If someone can explain how we need multiple cable companies in order to have ISP competition, it would be helpful. I've personally used AT&T (non-Cable) as my ISP for 15 years (first as ADSL, then with U-verse). I haven't had Cable for almost 20 years. I'm eager for Google Fiber.
AOL hung around at least a decade beyond its prime. Cable isn't dead, but I suspect it's on a similar life-cycle. 50 years from now, using copper wires for data will be a footnote in history books. 100 years from now, even Fiber will be a similar note.
There isn't any shortage of talented CS professionals. However, HR isn't competent to tell the difference between a talented programmer (who can pick up the skills needed for the project in a matter of weeks, and turn out a quality product) and someone who is struggling to avoid being cut from the workforce and has years of experience with the particular "skillset" the employer is seeking (and will turn out a really buggy product, frequently missing deadlines).
Foreign "talent" isn't any more competent (taken as a group) than US talent is. They just have a powerful marketing force making them LOOK more qualified. Seriously -- I've seen pieces of projects off-shored to firms with "coders" who are someone's nephew, good at fixing computers, and have never coded a single for-next loop in their lives. But I've seen the same thing in US-based contractors, so what's Human Resources to do?
You can pass Algebra with a "C". Do you really believe someone should be working professionally in a field where they were a "C" student? Have you ever compared how easily and quickly an "A" student does work compared to a "C" student (not to mention the fact that the "A" student actually had the correct answers)?
People with no maths skills can be good programmers; the two skills aren't really related. However, people who have no talent for programming can't be "taught" to be good programmers -- just like someone with no talent for painting can't be "taught" to be a GOOD painter.
The PLATO system pushed the hardware envelope for its day, Orson Scott Card dreamed a remarkable interactive classroom in the 80's, and I was involved in a teaching research project in the 80's which used ultra-low-cost systems for computer-aided teaching. It's a theme many people have worked on. It's a theme that (ultimately) is a useful tool, but falls short of being "revolutionary" -- because it's existed (in one form or another) for centuries. It's an iteration, not a leap. It's homework.
Computer courseware can adjust the difficulty of problems to target an area where the student is having difficulty, and it can also present homework that has a visual / animated aspect to it (2 + 1 =... dots flow together on the screen... 3). In the end, though, it's just giving the student practice using concepts which were demonstrated by someone else. It can present facts in more interesting ways than a book, but it's still the same information you get from textbooks. You can tell a computer you "need help," and get a pre-packaged review, but you can't ask it a question.
There is certainly a place for computer-based homework in the classroom, and the company I worked with even had some excellent results helping children with learning disabilities to keep up with the rest of the class. Computers can help a good teacher manage a larger classroom effectively (potentially lowering education costs)... but making education better? That will take more understanding of the psychology behind learning and memory, not better hardware.
The Internet is a self-policing agency, so I like your analogy, but I feel like it needs to go a bit further:
Let's say you go to Eaverton and buy a car at the Ford dealership, then you walk across the street into the bar and start waving a gun around. The Eaverton sheriff has rules about that sort of thing, so he sends you packing. Now, when the car is ready, you can't come pick it up because the sheriff won't let you into town. The sheriff's salary is paid in part by taxes on the dealership's sales, but he didn't run you out of town so the dealership could keep your money. He did it because you broke the law.
There's one other detail this analogy needs: the sheriff said you can come back next month, and you'll be able to pick up the car then (as long as you don't go waving weapons around in the bar like an idiot before you finish the transaction).
This is a famous analogy? Hacked, free software isn't analogous to "cars of dubious origin." It's straight-up stolen. There aren't any ifs, buts, or howevers... it's stolen. If someone else hadn't made the expensive version, then the cheap version couldn't exist.
You make your own judgement calls about whether or not its "okay" to run stolen software without also buying a paid copy. I'm not here to tell you how to live your life. However... trying to convince ME that it's okay, because the version from the developer sucks? I'm calling you on that one: your argument is invalid.
