I'm 25 (I know, I'm still a young'n), and I spent a large portion of my youth playing Atari (2600, 7800, ST), wolfenstien, doom, and cruising on different BBSs. As I've watched, and experienced, almost a two decades of computer gaming evolve, I've noticed a recent change. Sure, playing Dig Dug was *INITIALLY* just as addictive as WoW or any other MMOG today, but the big difference is that now there is a linear relationship between time spent playing and how addictive the game becomes. Most games prior to the popularization of MMOGs, although they provided a different experience each time you played, were essentially static. The contents of and intractability with the game were always the same, and thus ones ability to enjoy it remained constant. MMOGs become dangerous when ones ability to enjoy the game, at the same level as with other games, *REQUIRES* that the user spend a certain amount of time. While I spent a large amount of time beating the original Tie Fighter in my college dorm room as a freshman, I could, and did, walk away from it at any time and the game would remain just as enjoyable for when/if I came back.
Now, to be fair, there is merit in the introduction of dynamicity at the level that MMOGs provide. But like the introduction of most good things, those utilizing it tend to overdue it until a balance is found. The problem is when they set the bar dangerously high for their users, requiring them to play for an inordinate amount of time simply to enjoy it at a basic level.
I interviewed for a IE7 CSS job at Microsoft about four months ago. Coming from a web development background, I was curious as to how they would present their goals/problems with meeting CSS standards. I was well aware of the "code it to standard, view in IE, and cry" web development cycle.
One of the team leads (sorry don't know how high up of a team lead he was) actually said that often when people say IE is rendering something incorrectly it is actually IE that is doing it correctly while all of the other browsers are rendering it incorrectly. I could tell he was looking at how I would respond to that statement. I just sat there and didn't move. While in some cases that may be true, I knew that was an arrogant lie, and was just enough for me to stop caring about the interview. Needless to say, I didn't get the job. Fortunately, I had already interviewed for another job, which I've since been hired at, which is much better.
Two points here: 1- With team leads holding that kind of attitude (and touting it during interviews), no wonder IE is the quagmire it is. They're more used to making standards, not adhering to them. 2- Yes, recent college CS grads can find a job! I actually had 2 1/2 offers after only 4 interviews. Just develop your skill set (more than what they teach you in class) and learn how to communicate in *English* not just C, C++, Perl, etc.
How DARE Google provide information that others might possibly use to censor the content of sites they don't want to visit and which in no way hampers my ability to still continue to effectively use Google as my Trojan/Virus/Mal-ware/Porn/Ad-ware portal.[/sarcasim]
I'm all for the increase of providing users with link ratings. If Google, or anyone else for that matter, has information that can help users judge whether or not to visit a site, as long as it is moderated and ratings can be reversed if innacurate, then why not provide such information? Ratings, in any medium (AGAIN AS LONG AS THEY ARE MODERATED AND CAN BE REVERSED IF INNACURATE), do not constitute censorship but simply put control of participation into the hands of the audience, where it belongs, instead of the artist.
RealNetworks said Wednesday that it has agreed to a multiyear agreement to offer Mozilla's Firefox Web browser with downloads of its RealPlayer, Rhapsody and RealArcade software programs.
RealNetworks will be packaging Firefox with their software NOT the other way around. If anything, Firefox zealots should be happy about this as it means that Firefox will now be introduced to a larger number of people who otherwise may not have downloaded and installed Firefox on their own.
I REPEAT, THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT MOZILLA NOW PACKAGES REAL SOFTWARE WITH ITS PRODUCTS. IT IS THE OPPOSITE, REAL WILL NOW PACKAGE FIREFOX WITH THEIR PRODUCTS.
All of the locked door, stolen bike, and lawn analogies miss one important fact. 802.11 uses the radio spectrum. In the US we ALL own the radio spectrum, but "trust" the FCC to manage it.
The FCC says you can transmit on that band within X power. They also say if a a signal enters your reciever you can read it.
Together they imply you can join an unsecured network, because that person is allowing their equipment to broadcast, and recieve on open frequencies.
You hit the nail on the head. I think people too often overlook their OWN RESPONSIBILITY when they turn on their WIFI.
