While I've no doubt there is a healthy sub-set of heavy-gamers (WoW included) that have well-adjusted approaches to life and enjoy gaming as a part of that, there are many, many people who have done and actively do exactly as you describe. Few of them have the balls or self-awareness to admit it though, and fewer still have the verbal skills to articulate the trap as clearly as you have.
I've teetered on the edge of that life-destroying artificial-reward gaming addiction, and was fortunate enough to have circumstances intervene, but I know other people who have descended into exactly the hole you've experienced. A certain reclusive predisposition and messed-up life events are a common starting point, but people who don't understand the addiction can be very unhelpful with their "buck up, get a life" attitudes. Such people would also tell heroine addicts to "just stop taking it" if it were PC to do so, and their advice would be just as helpful and welcome.
This may be an overly harsh gripe, but I find it fatuous to describe anything that's a simple Java app - especially games - as an "interesting application" for a platform-specific content store.
Anything that makes use of the unique features of the platform in a way that therefore can't be or hasn't been implemented on other platforms - fine, that's an "interesting application". That's what most people found exciting and newsworthy about the iPhone app-store, and that's what made it so typically Apple. It was platform-specific, and unavailable elsewhere.
I don't see this as a "similar business model" at all, because the principal business model behind all of Apple's innovation is this: Vendor Lock-in. The Nokia platform is as generic as possible.
I'm really pleased to read this story, but sadly I think the only reason this "backing down" has come about is because the politicians in question were so bare-faced and blunt with the proposals in the first place. I suspect that has a lot to do with the character and nature of Australians in general. I may get criticised for stereotyping, but most Australians of my acquaintance take pride in the blunt honesty prevalent in their culture, so I don't think I'm out of line.
Unfortunately this culture of an honest (if ineffective and ill-considered) approach to government implementation of web-filtering - and indeed of all privacy-crushing legislation - is rather rarer elsewhere. I'd love to see our ministers "back down" from the measures being artfully and insidiously emplaced under the auspices of all sorts of other harmless- or necessary-sounding legislation, but I just don't see it happening.
I'm not saying Australia is the land of enlightenment and open government or anything, but somehow the top-coat of bullshit and whitewash over there seems to be somewhat shallower on the whole.
Good on yer, Oz. Now please, expose some of the hypocrisy and skullduggery going on in the rest of the developed world for what it is - an ingrained attempt at tightening power and control over the voting public.
Seriously; this article, the person who submitted it, and the editor who deigned it front-page-worthy, can fuck right off.
This is not news, not useful - christ, it's not even interesting. The interwebs are totally awash with articles of exactly this nature, and have been for fucking years. 90% of/.ers are already perfectly capable of building a PC to a spec which suits their unique requirements, cheaper than this, and don't need or want to read this. The other 10% can fuck off and learn a thing or two about technology before commenting.
I ask you: HOW THE FUCK DID THIS BECOME A FRONT PAGE ARTICLE??!?.
I know this is a surly rant, but I have karma to burn and I'm frankly pissed off that shit like this got through. I mean, why don't we have a "How to write HTML" article, while we're at it?
Like what? It's a statutory requirement for every Local Authority to put these measures in place within mandated timescales. What exactly do you think I should do?
I'm doing what I can to make sure the systems work for our users as well as possible on a functional level. I'm one of the few people that knows enough both about the systems and the processes they support to be able to do that. I'm reducing the negative impact of these laws as much as I can, while voicing my objections and concerns whenever I get the opportunity.
Just what the hell else can I do? Tell somebody else that they should DO something about it?
Yes, those are the sort of mistakes that we need to work to prevent. I've read the report and the follow-up report in depth, as have many of my colleagues, and see no way in which the database solutions would make any difference to the issues highlighted.
Whatever the database is "trying" to do, the practical impact has been overwhelmingly negative. The problems, almost without fail, in Climbie and pretty much every child-protection case where the system has failed, arise from individual front-line workers dropping the ball in their role, either through lack of time or lack of training (though seldom through lack of sincere effort).
The solution is quite straightforward, then. Stop pumping money into this dead donkey of a political exercise, and start spending it on resources and training for front-line workers. The authorities are horribly overstretched, and that is the crux of the problem - you can only rationalise and consolidate so much.
The other uncomfortable truth is that there is a point where the cost/benefit curve becomes too steep. As you say, the biggest risks in a child's life are the very people to whom they are naturally entrusted - close family and friends - and we live in an imperfect society. The sad fact is that there will always be a handful of cases where nothing but the most draconian, invasive and aggressive style of monitoring and intervention would prevent tragedy, and that would cause far more harm than good in the long-run. With all the well-managed resourcing in the world, some will slip through the net. I am loathe to see that tragic and inescapable truth become an excuse for increasingly invasive surveillance, when we could spend the money much more effectively by simply increasing the resources available, and thereby make a real difference for those cases where we really could make a difference.