Also, they're not forgetting that "we" are the ones who pay them. As long as sheeple continue to pay for broken products, they'll continue making them. They're intensely aware that they're being paid -- because they are. It would be awesome if you started a competing company with DRM-free (or DRM-right) products.
>>... then there is no reason to attribute malice to EA.
Malice? MALICE!??!
Look, I get the idea that schools can't use physical punishment on children. There are reams of studies pointing to more effective forms of discipline, and if parents choose to follow those studies, schools shouldn't be allowed to screw it up. It's gone too far, though, if kids grow up somehow coming to the conclusion that actions don't have consequences.
If the guy is breaking forum guidelines, he needs an email sent to his Mom quoting the entire post. How's that for "malice?" For the love of Christ, people, learn to behave in public. It sickens me that it even occurred to anyone to even *consider* malice as a possibility in this story.
The problem here is that people aren't trained in physics. Watts are a measure of power, not energy. If you multiply the Power x the amount of Time, the result is the amount of Energy.
Think of it like a firehose vs. garden hose: the firehose pumps gallons of water per minute, but the garden hose takes a lot longer to pump the same amount of water. The "power" is like the size of the hose: how much energy does it pump in one second? That's like Watts. How much water ended up in the bucket? That depends on both Power and Time; you can fill the bucket faster with a firehose, but if you turn the firehose on and back off right away, then it's easy to get more water out of the garden hose by leaving it on longer. How much water ends up in the bucket is like how much Energy you used. 1 Joule is the amount of energy you get when you push 1 Watt for 1 Second. (1 Kilowatt-hour is the amount you get when you push 1,000 Watts for 1 Hour. If you're following the math, that means 1 KWH = 3,600,000 Joules.)
In a pulsed laser, each burst has a duration, and the most useful information is how much Energy is released per pulse (Joules). That's why they're measured by Energy (Joules or milliJoules). For a continuous laser, there is no "time" element, so the output is measured in Power (Watts).
So... a 1 MW laser (Power) firing a pulse of 100ns (100 x 1/1,000,000,000th of a second), would give 1,000,000 Watts x 100 ns x 1 ns / 1,000,000,000 ns/sec = 100,000,000 / 1,000,000,000 = 100 / 1000 = 1/10th of 1 Joule each time it fires. A 60 Watt bulb uses 60 Watts per second... 600 times as much Energy in 1 second as a 1MW laser delivers in 100ns. It's the incredibly small amount of time the pulse is firing (less than 1 millionth of a second) that results in so little energy being delivered to the target. It's the incredibly small area (focusing via the lens) that causes so little energy to do so much damage.
A 1 KJ (Kilojoule) laser would be delivering as much Energy in a single pulse (remember: if we're measuring the laser in Joules, we're giving the value per pulse) as a 1,000 Watt spotlight would use (mostly becoming heat) in 1 second.
I'm not saying this was made using a MW laser. I'm just explaining why a 1MW laser firing a millionth-of-a-second pulse isn't going to burn through anyone's bathroom wall. (And I'm not replying directly to Chris; I just wasn't sure where to drop this water-hose explanation into the conversation.)
Don't forget about libel laws. Violating a red light is a misdemeanor.
There is a SIGNIFICANT difference between "being arrested" and "being tried"... and a further difference in "being convicted." Charges were DROPPED in the first case mentioned in the article, and will likely be dropped in the cell phone case. The article MIGHT be giving slanted information, but everything there points to harassment... which is best accomplished by making people afraid via rumors about being arrested, and likely to lose its potency if a judge gets ahold of it.
No, the quote very clearly states that the device can be seized for "containing such evidence." It does not say anything about it being "used to commit terrorism" or "used by a terrorist."