A slightly off thought I wanted to get out is that people often try to take your approach to unsecured servers. They figure that if the server is insecure and they get into then, as long as they don't harm anything, they are fully justified. There is a big difference between receiving/using transmissions that FEDERAL LAW ALLOWS US TO and purposefully (often forcibly) getting into someone else's server. Sorry for the analogy but, it is the same difference between picking up your neighbor's signal and entering their house (uninvited) to plug in an ethernet cable into their router.
What we need is a UN brokered solution to create an environment such that both MECOs and Black Holes can BOTH peacefully exist together in the universe. They'll have just as much success with this than they do with most of their other resolutions. It will be just as enforceable too.
[/offTopicRant]
If email encryption and certificates were a *STANDARD* feature by the major email clients (desktop and web based), then institutions could set a blanket policy that any email communication from them to their clients/customers must be encrypted and/or contain a digital certificate. Even better, these certificates could contain usage policies so that email clients could automatically filter/delete messages w/o the proper certificate or that don't follow stated policies.
The trick is that the user needs to be abstracted away from the encryption/signing process so that they understand the basics of what encryption/certificates are but can use them with with just a click or two.
A good example of taking security technologies and providing them to the user in a well abstracted form is TLS under HTTPS. IMHO, phishing would be drastically reduced if email encryption/certificates, along with usage policies, were as common and supported as TLS under HTTPS is today.
[Pre-rebuttle]I am not saying that this will solve ALL phishing scams. I'm just saying that there are technologies out there that, if commonly supported and intergreted into email clients/services, would greatly increase the difficulty of pulling off a phising scam.[/Pre-rebuttle]
Good point. Actually, the reason that knew how much the job paid is because it was a contract position (many of Microsoft's new hire positions are contract labor) and it was through a labor agency. They have had a long standing relationship with Microsoft and know how much different positions pay. My agent at the labor agency told me before hand.
I interviewed for a IE7 CSS job at Microsoft about two months ago. Coming from a web development background, I was curious as to how they would present their goals/problems with meeting CSS standards. I was well aware of the "code it to standard, view in IE, and cry" web development cycle.
One of the team leads (sorry don't know how high up of a team lead he was) actually said that often when people say IE is rendering something incorrectly it is actually IE that is doing it correctly while all of the other browsers are rendering it incorrectly. I could tell he was looking at how I would respond to that statement. I just sat there and didn't move. I knew that was an arrogant lie, and was just enough for me to stop caring about the interview. Needless to say, I didn't get the job. Fortunately, I had already interviewed for another job, which I've since been hired at, which is much MUCH better (pays more too).
Two points here people:
1- With team leads holding that kind of arrogant attitudem, no wonder IE is the quagmire it is. They're more used to making standards, not adhering to them.
2- Yes, recent college CS grads can find a job! I actually had 2 1/2 offers after only 4 interviews. Just develop your skill set (more than what they teach you in class) and learn how to communicate in *English* not just C, C++, Perl, etc.
I have an idea for a new distributed computing cause, BibleCode@Home. You can run it on your machine at home and upload your findings to the central fanatical Christian society server. Eventually, given enough computing time, they will be able to prove *anything* (no matter how ridiculous).
So, you're telling me that I have until Thursday night to talk to my lawyer about that AT&T van that's been sitting outside my house for the past week?
That's exactly my question. There's no problem with judges enforcing laws (that's their job!). The problem is who is defining these criteria and how do these criteria effect everyone.
Defining appropriate protection for minors from offensive material is a tough job.
Maybe I don't understand the full ramifications to this bill, but I simply don't see what is wrong with allowing "a **JUDGE** to rule on whether or not a videogame meets established criteria for being inappropriate for minors and be subsequently pulled from store shelves." Isn't that what a judge's job is--to *judge* if x-entity is adhering to pre-established criteria (read laws) and assign an appropriate pentaly? IMHO, this power should absolutely be in the hands of the judge. The REAL QUESTION is, "What are these 'criteria'?" The energy should be placed on establishing these criteria to balance freedom of expression with protection of minors, not on a judge's ability to enforce laws (that's a given).
I agree. I'm all for streamlined desktop environments that optimally use your computer's resources. But getting upset because the system requirements have increased is ridiculous. You can't expect every future version of your favorite desktop environment to always run on your POS, hand-me-down, frankenstien, computer you built with your dad 20 years ago in the garage.