Not directly, but I work daily with the ContactPoint project and a number of others that coincide with it.
First: there is no opt-in or opt-out. The database is populated from a number of existing databases at a Local Authority level, and in most cases the primary source is the central Education database, which is in turn populated by schools' information systems and such. All schools, private schooling parents and similar, have a legal duty to submit this information annually in the Schools Census. It's not 100% accurate or up-to-date, but it's as comprehensive a framework as you'll find. "Refusing" or giving "bogus details" would be both very difficult and illegal.
Second: I hate the database, its supporting systems and the gung-ho approach the DCSF (central govt dept) have employed in its implementation. It is causing more work, problems and morale-breaking long-term consequences than most of the people on this site could conceive, to front-line workers and back-office support staff alike, and I would love nothing more than to see this project and many like it (see "Integrated Children's System") abandoned in favour of implementing some of the more relevant and critical recommendations of the Lord Laming report, which is what triggered the whole debacle, but I don't expect that to happen.
I have suspected for a long time that this was a back-door approach to a national person database, which is why I don't believe the govt will let go in spite of its inevitable breach of the Data Protection Act once the children reach the age of majority.
My biggest criticism of the entire suite of projects is that it completely fails to address - and in fact may exacerbate - the central problem with the Victoria Climbie case that it is supposed to solve. Specifically, she was recorded multiple times on multiple databases due to poorly trained users. Even then, there were several contacts with the child that should have led directly to intervention or at least in-depth investigation, with or without additional case background, but the workers involved failed to act.
Fundamentally, the DCSF does not seem willing or able to accept a simple truth, fundamentally understood by all IT professionals and most of the people on this site: You cannot introduce software to prevent people from making mistakes. At best you can only change the type of mistake they make.
Most social workers are actually insulted by the systems being introduced, because they increase the administrative workload (in spite of DCSF claims to the contrary) while removing the responsibility and flexibility for workers to make qualitative assessments and trained, experienced decisions.
Even if central government are to be taken at their word, this system is a poor implementation of a poor solution to a serious problem, and will hinder as much as it helps. If not, this is - as you suggest - an insidious approach to a wider Big Brother agenda.
Or just a white-matte printed patch. You can get them "personalised" in bulk with your logo or whatever, so why not get them printed with a big white matte patch, buy in bulk, and resell them in batches with a pen? With the right targeted marketing (office suppliers, for example), a motivated individual could do well...
My ex used to work with police officers a lot (this is in the UK), and built up a store of anecdotal warnings about pissing off the police.
The mostly came down to people either being annoying and so getting arrested where they might have ordinarily been let off, or people getting let off with a warning for clear breaches of the law simply because they were humble and decent about it.
She coined a phrase that sticks with me to this day - and has served me well on occasion - which is this: There is only one crime: Contempt Of Cop.
It's a bitter sentiment and does kind-of suck, but there is a twisted rationale behind it. Yes, the police are the face of public authority and enforcement, but they are still people and fallible, and should be afforded a little common decency in the execution of their job. Their ultimate purpose in society is to maintain order and ensure that individuals don't endanger or seriously contravene the societal values we have deemed important enough to enshrine in law.
Quite often that means exercising discretion where rigid adherence to the rules would be less conducive to that ultimate goal. Conversely, if someone's attitude to law enforcement (and, by association, conforming to the necessary norms of society) is nothing but vitriol, sometimes it pays to instil a little fear and paranoia where the more preferable "respect" is not naturally forthcoming.
I'm not saying it's right, especially from the PoV of the individual who experiences the bending of these rules, and I would never suggest that courts take the side of the police where breaches of correct enforcement occur (a well-trained officer knows and accepts the consequences, and only bends the rules where it won't come back to bite him), but society often benefits from the superposition of human common sense over strict legal enforcement in the case of day-to-day, minor infractions.
Let me say it again: in most minor cases, There is no other crime than Contempt Of Cop.
Remember this and you will go far. We demand that police officers act like machines, but if you're the sort of person who expects them to do so, then you're probably also the sort of person who would be a total dick in their position, because of your unwillingness to empathise. Show a little humility and a little compassion - good traits in any member of society, I'm sure you'll agree - and you may find them easier to deal with.