While, legally, the public has the right to sue for harassment (and I think the police have a further right to sue for bringing a frivolous lawsuit), the courts are the WORST way to resolve this kind of thing. We wouldn't be in this mess in the first place if people would just be responsible about who they vote into office, and stand up AS A COMMUNITY for freedom. People are sheep.
When light hits a surface, it can be reflected, or transmitted. If' it's transmitted then it's going to go through the paint and strike the metal and be reflected.
What are you talking about? Matt Black paint, applied to a mirror, does not result in a surface that reflects visible light.
Paint can certainly absorb photons, and translate the energy to a wavelength no longer recognizable as related to the source.
How did the parent post get rated so highly? Has the Slashdot community fallen so far that it's blinded by the mere mention of "scientific" concepts like index of refraction?
I absolutely love the way "FireFox users [are] a somewhat small percentage of the internet" and yet sites are led to expect "tremendous financial rewards" from blocking them.
I think many who have seen the hit documentary "Supersize me" would agree that, while making cheeseburgers might involve a certain level of intelligence, eating them clearly does not.
I do like your analogy between the simplicity/complexity of War and Sex. Where does Rape fit into the picture, though? When making a moral judgement (which this thread is trying to do), questions of Intent and Consent have to come into play. I hope most of the people reading this thread recognize the difference between Rape and a couple adults enjoying a pleasant passtime. I think a parallel can be meaningfully drawn: a War where only those who consent to fight are involved is a morally different sort of thing from a War where bystanders are murdered, or one where there is a forced draft.
Consider an analogy to sports, such as U.S. Football: the people who are "fighting" on the field are people who choose to fight, based on the rules of the engagement. When someone breaks those rules, they involve the other players in a fight they did not agree to participate in. Throwing punches in professional hockey is expected, and playing that game means accepting the rules surrounding it (penalty time). Throwing punches is *not* part of the agreement when playing Tennis, so there would be some moral outrage involved if someone did it.
Someday, maybe human society will evolve to the point where Terrorism doesn't exist and Wars only occur between people who consent to rules of engagement. I think the fact that we can *conceive* of the idea is proof that we're evolving towards it. And if Society is evolving its behavior regarding War... can it really be something so simple as a purely animal activity?
I would review the procedure. Most of the "call logging" software I've been shown is cumbersome, requiring you to log into it ahead of time. That means keeping it open.
I prefer to use a system that opens off the start menu into a ticket. When the phone rings, you answer and ask who it is. You exchange pleasantries with the person, and reach for Start -> Ticketmaster (or whatever your software is called). It opens as a new ticket, where you enter the name of the person and write one sentence about the problem. End-of-documentation. Hit save. It should already know who you are; it's your desk. If you need to change the default because you're sitting at someone else's desk, there's a drop-down you can use to change the default. (And changing the drop-down changes the default, so your next ticket is defaulted for you sitting at the desk.) Do you really need mega-security for entering logs of what you did?
Save brings the ticket up in "edit" mode. Here, you write down anything you need to take notes on. Account number? Server name? Phone number? If it used to go on a piece of paper, it goes on the handy ticket. It doesn't have to make sense; it's just a notepad.
Later, when you're closing the ticket, you edit all those notes into a short, "formal" writeup.
Systems that have dozens of fields might be good for reporting, but they score badly on "usability". If you need the calls split into fields, have an expert take the raw, logged calls and fill in your fields. It's both more efficient and produces more accurate reporting.
It seems to me that the "perfectionism" you describe is a source of anxiety, not a separate reason. It's a good insight; it just needs to be kept in perspective, and labelled as an example of the anxiety/avoidance structure.
The other response mentioned that it makes the task more exciting when you put it off. That sounds valid (and is a separate line of reasoning), but it's hard to judge, because that's never my reason for procrastinating.
I'd say you need to take a step back, and really think about your life. What do you want to accomplish with your life? What do you enjoy?
If continuing in your current position (you can't go up unless the company expands) gives you the professional satisfaction you need, and sufficient pay to afford to do the things you enjoy, then there's no reason to change.