Technology moves forward. Either you move along with it or you don't.
That said, for me it remains to be seen if Vista manages to "optimally use" computer resources. Until I try it out (on a computer that meets or exceeds the minimum requirements) the jury is still out on this one.
If the email doesn't give you instructions on how to NAVIGATE to a section of their webpage then don't follow the link. No matter how smart we all think we are, we can be tricked. The best thing to do is always start from the company's main page, then browse from there. That way if anything happens, you can blame it on their site.
That's what I tell my wife, who gets lots of phishing emails, and it seems to work. It doesn't matter if your bank says they're going to shutdown your account, if they can't take the time to call you personally, have you call them personally, have you visit personally, or tell you how to navigate to a portion of their site then it isn't that important.
I tell people the same thing with scam emails that purport to be from the police/FBI/etc. I figure if the authorities really need to get a hold of me they can to do it in person.
most religions are just social engineering scams designed to control the population and make people feel better about themselves at the expense of others^H^H non-believers.
I agree, many (not all) religions can only offer you happiness at the expense of others, whether that 'expense' is real or only in your mind.
Examples:
"I'm happy because I'm saved and others are going to hell."
"I'm happy because something bad happened to someone I feel is bad."
"I'm angry/scared/etc because someone discovered/invented something that I feel conflicts with my belief system."
My rule of thumb is that if part of your religion's *core* beliefs do not protect the freedom of others, then your religion is narrow-minded and destructive. Additionally, you must always remember true religion MUST be based on just that, truth. Basing it on anything else is undercutting your potential. On the flip side, we must also not dillute our minds to think that our current scientific processes are in and of themselves perfect and the ONLY way of discovering truth. It bothers me when I see people assume that whatever science tells us is absolute truth. There are plenty of examples of scientific theories later being proven false.
This is not to say that we must all dumb our selves down to complete moral relativism. There comes a point where we have to stay true to our beliefs and agree to disagree. But this disagreement should not threaten your beliefs or your happiness.
My point isn't that there are lots of chemicals released during sex or that sex is bad (I love it!). My point is that we sometimes overlook addictions simply because they don't involve injecting/consuming foreign chemicals. Video games are plenty capable of causing a surge in various chemicals produced by your own body. These levels are different for every person and aren't dangerous in and of themselves. What is dangerous is when you form a habit and your body depends on the constant production of certain chemicals.
The best way to stay clear of addictions you may be susceptible to is to look for patterns/trends in your life, be honest with yourself, and have honest supportive friends. If certain elements of your lifestyle prevent you from functioning normally then you have a problem no matter how harmless the activity may seem.
It's all about intended use. If a program does not properly work for its NORMAL INTENDED USE and was purchased commercially, then vendors should be held liable. However, if the product was used in a way in which it was not intended to be used, then there should be no liability.
If you press your brakes on a new car and they don't work, then the car manufacturer should be held accountable. However, if you drive your car through a building and the brake line gets severed causing the brakes not to work, then the car manufacturer cannot be held liable.
Of course, however, comming up with the definition of "intended use" can be quite difficult. That, and there still aren't any solid definitions for computer industry best practices so there's no legal way to tell if a company has applied due diligence to adhere to coding standards (don't get me started about that).
OSS, I think, should not be held liable except for malicious intent since it is distributed "as is".
...that it was only a matter of time until we started to see brain-to-machine mappings for communication. The possibilities are very exciting (coding with your brain anyone?). What scares me is when efforts are taken to have machine-to-brain communication. Call me crazy, but I prefer my own synapses to be the only source of thought in my brain. I don't even want to begin to think what it could happen when the machine segfaults (or gets hacked into) while injecting thoughts into my brain.
we still have to live on the same Internet as them
Wrong... We can create a.NUB (new-bie) domain extension and just stick them over there. These domains will run purely off of ActiveX and all user interfaces will be stripped away, allowing the server to make all the decision for the client.
Entry obligatory AMD zealot, "intel can't possibly make something better then AMD" comments here _______.
Seriously, I'm sick of the overly zealous statements when it comes to "OS vs. OS" "Company vs. Company" etc. debates. Why is it so threatening when another companies/organizations happen to produce something better than your favorite company/organization?