You clearly know a hell of a lot more about speakers than I, so I have to ask: is there anything like this that works by expansion/contraction of a planar surface rather than vibration? That would surely get around the problem you described, wouldn't it? When I first heard of planar speakers in wall-art etc, that was actually how I envisaged it working.
One of the major benefits of this is that the batteries can be charged independently from the car being at-rest - basically, charge according to electricity supply rather than demand.
When (if) we finally start to make the major switch to renewable electricity and electric cars (the only long-term sustainable solution for personal transport), we will need to ensure that our load on the electricity infrastructure meets supply. This is a good step in that direction. That, or charging stations with really big capacitors - which is similar in concept.
Read David Mackay's Without Hot Air for more clear thinking.
I remember the Star Tours ride at Disney Land Paris, which was essentially a 3d film in a flight-sim booth. It was great fun, but I found myself underwhelmed by the brief glimpses you get of deep-space.
As a child I always imagined it would be a dizzying, hypnotic, chilling sight, focussing on a planet against a backdrop of stars at unimaginable distances. Didn't feel that at all with Star Tours.
Is this down to a fundamental inability of human vision to perceive anything with such asymptotically small angle of parallax - the fact that a million light-years is much the same has half a light-year? Is it some strange limitation of the medium that someone can explain to me? Or is it that the fucking robot was too distracting?
Anyway, regarding SciFi epic adaptations: Take off, nuke the site from orbit. Only way to be sure...
Most of the companies to sign up to the Flash platform are, as far as I can tell, chip-fabs and set-top manufacturers, NOT TV-makers. Sony and Samsung, for example, have not signed up.
The fact that the summary and the linked article don't make this clear is very annoying. We're seeing a steady shift in/. articles away from facts and direct-source links (hence my FP), and towards rhetoric and spin. I'd harp on about how much this pisses me off and skews the whole discussion, but I've already strayed off-topic.
I agree with your position, but it's basically moot. This will primarily emerge in set-top boxes - at least until it's had chance to become mainstream.
Slashdot Mirror
Quaaaaaaid... free Maaaaars...
While I've no doubt there is a healthy sub-set of heavy-gamers (WoW included) that have well-adjusted approaches to life and enjoy gaming as a part of that, there are many, many people who have done and actively do exactly as you describe. Few of them have the balls or self-awareness to admit it though, and fewer still have the verbal skills to articulate the trap as clearly as you have.
I've teetered on the edge of that life-destroying artificial-reward gaming addiction, and was fortunate enough to have circumstances intervene, but I know other people who have descended into exactly the hole you've experienced. A certain reclusive predisposition and messed-up life events are a common starting point, but people who don't understand the addiction can be very unhelpful with their "buck up, get a life" attitudes. Such people would also tell heroine addicts to "just stop taking it" if it were PC to do so, and their advice would be just as helpful and welcome.
:-) Last time I looked on Wikipedia, something nasty dropped in my eye.
... I think it was batshit.
Inconceivable?
Which - to quote the tragically overlooked Star Cops - means "without ruler", not "without order".
I'm sure you knew that, but it's frustrating how many people don't.
Sorry, but until it's supported by my iPhone...
This may be an overly harsh gripe, but I find it fatuous to describe anything that's a simple Java app - especially games - as an "interesting application" for a platform-specific content store.
Anything that makes use of the unique features of the platform in a way that therefore can't be or hasn't been implemented on other platforms - fine, that's an "interesting application". That's what most people found exciting and newsworthy about the iPhone app-store, and that's what made it so typically Apple. It was platform-specific, and unavailable elsewhere.
I don't see this as a "similar business model" at all, because the principal business model behind all of Apple's innovation is this: Vendor Lock-in. The Nokia platform is as generic as possible.
I'm really pleased to read this story, but sadly I think the only reason this "backing down" has come about is because the politicians in question were so bare-faced and blunt with the proposals in the first place. I suspect that has a lot to do with the character and nature of Australians in general. I may get criticised for stereotyping, but most Australians of my acquaintance take pride in the blunt honesty prevalent in their culture, so I don't think I'm out of line.
Unfortunately this culture of an honest (if ineffective and ill-considered) approach to government implementation of web-filtering - and indeed of all privacy-crushing legislation - is rather rarer elsewhere. I'd love to see our ministers "back down" from the measures being artfully and insidiously emplaced under the auspices of all sorts of other harmless- or necessary-sounding legislation, but I just don't see it happening.
I'm not saying Australia is the land of enlightenment and open government or anything, but somehow the top-coat of bullshit and whitewash over there seems to be somewhat shallower on the whole.