If you feel like your current position is just work, and it intrudes on your ability to do things that you find personally rewarding... take the new position.
Really, you're making this decision harder than it is. Are you going to starve if you take the pay cut? Will the one, true love of your life leave you? If either of the companies goes under... will you suddenly find yourself unable to ever find a computer (or management) job again?
The article never says NCSoft called the cops. You're assuming. I suspect the "victim" had friends, and he's the one who's pulling the strings in law enforcement. NCSoft just coughed up the requested information.
Also, you don't know the game, so I'll inform you: Lineage II doesn't require you to buy anything (except a computer, internet connection, and a unique copy of the game). People can, and do, sell items/characters/accounts for real life money, but NCSoft strongly prohibits those activities (and deletes accounts when they catch you... but it's awfully hard to catch someone).
They also do use bot-detectors, as described in the article, but it's very hard to distinguish between someone killing monster after monster after monster, hour after hour, and a bot doing it. Anything the detector can be programmed to look for, the bot can be programmed to avoid (like adding in random pauses, or sending random tells, or calling "afk" a stopping for a few seconds).
Every time you play any version of the game, you agree to a legally binding.End User License Agreement. That agreement includes terms forbidding you to use bots. Use bots, and you're liable for breach of contract. In the real world.
Does it have anything to do with in-game mugging? No! I suspect the article is clueless, though, since a bot can't make you invincible in combat. *laughs* It could increase your reaction time, but this isn't an FPS here; it's a lock-and-swing MMORPG.
He probably used the bot to level up his character to the point where he was invincible to his lower-level victims, but I doubt the bot played any part in the actual player-killing.
I can't believe an arrest was made, but then again, with an article this clueless, there's probably something we don't know about the situation.
Before anyone gets the rope out for their hanging, by the way, we probably should have some sort of... oh... proof?... that the guy used a bot. That's what holds up tons of bannings: lack of proof that a bot is being used.
It is a bad analogy, but not because the game mechanics are under the control of the developers.
In your analogy, you're saying Smith & Wesson would be at fault. But the Lineage II developers didn't write the bot; some hacker did.
I agree with your point about the players being responsible for their actions (cheating via a bot), but your broken analogy is distracting from our case.
Actually, you're hoping for Sanswire Networks http://www.sanswire.com/home.htm to succeed with their "Stratellite" technology. This would put a network of high-altitude (13 mile) airships above the country, capable of carrying literally tons of communications equipment. It'll give you the ping times you need, at a fraction of the launch cost that a satellite requires, and includes the ability to bring down the node for yearly maintenance/upgrades. I'm bullish on the concept.
Even if the guy doesn't want to do anything complicated right now, he's going to want more features added over time. Use a real scripting language (not DOS batch files).
I prefer Perl for this sort of thing. Do not, under any circumstances, attempt to use Java for workflow. You will end up with complex programs to handle simple workflows.
Put me down for Fidonet, too. It was the first thing I thought of while reading the base post.
A friend of mine ran a Fidonet node, and I remember being so completely impressed with automated, scheduled dialing between nodes to transfer batched messages. What a great concept!
Farther back (and not related to networking)... disk drives used to be a high-powered upgrade on personal computers. I remember the days of the Apple computer, where system calls (including printing) were handled by a vector table. I was blown away when I found out the Apple DOS installed itself on a machine by replacing the original "print" system call vector with a pointer to the disk operating system! (Apple DOS looked for ^D as a flag character, and intercepted anything following the ^D as a disk command: ^DLOAD, ^DSAVE, etc.)
Slashdot Mirror
https://fiber.google.com/about...
If someone can explain how we need multiple cable companies in order to have ISP competition, it would be helpful. I've personally used AT&T (non-Cable) as my ISP for 15 years (first as ADSL, then with U-verse). I haven't had Cable for almost 20 years. I'm eager for Google Fiber.