Sometimes intel will get it right and sometimes AMD will. Deal with it.
Ya, I know. This is probably eligible for flaimbait and/or troll mod points. Oh well, I just needed to get this off my chest.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm 25 (I know, I'm still a young'n), and I spent a large portion of my youth playing Atari (2600, 7800, ST), wolfenstien, doom, and cruising on different BBSs. As I've watched, and experienced, almost a two decades of computer gaming evolve, I've noticed a recent change. Sure, playing Dig Dug was *INITIALLY* just as addictive as WoW or any other MMOG today, but the big difference is that now there is a linear relationship between time spent playing and how addictive the game becomes. Most games prior to the popularization of MMOGs, although they provided a different experience each time you played, were essentially static. The contents of and intractability with the game were always the same, and thus ones ability to enjoy it remained constant. MMOGs become dangerous when ones ability to enjoy the game, at the same level as with other games, *REQUIRES* that the user spend a certain amount of time. While I spent a large amount of time beating the original Tie Fighter in my college dorm room as a freshman, I could, and did, walk away from it at any time and the game would remain just as enjoyable for when/if I came back.
Now, to be fair, there is merit in the introduction of dynamicity at the level that MMOGs provide. But like the introduction of most good things, those utilizing it tend to overdue it until a balance is found. The problem is when they set the bar dangerously high for their users, requiring them to play for an inordinate amount of time simply to enjoy it at a basic level.
I interviewed for a IE7 CSS job at Microsoft about four months ago. Coming from a web development background, I was curious as to how they would present their goals/problems with meeting CSS standards. I was well aware of the "code it to standard, view in IE, and cry" web development cycle.
One of the team leads (sorry don't know how high up of a team lead he was) actually said that often when people say IE is rendering something incorrectly it is actually IE that is doing it correctly while all of the other browsers are rendering it incorrectly. I could tell he was looking at how I would respond to that statement. I just sat there and didn't move. While in some cases that may be true, I knew that was an arrogant lie, and was just enough for me to stop caring about the interview. Needless to say, I didn't get the job. Fortunately, I had already interviewed for another job, which I've since been hired at, which is much better.
Two points here:
1- With team leads holding that kind of attitude (and touting it during interviews), no wonder IE is the quagmire it is. They're more used to making standards, not adhering to them.
2- Yes, recent college CS grads can find a job! I actually had 2 1/2 offers after only 4 interviews. Just develop your skill set (more than what they teach you in class) and learn how to communicate in *English* not just C, C++, Perl, etc.
How DARE Google provide information that others might possibly use to censor the content of sites they don't want to visit and which in no way hampers my ability to still continue to effectively use Google as my Trojan/Virus/Mal-ware/Porn/Ad-ware portal.[/sarcasim]
I'm all for the increase of providing users with link ratings. If Google, or anyone else for that matter, has information that can help users judge whether or not to visit a site, as long as it is moderated and ratings can be reversed if innacurate, then why not provide such information? Ratings, in any medium (AGAIN AS LONG AS THEY ARE MODERATED AND CAN BE REVERSED IF INNACURATE), do not constitute censorship but simply put control of participation into the hands of the audience, where it belongs, instead of the artist.
... think about it ;)
... no I mean the hill in Jerusalem ;)
I REPEAT, THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT MOZILLA NOW PACKAGES REAL SOFTWARE WITH ITS PRODUCTS. IT IS THE OPPOSITE, REAL WILL NOW PACKAGE FIREFOX WITH THEIR PRODUCTS.
Can we call off the Calvary now?
You hit the nail on the head. I think people too often overlook their OWN RESPONSIBILITY when they turn on their WIFI.
A slightly off thought I wanted to get out is that people often try to take your approach to unsecured servers. They figure that if the server is insecure and they get into then, as long as they don't harm anything, they are fully justified. There is a big difference between receiving/using transmissions that FEDERAL LAW ALLOWS US TO and purposefully (often forcibly) getting into someone else's server. Sorry for the analogy but, it is the same difference between picking up your neighbor's signal and entering their house (uninvited) to plug in an ethernet cable into their router.
