrating it into the central heating system of the building. In other words, it may be more of a problem of efficient distribution (maybe only one room or a few rooms have lots of computers and you want to heat all of the building, for example). I'm using a lot of words like "I think" and "it may" because I'm honestly rather ignorant about these systems, but I believe that's the gist of it.
Scope creep is endemic. First the drugs are illegal (copyrighted works), then the US pressures other countries to make them illegal (WTO actions), then the paraphenalia is illegal (DMCA circumvention), then they can confiscate your property if you touch the drugs (more recent acts). Then your freedoms start to get eroded in the name of the war. All of this so the pharmaceutical companies (large software publishers) can avoid competition.
The really "funny" part is that anyone actually believes that the politicians who took the first step didn't know or couldn't foresee the resulting loss of freedoms. It's like that Franklin Roosevelt quote, "in politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happened, you can bet it was planned that way." Just because the details and the storylines are intricate and very complex, doesn't mean that people cannot realize how amazingly simple the principles involved actually are.
It just tells me they might have a market to allow bot creators an interface for making mob AI! Then the players can fight against the botters according to the game rules and those that want to make game bots can improve the game by offering a challenge to players.
In order to keep unmanned botting popular, reward the bots for every player killed. If a bot manages to spawn, kill someone, collect a random item on the corpse and make it back to a "home base" then the bot can put the item on the global auction. Otherwise, another player character could kill the bot on the way back to town and claim said item(s) for themselves.
In addition to their spamfighting efforts, there's one idea I would like to see Blizzard implement. Anyone who sends any text to anyone that includes a URL should be flagged in such a way that anyone (even same faction) can kill them with no penalties. Considering that the bots are typically Level 1 characters and that lots of people are willing to camp a corpse for no good reason and they would now have a good reason, I think this would be very satisfying to the players even if it's not actually effective at dealing with spam.
"restless leg syndrome" individual who won't stop tapping the back of your seat
I think those people are just being dicks. I'm a tall individual and movie theatres have never been a venue where I've touched the seat in front. Sports arenas, taxi cabs, and amusement parks make me feel like they were made for midgets.
You're correct. They're being dicks because they know that your only effective option would probably get you involved in the criminal justice system (i.e. knocking them out) which means it isn't really an option at all and any sensible person would not do it.
Get up, walk out of the theatre, tell the manager, tell an usher, tell someone who looks important.
At the theatre I work at, we love to kick out the unruly lot that make the movies worse for everyone. Every time we walk in, they hush down, it's hard for us to know where the problems are. It's also a multiplex, with only one usher for many theatres, doing double duty, cleaning and checking the facilities.
So, do something about it. Honestly, having the balls to fix the problem is probably not their problem, more likely, they don't have anything substantive and don't want to interrupt the movie more severely than it already has been. Nothing distracts everyone in the theatre more than an argument in the seats. Make the theatre staff know it's a problem, and it'll probably be taken care of.
Why should I do their job for them? They make money by providing a place that people want to visit badly enough that they are willing to pay for doing so. I'll use one of the many other ways to see the movies of my choice and enjoy it with no such problems before I'll help the them do their jobs while paying for the privilege.
Now if you or any other staff are "doing double duty" or are otherwise overworked and cannot take care of these things, that's really between yourself and management. I am not interested in really effective people who are more than willing to take care of any problems I bring to their attention (at best that's a "close second"). I am interested in not having those problems in the first place, which is not unreasonable considering that these problems are easy to identify (if you missed the guy shouting into his brightly-lit cellphone, I assure you that no one else did). That you mention "arguing in the seats" is part of the problem too, methinks. "Leave this premises right now or we call the police and press trespassing charges" is rather difficult to argue with, it's just not done for PR reasons.
Besides, I recognize that any valid reason why theater staff would eject someone is a symptom. The fact that most chronological adults are actually overgrown children who never matured to the point of caring about how their actions affect other people is the actual underlying problem. Movie theaters just provide a confined space where it's more difficult than usual to avoid the results. My preference, the option that is most pleasing to me, is to decide that it's not worthwhile to me and to recognize that there are many other options. I prefer that to trying to fix what I can very easily live without.