AOL hung around at least a decade beyond its prime. Cable isn't dead, but I suspect it's on a similar life-cycle. 50 years from now, using copper wires for data will be a footnote in history books. 100 years from now, even Fiber will be a similar note.
There isn't any shortage of talented CS professionals. However, HR isn't competent to tell the difference between a talented programmer (who can pick up the skills needed for the project in a matter of weeks, and turn out a quality product) and someone who is struggling to avoid being cut from the workforce and has years of experience with the particular "skillset" the employer is seeking (and will turn out a really buggy product, frequently missing deadlines).
Foreign "talent" isn't any more competent (taken as a group) than US talent is. They just have a powerful marketing force making them LOOK more qualified. Seriously -- I've seen pieces of projects off-shored to firms with "coders" who are someone's nephew, good at fixing computers, and have never coded a single for-next loop in their lives. But I've seen the same thing in US-based contractors, so what's Human Resources to do?
You can pass Algebra with a "C". Do you really believe someone should be working professionally in a field where they were a "C" student? Have you ever compared how easily and quickly an "A" student does work compared to a "C" student (not to mention the fact that the "A" student actually had the correct answers)?
People with no maths skills can be good programmers; the two skills aren't really related. However, people who have no talent for programming can't be "taught" to be good programmers -- just like someone with no talent for painting can't be "taught" to be a GOOD painter.
The PLATO system pushed the hardware envelope for its day, Orson Scott Card dreamed a remarkable interactive classroom in the 80's, and I was involved in a teaching research project in the 80's which used ultra-low-cost systems for computer-aided teaching. It's a theme many people have worked on. It's a theme that (ultimately) is a useful tool, but falls short of being "revolutionary" -- because it's existed (in one form or another) for centuries. It's an iteration, not a leap. It's homework.
Computer courseware can adjust the difficulty of problems to target an area where the student is having difficulty, and it can also present homework that has a visual / animated aspect to it (2 + 1 = ... dots flow together on the screen ... 3). In the end, though, it's just giving the student practice using concepts which were demonstrated by someone else. It can present facts in more interesting ways than a book, but it's still the same information you get from textbooks. You can tell a computer you "need help," and get a pre-packaged review, but you can't ask it a question.
There is certainly a place for computer-based homework in the classroom, and the company I worked with even had some excellent results helping children with learning disabilities to keep up with the rest of the class. Computers can help a good teacher manage a larger classroom effectively (potentially lowering education costs) ... but making education better? That will take more understanding of the psychology behind learning and memory, not better hardware.
The Internet is a self-policing agency, so I like your analogy, but I feel like it needs to go a bit further:
Let's say you go to Eaverton and buy a car at the Ford dealership, then you walk across the street into the bar and start waving a gun around. The Eaverton sheriff has rules about that sort of thing, so he sends you packing. Now, when the car is ready, you can't come pick it up because the sheriff won't let you into town. The sheriff's salary is paid in part by taxes on the dealership's sales, but he didn't run you out of town so the dealership could keep your money. He did it because you broke the law.
There's one other detail this analogy needs: the sheriff said you can come back next month, and you'll be able to pick up the car then (as long as you don't go waving weapons around in the bar like an idiot before you finish the transaction).
This is a famous analogy? Hacked, free software isn't analogous to "cars of dubious origin." It's straight-up stolen. There aren't any ifs, buts, or howevers ... it's stolen. If someone else hadn't made the expensive version, then the cheap version couldn't exist.
You make your own judgement calls about whether or not its "okay" to run stolen software without also buying a paid copy. I'm not here to tell you how to live your life. However ... trying to convince ME that it's okay, because the version from the developer sucks? I'm calling you on that one: your argument is invalid.
Also, they're not forgetting that "we" are the ones who pay them. As long as sheeple continue to pay for broken products, they'll continue making them. They're intensely aware that they're being paid -- because they are. It would be awesome if you started a competing company with DRM-free (or DRM-right) products.