What we need is a UN brokered solution to create an environment such that both MECOs and Black Holes can BOTH peacefully exist together in the universe. They'll have just as much success with this than they do with most of their other resolutions. It will be just as enforceable too.
[/offTopicRant]
...and I'll keep on saying it.
If email encryption and certificates were a *STANDARD* feature by the major email clients (desktop and web based), then institutions could set a blanket policy that any email communication from them to their clients/customers must be encrypted and/or contain a digital certificate. Even better, these certificates could contain usage policies so that email clients could automatically filter/delete messages w/o the proper certificate or that don't follow stated policies.
The trick is that the user needs to be abstracted away from the encryption/signing process so that they understand the basics of what encryption/certificates are but can use them with with just a click or two.
A good example of taking security technologies and providing them to the user in a well abstracted form is TLS under HTTPS. IMHO, phishing would be drastically reduced if email encryption/certificates, along with usage policies, were as common and supported as TLS under HTTPS is today.
[Pre-rebuttle]I am not saying that this will solve ALL phishing scams. I'm just saying that there are technologies out there that, if commonly supported and intergreted into email clients/services, would greatly increase the difficulty of pulling off a phising scam.[/Pre-rebuttle]
Intelligence and virture are not the same thing.
Though, they will solve this (and many other) problems when COMBINED.
Good point. Actually, the reason that knew how much the job paid is because it was a contract position (many of Microsoft's new hire positions are contract labor) and it was through a labor agency. They have had a long standing relationship with Microsoft and know how much different positions pay. My agent at the labor agency told me before hand.
I interviewed for a IE7 CSS job at Microsoft about two months ago. Coming from a web development background, I was curious as to how they would present their goals/problems with meeting CSS standards. I was well aware of the "code it to standard, view in IE, and cry" web development cycle.
One of the team leads (sorry don't know how high up of a team lead he was) actually said that often when people say IE is rendering something incorrectly it is actually IE that is doing it correctly while all of the other browsers are rendering it incorrectly. I could tell he was looking at how I would respond to that statement. I just sat there and didn't move. I knew that was an arrogant lie, and was just enough for me to stop caring about the interview. Needless to say, I didn't get the job. Fortunately, I had already interviewed for another job, which I've since been hired at, which is much MUCH better (pays more too).
Two points here people:
1- With team leads holding that kind of arrogant attitudem, no wonder IE is the quagmire it is. They're more used to making standards, not adhering to them.
2- Yes, recent college CS grads can find a job! I actually had 2 1/2 offers after only 4 interviews. Just develop your skill set (more than what they teach you in class) and learn how to communicate in *English* not just C, C++, Perl, etc.
I have an idea for a new distributed computing cause, BibleCode@Home. You can run it on your machine at home and upload your findings to the central fanatical Christian society server. Eventually, given enough computing time, they will be able to prove *anything* (no matter how ridiculous).
How long before the first emacs zealot creates the 3-button keybindings for this device?
So, you're telling me that I have until Thursday night to talk to my lawyer about that AT&T van that's been sitting outside my house for the past week?
That's exactly my question. There's no problem with judges enforcing laws (that's their job!). The problem is who is defining these criteria and how do these criteria effect everyone.
Defining appropriate protection for minors from offensive material is a tough job.
Maybe I don't understand the full ramifications to this bill, but I simply don't see what is wrong with allowing "a **JUDGE** to rule on whether or not a videogame meets established criteria for being inappropriate for minors and be subsequently pulled from store shelves." Isn't that what a judge's job is--to *judge* if x-entity is adhering to pre-established criteria (read laws) and assign an appropriate pentaly? IMHO, this power should absolutely be in the hands of the judge. The REAL QUESTION is, "What are these 'criteria'?" The energy should be placed on establishing these criteria to balance freedom of expression with protection of minors, not on a judge's ability to enforce laws (that's a given).
I agree. I'm all for streamlined desktop environments that optimally use your computer's resources. But getting upset because the system requirements have increased is ridiculous. You can't expect every future version of your favorite desktop environment to always run on your POS, hand-me-down, frankenstien, computer you built with your dad 20 years ago in the garage.
Technology moves forward. Either you move along with it or you don't.
That said, for me it remains to be seen if Vista manages to "optimally use" computer resources. Until I try it out (on a computer that meets or exceeds the minimum requirements) the jury is still out on this one.