Good on yer, Oz. Now please, expose some of the hypocrisy and skullduggery going on in the rest of the developed world for what it is - an ingrained attempt at tightening power and control over the voting public.
Absolutely.
Seriously; this article, the person who submitted it, and the editor who deigned it front-page-worthy, can fuck right off.
This is not news, not useful - christ, it's not even interesting. The interwebs are totally awash with articles of exactly this nature, and have been for fucking years. 90% of /.ers are already perfectly capable of building a PC to a spec which suits their unique requirements, cheaper than this, and don't need or want to read this. The other 10% can fuck off and learn a thing or two about technology before commenting.
I ask you: HOW THE FUCK DID THIS BECOME A FRONT PAGE ARTICLE??!?.
I know this is a surly rant, but I have karma to burn and I'm frankly pissed off that shit like this got through. I mean, why don't we have a "How to write HTML" article, while we're at it?
Christ.
And to the Ontario Government:
It's like a free ride, when you've already paid.
Plus they'd save on heating costs for their home!
Like what? It's a statutory requirement for every Local Authority to put these measures in place within mandated timescales. What exactly do you think I should do?
I'm doing what I can to make sure the systems work for our users as well as possible on a functional level. I'm one of the few people that knows enough both about the systems and the processes they support to be able to do that. I'm reducing the negative impact of these laws as much as I can, while voicing my objections and concerns whenever I get the opportunity.
Just what the hell else can I do? Tell somebody else that they should DO something about it?
Yes, those are the sort of mistakes that we need to work to prevent. I've read the report and the follow-up report in depth, as have many of my colleagues, and see no way in which the database solutions would make any difference to the issues highlighted.
Whatever the database is "trying" to do, the practical impact has been overwhelmingly negative. The problems, almost without fail, in Climbie and pretty much every child-protection case where the system has failed, arise from individual front-line workers dropping the ball in their role, either through lack of time or lack of training (though seldom through lack of sincere effort).
The solution is quite straightforward, then. Stop pumping money into this dead donkey of a political exercise, and start spending it on resources and training for front-line workers. The authorities are horribly overstretched, and that is the crux of the problem - you can only rationalise and consolidate so much.
The other uncomfortable truth is that there is a point where the cost/benefit curve becomes too steep. As you say, the biggest risks in a child's life are the very people to whom they are naturally entrusted - close family and friends - and we live in an imperfect society. The sad fact is that there will always be a handful of cases where nothing but the most draconian, invasive and aggressive style of monitoring and intervention would prevent tragedy, and that would cause far more harm than good in the long-run. With all the well-managed resourcing in the world, some will slip through the net. I am loathe to see that tragic and inescapable truth become an excuse for increasingly invasive surveillance, when we could spend the money much more effectively by simply increasing the resources available, and thereby make a real difference for those cases where we really could make a difference.
Not directly, but I work daily with the ContactPoint project and a number of others that coincide with it.
First: there is no opt-in or opt-out. The database is populated from a number of existing databases at a Local Authority level, and in most cases the primary source is the central Education database, which is in turn populated by schools' information systems and such. All schools, private schooling parents and similar, have a legal duty to submit this information annually in the Schools Census. It's not 100% accurate or up-to-date, but it's as comprehensive a framework as you'll find. "Refusing" or giving "bogus details" would be both very difficult and illegal.
Second: I hate the database, its supporting systems and the gung-ho approach the DCSF (central govt dept) have employed in its implementation. It is causing more work, problems and morale-breaking long-term consequences than most of the people on this site could conceive, to front-line workers and back-office support staff alike, and I would love nothing more than to see this project and many like it (see "Integrated Children's System") abandoned in favour of implementing some of the more relevant and critical recommendations of the Lord Laming report, which is what triggered the whole debacle, but I don't expect that to happen.
I have suspected for a long time that this was a back-door approach to a national person database, which is why I don't believe the govt will let go in spite of its inevitable breach of the Data Protection Act once the children reach the age of majority.
My biggest criticism of the entire suite of projects is that it completely fails to address - and in fact may exacerbate - the central problem with the Victoria Climbie case that it is supposed to solve. Specifically, she was recorded multiple times on multiple databases due to poorly trained users. Even then, there were several contacts with the child that should have led directly to intervention or at least in-depth investigation, with or without additional case background, but the workers involved failed to act.
Fundamentally, the DCSF does not seem willing or able to accept a simple truth, fundamentally understood by all IT professionals and most of the people on this site: You cannot introduce software to prevent people from making mistakes. At best you can only change the type of mistake they make.