I pay for my movie tickets but that doesn't give me the right to harass others.
I wish more people felt that way.
I have multiple reasons why I have rarely or never been inside of a movie theater for the last five years or so, but the inconsiderate actions of the other customers is one of the biggest. I should preface this by saying that I am talking about R-rated movies that do not permit children, so the people I am describing are supposedly adults. From the "restless leg syndrome" individual who won't stop tapping the back of your seat, to the cellphone users who refuse to go outside if they absolutely must take a call, to the fact that I've never seen an establishment that had the balls to eject the small minority who have no respect for everyone else, I feel like they should pay me for the experience, not the other way around. Considering how many other methods there are to enjoy whatever movies I want in an environment that I can control, movie theaters have completely lost their appeal for me.
It's not really the movie theater and I realize that. It's just that theaters are enclosed environments which demand that you pay attention, and the immature, inconsiderate, ADD, "I'm the only person who exists" chronological adults who are really just overgrown children aren't terribly compatible with that atmosphere. I think these are the same folks who would only care about the immediate convenience of having more gold in WoW and would not care about the principle of never buying anything from a spammer for any reason.
Yes, temperature gradients are a form of information, but get real guys: they are the bottom of food chain of useful computing tech. A real computer dumps heat as a side-effect of doing useful work - its more efficient to try to recover the heat as energy than to directly use it to compute. Sure, if you have a steam locomotive, it makes sense to add secondary and even tertiary energy-extractors to increase locomotion, but that is a special case: the locomotive is isolated and has big energy needs - this is not the case for computers.
I like your idea about trying to recover the heat. The only serious proposals I've heard involved using it to heat the building in which the machines are stored during cold weather. I'm a bit surprised that I haven't heard of anyone using something like a Sterling engine (maybe these could be miniaturized?) to try and do useful work with the waste heat, in much the same way that electric cars can use regenerative braking to minimize wasted energy. Or perhaps there could be a device like a solar panel that operates with lower-wavelength (i.e. infrared) photons. For laptops this might help with battery life.
I really doubt I'm the first person to think of this so there must be difficulties involved that either make this impossible or prevent it from being economical. I don't know much about Sterling engines, solar panels, or thermodynamics (as you can probably tell) but I'd appreciate if someone who understands these things could comment.
Agreed. It's 2009. The last time I remember getting a BSOD was on NT4.0. An electrician had shorted out a power line with a network cable and it fried the machine. These stability jokes really only attest to the author's cluelessness.
It's 2009. The last time I remember seeing a Windows machine with a remotely-exploitable security problem was on NT4.0. A hacker had smashed the window of the building, brushed away the broken glass, climbed in, and since this gave him physical access he had a very easy time owning the machine. You just can't protect a PC against an attacker with physical access, you know. Jokes to the contrary really only attest to the joker's cluelessness and ignorance about security.
Are you serious? I don't think I've ever seen a story about education on Slashdot which didn't feature some disciple linking to his book.
While I appreciate the subtle hint that there is mindless following going on, reading what the man says and realizing to your own satisfaction that he has a good point and that it's a particularly important point that's worth mentioning doesn't make one his disciple. It's alright, I see that dismissive sort of response aimed at most people who were either ahead of their time or willing to call things what they are when most others weren't. I wouldn't really expect Gatto to be any different.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I consider our public education system to be fundamentally broken because it's very good at what it does yet that is different from what it claims to do. Gatto happens to be one of the best at explaining this, probably because he was a teacher himself and so he has the perspective of an insider. This isn't a religious thing; he provides a myriad of facts and references and reasoning (see the book, The Underground History of American Education, which is available for free on his Web site johntaylorgatto.com). You're either willing to evaluate the man's work and subject it to whatever tests of truth you think are appropriate and come to your own conclusions, or you're not, and I wouldn't expect anything I say or do to change that. What I am doing here is letting you know that the way you're categorizing people who mention him doesn't hold water.
After reading your post, and then your complaint about your post...and falling asleep a few times in between...I agree, I don't think your first post should be modded flamebait. But whining about moderation is fairly pointless. I would have modded both your posts "-1, Get To The Point Faster". The funny thing is you don't really add anything new or insightful. You just say the same thing other Slashdotters say with a lot more words.