>> ... then there is no reason to attribute malice to EA.
Malice? MALICE!??!
Look, I get the idea that schools can't use physical punishment on children. There are reams of studies pointing to more effective forms of discipline, and if parents choose to follow those studies, schools shouldn't be allowed to screw it up. It's gone too far, though, if kids grow up somehow coming to the conclusion that actions don't have consequences.
If the guy is breaking forum guidelines, he needs an email sent to his Mom quoting the entire post. How's that for "malice?" For the love of Christ, people, learn to behave in public. It sickens me that it even occurred to anyone to even *consider* malice as a possibility in this story.
The problem here is that people aren't trained in physics. Watts are a measure of power, not energy. If you multiply the Power x the amount of Time, the result is the amount of Energy.
Think of it like a firehose vs. garden hose: the firehose pumps gallons of water per minute, but the garden hose takes a lot longer to pump the same amount of water. The "power" is like the size of the hose: how much energy does it pump in one second? That's like Watts. How much water ended up in the bucket? That depends on both Power and Time; you can fill the bucket faster with a firehose, but if you turn the firehose on and back off right away, then it's easy to get more water out of the garden hose by leaving it on longer. How much water ends up in the bucket is like how much Energy you used. 1 Joule is the amount of energy you get when you push 1 Watt for 1 Second. (1 Kilowatt-hour is the amount you get when you push 1,000 Watts for 1 Hour. If you're following the math, that means 1 KWH = 3,600,000 Joules.)
In a pulsed laser, each burst has a duration, and the most useful information is how much Energy is released per pulse (Joules). That's why they're measured by Energy (Joules or milliJoules). For a continuous laser, there is no "time" element, so the output is measured in Power (Watts).
So ... a 1 MW laser (Power) firing a pulse of 100ns (100 x 1/1,000,000,000th of a second), would give 1,000,000 Watts x 100 ns x 1 ns / 1,000,000,000 ns/sec = 100,000,000 / 1,000,000,000 = 100 / 1000 = 1/10th of 1 Joule each time it fires. A 60 Watt bulb uses 60 Watts per second ... 600 times as much Energy in 1 second as a 1MW laser delivers in 100ns. It's the incredibly small amount of time the pulse is firing (less than 1 millionth of a second) that results in so little energy being delivered to the target. It's the incredibly small area (focusing via the lens) that causes so little energy to do so much damage.
A 1 KJ (Kilojoule) laser would be delivering as much Energy in a single pulse (remember: if we're measuring the laser in Joules, we're giving the value per pulse) as a 1,000 Watt spotlight would use (mostly becoming heat) in 1 second.
I'm not saying this was made using a MW laser. I'm just explaining why a 1MW laser firing a millionth-of-a-second pulse isn't going to burn through anyone's bathroom wall. (And I'm not replying directly to Chris; I just wasn't sure where to drop this water-hose explanation into the conversation.)
Don't forget about libel laws. Violating a red light is a misdemeanor.
There is a SIGNIFICANT difference between "being arrested" and "being tried" ... and a further difference in "being convicted." Charges were DROPPED in the first case mentioned in the article, and will likely be dropped in the cell phone case. The article MIGHT be giving slanted information, but everything there points to harassment ... which is best accomplished by making people afraid via rumors about being arrested, and likely to lose its potency if a judge gets ahold of it.
No, the quote very clearly states that the device can be seized for "containing such evidence." It does not say anything about it being "used to commit terrorism" or "used by a terrorist."
While, legally, the public has the right to sue for harassment (and I think the police have a further right to sue for bringing a frivolous lawsuit), the courts are the WORST way to resolve this kind of thing. We wouldn't be in this mess in the first place if people would just be responsible about who they vote into office, and stand up AS A COMMUNITY for freedom. People are sheep.