Most social workers are actually insulted by the systems being introduced, because they increase the administrative workload (in spite of DCSF claims to the contrary) while removing the responsibility and flexibility for workers to make qualitative assessments and trained, experienced decisions.
Even if central government are to be taken at their word, this system is a poor implementation of a poor solution to a serious problem, and will hinder as much as it helps. If not, this is - as you suggest - an insidious approach to a wider Big Brother agenda.
Or just a white-matte printed patch. You can get them "personalised" in bulk with your logo or whatever, so why not get them printed with a big white matte patch, buy in bulk, and resell them in batches with a pen? With the right targeted marketing (office suppliers, for example), a motivated individual could do well...
...or iPods.
Damn you Harrison Ford!
Also Slopsbox.
My ex used to work with police officers a lot (this is in the UK), and built up a store of anecdotal warnings about pissing off the police.
The mostly came down to people either being annoying and so getting arrested where they might have ordinarily been let off, or people getting let off with a warning for clear breaches of the law simply because they were humble and decent about it.
She coined a phrase that sticks with me to this day - and has served me well on occasion - which is this:
There is only one crime: Contempt Of Cop.
It's a bitter sentiment and does kind-of suck, but there is a twisted rationale behind it. Yes, the police are the face of public authority and enforcement, but they are still people and fallible, and should be afforded a little common decency in the execution of their job. Their ultimate purpose in society is to maintain order and ensure that individuals don't endanger or seriously contravene the societal values we have deemed important enough to enshrine in law.
Quite often that means exercising discretion where rigid adherence to the rules would be less conducive to that ultimate goal. Conversely, if someone's attitude to law enforcement (and, by association, conforming to the necessary norms of society) is nothing but vitriol, sometimes it pays to instil a little fear and paranoia where the more preferable "respect" is not naturally forthcoming.
I'm not saying it's right, especially from the PoV of the individual who experiences the bending of these rules, and I would never suggest that courts take the side of the police where breaches of correct enforcement occur (a well-trained officer knows and accepts the consequences, and only bends the rules where it won't come back to bite him), but society often benefits from the superposition of human common sense over strict legal enforcement in the case of day-to-day, minor infractions.
Let me say it again: in most minor cases, There is no other crime than Contempt Of Cop.
Remember this and you will go far. We demand that police officers act like machines, but if you're the sort of person who expects them to do so, then you're probably also the sort of person who would be a total dick in their position, because of your unwillingness to empathise. Show a little humility and a little compassion - good traits in any member of society, I'm sure you'll agree - and you may find them easier to deal with.
You clearly know a hell of a lot more about speakers than I, so I have to ask: is there anything like this that works by expansion/contraction of a planar surface rather than vibration? That would surely get around the problem you described, wouldn't it? When I first heard of planar speakers in wall-art etc, that was actually how I envisaged it working.
One of the major benefits of this is that the batteries can be charged independently from the car being at-rest - basically, charge according to electricity supply rather than demand.
When (if) we finally start to make the major switch to renewable electricity and electric cars (the only long-term sustainable solution for personal transport), we will need to ensure that our load on the electricity infrastructure meets supply. This is a good step in that direction. That, or charging stations with really big capacitors - which is similar in concept.
Read David Mackay's Without Hot Air for more clear thinking.
Really big scissors?
Rule 34. Forget it at your peril.
I remember the Star Tours ride at Disney Land Paris, which was essentially a 3d film in a flight-sim booth. It was great fun, but I found myself underwhelmed by the brief glimpses you get of deep-space.
As a child I always imagined it would be a dizzying, hypnotic, chilling sight, focussing on a planet against a backdrop of stars at unimaginable distances. Didn't feel that at all with Star Tours.
Is this down to a fundamental inability of human vision to perceive anything with such asymptotically small angle of parallax - the fact that a million light-years is much the same has half a light-year? Is it some strange limitation of the medium that someone can explain to me? Or is it that the fucking robot was too distracting?
Anyway, regarding SciFi epic adaptations: Take off, nuke the site from orbit. Only way to be sure...
So... you're an insensitive clod?
Most of the companies to sign up to the Flash platform are, as far as I can tell, chip-fabs and set-top manufacturers, NOT TV-makers. Sony and Samsung, for example, have not signed up.
The fact that the summary and the linked article don't make this clear is very annoying. We're seeing a steady shift in /. articles away from facts and direct-source links (hence my FP), and towards rhetoric and spin. I'd harp on about how much this pisses me off and skews the whole discussion, but I've already strayed off-topic.
I agree with your position, but it's basically moot. This will primarily emerge in set-top boxes - at least until it's had chance to become mainstream.