Brevity can be hard for me. You might not think so but I actually do try to work on that from time to time :-).
I didn't find that extension to be particularly logical. It sounded more like the guy had a preference to me. Now I do find it logical to say that everyone who plays these games has their own preference, but that's not the same kind of extrapolation you're making there.
Yeah but usually that's taken care of by the way institutionalized schooling suffocates the spirit and retards personal development (ever seirously wonder why most adults in the USA are nothing more than overgrown children?). Oh you meant physical injury ... nevermind.
Then you missed his point. The point is that things like efficiency or this image of a great competition among nations are our goals, not healthy development of strong, mature minds that can think critically and are not easily deceived. I recommend that you read his book, The Underground History of American Education (the entire book is available for on the Web site, for free) in order to really understand the difference. Yeah it's a full book and no you won't be able to instantly read it, but believe me when I tell you that the subject is worthy.
For once I am thanking the fact that I have no atheletic skill and turned to a life of technology and computers.
Personally I balance that by enjoying the outdoors. It does not take very much effort to be able to easily handle a five-mile hike in relatively rough (i.e. difficult, but no special equipment needed) terrain and it's quite enjoyable. There is something magic about the forest that puts your mind at ease and gives you a sense of peace, especially when you find a harmony there that is often missing in the "rat race" life. Depending on where you like to go, it also can involve a lot of different movements like jumping and climbing which is why I consider it superior to simply walking around the block.
Now, I am not a doctor so this is just my personal opinion, but I also think this is a healthy sort of exercise that, assuming you are not careless or clumsy, does not carry anything like the risks of injury that most sports like American football include. That's not to say that no one ever gets hurt in the wilderness, because that certainly does happen to some people and it's not for everybody, but I've yet to hear such a story that was not the direct result of negligence on the part of the person involved. I also think that a lean, agile body is healthier than a "beefcake" body like those that American football players are often encouraged to have, for the latter is often built on what I would call a burnout lifestyle.
Unless making kids dummer is their job.
This is the first time I've seen anyone other than me reference this excellent man and the wisdom he is willing to share. You referenced the book The Underground History of American Education. That's an amazing thing to read, for it explains not just the problem but how it came to be this way and the sort of politics that made it override the wishes of parents.
If you ever need (depending on your audience) a shorter introduction to John Taylor Gatto and his message, you may also like his essay, The Six-Lesson Schoolteacher.
I know that you referenced truth because doing so was its own reward. It does not make you want to horde it like gold and silver, but rather to share it with whomever will listen. Knowing this, I say BLESS YOU for bringing such excellence into this discussion. To lots of us, even those of us already familiar with these things, it is a welcome sight.
if I had to choose between the two extremes, I would choose this over the "lets remove all risk from a child's environment" philosophy. Fortunately, this is a false dichotomy.
If our public schools were worthy institutions, they would teach critical thinking so that people could learn the concept of a "false dichotomy" or "excluded middle" once and for all. I'd much prefer that to having to debunk myriad instances of the idea each time they are found.
If you'll permit a fanciful image, it's like the hydra with a thousand heads. Debunking the myriad instances is like trying to cut off each head, one at a time. Learning the concept involved and moving on is like going straight for the heart of the beast and taking it down in one stroke. I know which one suits me.
"The idea that you can whack your head hundreds of times in your life and knock yourself out and get up and be fine is gone," said [retired wrestler] Nowinski.
This was a legitimate idea that people actually believed?
No, but "I'm a real tough guy, watch me prove it" is an idea that lots of people actually believe. You just used a more accurate phrasing. That's what I mean when I say that when you call things what they are, everything becomes so simple.
I don't know what the purpose is, but I have to say I like the option personally. Does blood spatter enhance the game for you? Then go for it, but for my taste many gore effects just help to juvenilize most games; it's like endless penis jokes in an Adam Sandler movie, if I had the option to turn off "13 year old mode" I'd actually be able to enjoy the experience.
We just have different definitions of juvenile.