"This child was harmed (to what degree, only a psych eval could fully determine) by those who are in loco parentis and charged with his well-being."
Maybe someone should recommend counselling for the little guy?
Local SciFi/Fantasy conventions are a panacea for the Geek to rub elbows with fellow geeks.
Even better: find your local chapter of http://www.sca.org/
When light hits a surface, it can be reflected, or transmitted. If' it's transmitted then it's going to go through the paint and strike the metal and be reflected.
What are you talking about? Matt Black paint, applied to a mirror, does not result in a surface that reflects visible light.
Paint can certainly absorb photons, and translate the energy to a wavelength no longer recognizable as related to the source.
How did the parent post get rated so highly? Has the Slashdot community fallen so far that it's blinded by the mere mention of "scientific" concepts like index of refraction?
I absolutely love the way "FireFox users [are] a somewhat small percentage of the internet" and yet sites are led to expect "tremendous financial rewards" from blocking them.
Did this story come from Fox News?
I think many who have seen the hit documentary "Supersize me" would agree that, while making cheeseburgers might involve a certain level of intelligence, eating them clearly does not.
... can it really be something so simple as a purely animal activity?
I do like your analogy between the simplicity/complexity of War and Sex. Where does Rape fit into the picture, though? When making a moral judgement (which this thread is trying to do), questions of Intent and Consent have to come into play. I hope most of the people reading this thread recognize the difference between Rape and a couple adults enjoying a pleasant passtime. I think a parallel can be meaningfully drawn: a War where only those who consent to fight are involved is a morally different sort of thing from a War where bystanders are murdered, or one where there is a forced draft.
Consider an analogy to sports, such as U.S. Football: the people who are "fighting" on the field are people who choose to fight, based on the rules of the engagement. When someone breaks those rules, they involve the other players in a fight they did not agree to participate in. Throwing punches in professional hockey is expected, and playing that game means accepting the rules surrounding it (penalty time). Throwing punches is *not* part of the agreement when playing Tennis, so there would be some moral outrage involved if someone did it.
Someday, maybe human society will evolve to the point where Terrorism doesn't exist and Wars only occur between people who consent to rules of engagement. I think the fact that we can *conceive* of the idea is proof that we're evolving towards it. And if Society is evolving its behavior regarding War
I would review the procedure. Most of the "call logging" software I've been shown is cumbersome, requiring you to log into it ahead of time. That means keeping it open.
I prefer to use a system that opens off the start menu into a ticket. When the phone rings, you answer and ask who it is. You exchange pleasantries with the person, and reach for Start -> Ticketmaster (or whatever your software is called). It opens as a new ticket, where you enter the name of the person and write one sentence about the problem. End-of-documentation. Hit save. It should already know who you are; it's your desk. If you need to change the default because you're sitting at someone else's desk, there's a drop-down you can use to change the default. (And changing the drop-down changes the default, so your next ticket is defaulted for you sitting at the desk.) Do you really need mega-security for entering logs of what you did?
Save brings the ticket up in "edit" mode. Here, you write down anything you need to take notes on. Account number? Server name? Phone number? If it used to go on a piece of paper, it goes on the handy ticket. It doesn't have to make sense; it's just a notepad.
Later, when you're closing the ticket, you edit all those notes into a short, "formal" writeup.
Systems that have dozens of fields might be good for reporting, but they score badly on "usability". If you need the calls split into fields, have an expert take the raw, logged calls and fill in your fields. It's both more efficient and produces more accurate reporting.
It seems to me that the "perfectionism" you describe is a source of anxiety, not a separate reason. It's a good insight; it just needs to be kept in perspective, and labelled as an example of the anxiety/avoidance structure.
The other response mentioned that it makes the task more exciting when you put it off. That sounds valid (and is a separate line of reasoning), but it's hard to judge, because that's never my reason for procrastinating.