If the email doesn't give you instructions on how to NAVIGATE to a section of their webpage then don't follow the link. No matter how smart we all think we are, we can be tricked. The best thing to do is always start from the company's main page, then browse from there. That way if anything happens, you can blame it on their site.
That's what I tell my wife, who gets lots of phishing emails, and it seems to work. It doesn't matter if your bank says they're going to shutdown your account, if they can't take the time to call you personally, have you call them personally, have you visit personally, or tell you how to navigate to a portion of their site then it isn't that important.
I tell people the same thing with scam emails that purport to be from the police/FBI/etc. I figure if the authorities really need to get a hold of me they can to do it in person.
I agree, many (not all) religions can only offer you happiness at the expense of others, whether that 'expense' is real or only in your mind.
Examples:
"I'm happy because I'm saved and others are going to hell."
"I'm happy because something bad happened to someone I feel is bad."
"I'm angry/scared/etc because someone discovered/invented something that I feel conflicts with my belief system."
My rule of thumb is that if part of your religion's *core* beliefs do not protect the freedom of others, then your religion is narrow-minded and destructive. Additionally, you must always remember true religion MUST be based on just that, truth. Basing it on anything else is undercutting your potential. On the flip side, we must also not dillute our minds to think that our current scientific processes are in and of themselves perfect and the ONLY way of discovering truth. It bothers me when I see people assume that whatever science tells us is absolute truth. There are plenty of examples of scientific theories later being proven false.
This is not to say that we must all dumb our selves down to complete moral relativism. There comes a point where we have to stay true to our beliefs and agree to disagree. But this disagreement should not threaten your beliefs or your happiness.
To borrow a line from the Matrix series:
Commander Lock: Dammit, Morpheus. Not everyone believes what you believe.
Morpheus: My beliefs do not require them to.
...its own addictive chemicals. Take a look at the following chemicals released into the brain during sex:
Dopamine
Norepinephrine
Testosterone
Oxytocin
My point isn't that there are lots of chemicals released during sex or that sex is bad (I love it!). My point is that we sometimes overlook addictions simply because they don't involve injecting/consuming foreign chemicals. Video games are plenty capable of causing a surge in various chemicals produced by your own body. These levels are different for every person and aren't dangerous in and of themselves. What is dangerous is when you form a habit and your body depends on the constant production of certain chemicals.
The best way to stay clear of addictions you may be susceptible to is to look for patterns/trends in your life, be honest with yourself, and have honest supportive friends. If certain elements of your lifestyle prevent you from functioning normally then you have a problem no matter how harmless the activity may seem.
It's all about intended use. If a program does not properly work for its NORMAL INTENDED USE and was purchased commercially, then vendors should be held liable. However, if the product was used in a way in which it was not intended to be used, then there should be no liability.
If you press your brakes on a new car and they don't work, then the car manufacturer should be held accountable. However, if you drive your car through a building and the brake line gets severed causing the brakes not to work, then the car manufacturer cannot be held liable.
Of course, however, comming up with the definition of "intended use" can be quite difficult. That, and there still aren't any solid definitions for computer industry best practices so there's no legal way to tell if a company has applied due diligence to adhere to coding standards (don't get me started about that).
OSS, I think, should not be held liable except for malicious intent since it is distributed "as is".
...that it was only a matter of time until we started to see brain-to-machine mappings for communication. The possibilities are very exciting (coding with your brain anyone?). What scares me is when efforts are taken to have machine-to-brain communication. Call me crazy, but I prefer my own synapses to be the only source of thought in my brain. I don't even want to begin to think what it could happen when the machine segfaults (or gets hacked into) while injecting thoughts into my brain.
Entry obligatory AMD zealot, "intel can't possibly make something better then AMD" comments here _______.
Seriously, I'm sick of the overly zealous statements when it comes to "OS vs. OS" "Company vs. Company" etc. debates. Why is it so threatening when another companies/organizations happen to produce something better than your favorite company/organization?
Sometimes intel will get it right and sometimes AMD will. Deal with it.
Ya, I know. This is probably eligible for flaimbait and/or troll mod points. Oh well, I just needed to get this off my chest.