I think that it's quite natural for there to be blood when a character is shot with a bullet. To me, what's juvenile is to portray something completely unnatural, like a bloodless bullet wound, for the sole purpose of placating the easily offended. No one really respects that kind of people-pleasing, not even those who vehemently demand it, and for good reason. It's a subservient desire to appease that makes a mockery of real respect and of anything that is genuinely pleasing.
I say it knowing it's stereotypical because it provides contrast. Some contrast is needed in order to get people to consider new ideas or to reconsider old ideas from a different perspective. You were not my target audience because you are clearly able to see these things for yourself and make your own decisions, so you do not need me or anyone else to talk to you about perspective. This is a good, refreshing thing to see.
I have recently realized (and I am not the first to "discover" this) that those things which we think are "bad influences" are not the problem. How we collectively respond to them is the problem. We either get angry and rebel or fight against them, or we get timid and become subservient and dominated by them. Both of those lead to suffering. Neither of those is rooted in love and understanding. So, I do not believe that fictitious violence (emphasis on fictitious) is a problem in and of itself but it will appear to be a big problem to people who don't realize that they are making choices as to how they handle it. Young minds very well may be in that category but I don't think that any sort of universal law has decreed that this must be the case.
This relates to the concept of a "stumbling block". A stumbling block is when something does not inherently cause a problem but a person finds that something offensive and refuses to look at it in any other way. As an adult woman, your wife is perfectly capable of dealing with the Fallout series in all its uncensored expression. I strongly doubt she is truly so delicate and frail and helpless as to be unable to handle that (it would be difficult to listen to how reasonable you are and believe that this would be the case). She just really doesn't like it. So the violence filter is a way of removing a stumbling block so that she can enjoy a thing that she otherwise wouldn't like. That's about as big of a deal as this whole issue ever had to be. Compare that to all the controversy and media attention and lobbying and groups advocating censorship and all of that and you will probably come to see why I think those things are something like madness.
I really don't think it was. There's this perception that is slowly creeping into the mass consciousness like any sort of worm. The perception is that anyone who says what he genuinely thinks and is unashamed of it must be arrogant or condescending because everyone else is falling over themselves to follow up their opinions with "as long as that doesn't offend you". This is a perversion and it's designed to make you timid and it's designed to make you accept the validity of ideas that simply don't work on the basis that your ideas must not be any better.
It's like we've forgotten that everything anyone says is just that person's perspective until and unless that person makes a positive unmistakable claim that what he says is some kind of universal truth. If such a claim is made, it may need to be tested, but even that is not a big deal. Now the assumption is that you are speaking for all people at all times whenever you say the slightest thing, so you better be subservient and apologetic about it lest you offend. I reject this notion. Let the offended deal with their own offense and recognize that they had a choice about whether to even read what I write and a second choice about whether to allow that to bother them.
Likewise, if that guy really was genuinely condescending, let that be his problem. Being that way won't make him happy, I assure you. In fact it will make him suffer. That much is his choice. Whether I see it and decide to resent him for it is my choice as to whether I will also needlessly suffer and be part of the problem. It's that simple. It's a self-correcting deal so there is no need for me to control or censor anyone. That's the folly of hypersensitive, knee-jerk moderators -- they do not understand this.
So why was this flamebait? Because I said that there are ignorant parents who do damage to their children by failing to prepare them for the world despite all good intentions? Look at the world around you and tell me if you really doubt that this is the case. Then tell me if there is not a mentality and a process by which things became this way which must be dealt with first if anything is to change.
So I ask again, why is this flamebait? Because I took a controversy like the one about violence in video games and showed how trivial it is? The idea that there needs to be a rehashed controversy every time it becomes generally noticed that a video game is violent is just one idea out of many, many possible ideas. The laws of physics don't mandate that this must be the case. There are other ways of doing things.