I'd say you need to take a step back, and really think about your life. What do you want to accomplish with your life? What do you enjoy?
... take the new position.
... will you suddenly find yourself unable to ever find a computer (or management) job again?
If continuing in your current position (you can't go up unless the company expands) gives you the professional satisfaction you need, and sufficient pay to afford to do the things you enjoy, then there's no reason to change.
If you feel like your current position is just work, and it intrudes on your ability to do things that you find personally rewarding
Really, you're making this decision harder than it is. Are you going to starve if you take the pay cut? Will the one, true love of your life leave you? If either of the companies goes under
Live a little. That's what you're here for.
Is this a news item, or an advertisement?
The article never says NCSoft called the cops. You're assuming. I suspect the "victim" had friends, and he's the one who's pulling the strings in law enforcement. NCSoft just coughed up the requested information.
... but it's awfully hard to catch someone).
Also, you don't know the game, so I'll inform you: Lineage II doesn't require you to buy anything (except a computer, internet connection, and a unique copy of the game). People can, and do, sell items/characters/accounts for real life money, but NCSoft strongly prohibits those activities (and deletes accounts when they catch you
They also do use bot-detectors, as described in the article, but it's very hard to distinguish between someone killing monster after monster after monster, hour after hour, and a bot doing it. Anything the detector can be programmed to look for, the bot can be programmed to avoid (like adding in random pauses, or sending random tells, or calling "afk" a stopping for a few seconds).
There is a "real world" rule.
.End User License Agreement. That agreement includes terms forbidding you to use bots. Use bots, and you're liable for breach of contract. In the real world.
... oh ... proof? ... that the guy used a bot. That's what holds up tons of bannings: lack of proof that a bot is being used.
Every time you play any version of the game, you agree to a legally binding
Does it have anything to do with in-game mugging? No! I suspect the article is clueless, though, since a bot can't make you invincible in combat. *laughs* It could increase your reaction time, but this isn't an FPS here; it's a lock-and-swing MMORPG.
He probably used the bot to level up his character to the point where he was invincible to his lower-level victims, but I doubt the bot played any part in the actual player-killing.
I can't believe an arrest was made, but then again, with an article this clueless, there's probably something we don't know about the situation.
Before anyone gets the rope out for their hanging, by the way, we probably should have some sort of
It is a bad analogy, but not because the game mechanics are under the control of the developers.
In your analogy, you're saying Smith & Wesson would be at fault. But the Lineage II developers didn't write the bot; some hacker did.
I agree with your point about the players being responsible for their actions (cheating via a bot), but your broken analogy is distracting from our case.
Actually, you're hoping for Sanswire Networks http://www.sanswire.com/home.htm to succeed with their "Stratellite" technology. This would put a network of high-altitude (13 mile) airships above the country, capable of carrying literally tons of communications equipment. It'll give you the ping times you need, at a fraction of the launch cost that a satellite requires, and includes the ability to bring down the node for yearly maintenance/upgrades. I'm bullish on the concept.
Even if the guy doesn't want to do anything complicated right now, he's going to want more features added over time. Use a real scripting language (not DOS batch files).
I prefer Perl for this sort of thing. Do not, under any circumstances, attempt to use Java for workflow. You will end up with complex programs to handle simple workflows.
Put me down for Fidonet, too. It was the first thing I thought of while reading the base post.
... disk drives used to be a high-powered upgrade on personal computers. I remember the days of the Apple computer, where system calls (including printing) were handled by a vector table. I was blown away when I found out the Apple DOS installed itself on a machine by replacing the original "print" system call vector with a pointer to the disk operating system! (Apple DOS looked for ^D as a flag character, and intercepted anything following the ^D as a disk command: ^DLOAD, ^DSAVE, etc.)
A friend of mine ran a Fidonet node, and I remember being so completely impressed with automated, scheduled dialing between nodes to transfer batched messages. What a great concept!
Farther back (and not related to networking)