Here's the part I think some of you might have a real problem with. You want to entertain this idea that all viewpoints are equally valid and are the sole business of the people who hold them. That does sound nice, I wonder what could be wrong with that? There is such a thing as truth; if you claim that there isn't I will merely ask you "really? is that
Just to clear up any remaining confusion, I'll quote the definition of "Flamebait" from the Slashdot FAQ. The section is called "What do the choices in the moderation drop-down boxes mean?" Even for people who have a hard time seeing a spade and calling it a spade, It's quite reasonable that this outlines how the term "Flamebait" is intended to be used on this site:
I challenge anyone to demonstrate for me how my posts in this thread remotely fit this definition. I only ask that you understand the meaning of "sole purpose" before you attempt this. It would not surprise me if some wise guy responds with a joke. It would really surprise me if anyone had the courage to seriously try it because you know and I know that this just isn't the case. I'm betting the mods know it too, and when they don't act in accordance with that knowledge, let them wonder why they have doublemindedness and inner conflict. What, you thought only big important things could cause those?
I think a more specific definition of "parents" that answers the question of "what kind of parents?" would be edifying here.
That paintball mode is not desirable for all parents. It's desirable for parents who feel good about sheltering their children from the world instead of equipping their children to deal with the world (and maybe, just maybe, to build a better world). By extension it's desirable for parents who don't know the difference, too.
Does that mean that little Johnny should go see the Roman Colosseum? No, you twit (not you personally, but anyone who would respond that way). Now you're going from one extreme to the other because you were overreacting the whole time and thus, extremes are all you knew. The allure of things like violence and other "forbidden fruits" is the big deal we make out of them. It's an excitement that becomes attached to the thing itself that is not inherent to the thing itself.
The opposite of making a big deal of everything is to talk to little Johnny and say "that's violence, this is why it's wrong and doesn't lead to health and harmony and happiness, ok?" and then MOVE ON. Then it's possible to appreciate a fictional work that happens to have violence. Then it's also possible to live in an infinite universe with so many possibilities you could never hope to exhaust them in a single lifetime without having the same problems come up again and again and again, the way this issue comes up every time a violent video game is released.
Because that's how fallen people (i.e. bullies) get their jollies. Sometimes one might think that no Slashdot moderator has ever seen an actual troll because they seem to have a very hard time telling the difference between a troll and a very unpopular opinion. What's funny is that if they mod me down for saying so and thus prove my point, they would do so hoping that it shuts me up and intimidates me into not pointing this out (they see that I am not a bully so they assume I must be a coward because those two things are all they know; in fact I am neither). It's funny because if they work to make my point for me, it would really be utterly hilarious but I may have a higher than average appreciation of irony.
So what makes this online FPS stand out from all the other ones?
There's Nexuiz, OpenArena, Sauerbraten, Tremulous, Urban Terror... I had my fill of first person shooters years ago and yet for some reason they're still being developed and offer little to nothing different over the last one.
I think you weren't trolling and were merely stating your opinion. The mods and one poster (who was also rewarded by the mods -- do you see the self-reinforcing nature of derision?) have effectively ridiculed you because it was very easy to do. You may not have known it but you stuck your neck out and they gleefully took a swing at it. They don't know they are making a statement about themselves and the appeal that low-hanging fruit has over them, as you may not know that this was predictable given how limited their prevailing mentality is.
What I believe you were really saying is something I mostly agree with, which is why that's easy for me to recognize. I remember when the original DOOM came out. I played the hell out of it. Somewhere after DOOM ][, I got tired of first-person shooters in general. The appeal that those had for me, which was a fast-paced challenge and a gritty environment with blood (not so unique now), was not a lasting appeal. What was a fast-paced challenge becomes repetitive gameplay and what was a realistic, gritty environment with blood got old quickly and no longer seemed more immersive. I can play almost any first-person shooter and feel this way about it. The weapons look different and the enemies look different from game to game but otherwise it has the exact same effect on me, an effect which has lost its novelty.
What's odd for me is that the one exception to this, that is, the one FPS game that I have played (though do not own myself) is Halo 3. I'm referring to the actual campaign missions; the online "deathmatch" play is no fun for me because there is no way I can invest the time to become as good as the kids who don't have jobs. I'm not sure if it's the AI or something about the game mechanics but I really have fun playing it, and that's saying something since I am no fan of MIcrosoft and I don't precisely make a secret of that fact. Generally though, I do agree with you about FPS as a genre.