Corn based ethanol is certainly not a good deal. Our subsidies are so high that, should they disappear (another topic entirely), ethanol would be dead. Sugar (i.e. sugar beets, sugar cane) produces a much more energy-dense ethanol, but we are up against the corn lobby (yes, there is one) in making that transition.
An interesting read, regardless. I do believe that most oil companies are aware of environmental concerns, though most will not agree as to how successful (or sincere) they are. As a business person, it would make sense for the traditional oil companies to get their hands in the ethanol coffers (ahem, I mean, business) sooner rather than later.
Ethanol may not be the be-all-end-all of fuels, but it would be a heck of a lot better (as a renewable resources) than relying solely on petroleum.
But would a true gonzo journalist clear the hurdle of political correctness?
I know the gonzo journalist wouldn't care (heck, most of you would likely say the gonzo was non-gonzo if concerned about PC), but so many in society today don't want to offend anyone. Have we innoculated ourselves against strong opinions by raising a generation that believes that hurting someone else's feelings is tantamount to murder?
Remember what is was like to go out to eat in the non-chain world? If you wanted a burger, you went to this place. If you wanted fish and chips, you went to that place. The whole blogosphere has done to media what chain restaurants did to food. There are now too many choices, and no one knows what to order. Dang! I sure wish McDonalds had stuck with burgers, fries, and shakes. No, I don't want six kinds of chicken and salads and whatnot. When I go to McDonalds, I want an artery-clogging burger. When I want fried catfish (and I'm in Chicago), I go to Fish Port. When I want an Italian Beef sandwhich near St. Paul, I go to Ziggys.
With millions of bloggers out there, and so many of them trying to duplicate everyone else's "menu", I find it easier to ignore them all and eat in (i.e., surf, read, research, and come to my opinions--very rare these days--something like cooking from scratch).
I agree. I think the need is not for another HST per se, but for another unique and authoritative voice.
It's amazing...for all of the choice and diversity of opinion available on the Net, people return to wanting one person to tell them what is good or not, or what products are worthy and which are not.
Sure, anyone can post their opinions on the web. I don't believe that is the point, however.
Yes, we can now log on read any number of opinions from any number of "experts". We can develop our own short list of sites and blogs that we use when cultivating our thoughts. That is the benefit of the Internet, but I believe that the author would also see that as its Achilles' Heel.
Finding a strong voice that captures the attention of many, inside and outside of the primary subculture, is something that helps bring people together. It gives them a common point of reference, a little piece of particularistic comembership, that makes it easier to establish a relationship. The other party, upon referencing this common thread (e.g., a common reviewer), immediately has a point of connection with us. Discussion may ensue, and society continues to grow based on realtionships and interconnections. [That is not to sugges that Internet relationships have no substance or value; I believe that a qualitative analysis of online friendships vs. in-the-flesh relationships would, however, demonstrate that virutal relationships cannot provide all of the same benefits of in-the-flesh relationships in many situations.]
If you've ever viewed '50s TV and movies, there's a common housewife stereotype: the stay-at-home mom who spends much time on the phone. I believe that the Internet, for many, has simply replaced the phone as a point of connection (while acknowledging it also provides many more content channels than simple communications), just as the phone supplanted talking over the back fence or visiting someone over tea. People have not entirely abandoned any of these avenues of communication, although trends seem to demonstrate a continued (and long term) shift away from personal, in-the-flesh interactions to those facilitated remotely via phone, IM, text message, and eventually videophone and virtual presence (projected hollography). We have similarly seen a decline in the old fashioned letter now that so many use email. There are pros and cons to for each, and I do not want to dive into a specific position on any of them here...
It is not that these points of connection are entirely absent now, but rather that the focus of these connections is less likely to be a person and more likely to be a service or technology. Instead of talking about a reviewer's column, people, whether music-philes or not, are talking about iPods. Even people who do not have (or do not extensively use) the Internet have conversations about the Web, security risks (often framed in the sense of "that's why I don't use the Internet"), or the site-du-jour (e.g., MySpace, [in its time] eBay).
Many smaller computer shops will only sell you a copy with a qualifying hardware purchase--in most cases, a case mounting screw (for around $0.06 USD) will suffice.
I'm sure it is not what Micro$oft intended, but I've not seen their legal team beating down the doors of any Minneapolis/St. Paul computer shops where this happens...
I do think you're on to something here, in the need to define limits to the technology, but nothing would limit us from implementing a different set of expectations based on real science. In other words, we would just need to create a game that agrees with itself, and leave the real world out of it.
In my early RPG days, beam weapons were a real drag. I imposed limits--cycle times, maximum charges, etc.--to help keep the game balanced. Hey, just because ray guns exist doesn't mean that everyone can even afford one!
I still think that designing and implementing a good sci-fi MMORPG is possible. It just needs to be developed from the ground up, so it can be made balanced and playable at all levels.
One other aspect I've not seen addressed thus far is time. If interstellar travel will be involved, how do you synch up with other events in the game world. Sure, you can hop on a transport, spend six days (or six years!) in a cryo-sleep chamber, but then your character is potentially ahead of all of the other players (or they are all behind). The time paradox of such a game would be interesting to study in and of itself.
Well, if they do come out with a MMO sci-fi game, I want to develop a character who can troubleshoot and repair other players' devices (guns, computers, ships...you name it). Then, I can charge the players uber-amounts of in game credits or currency for my services. After about six months of marathon gaming, I'll sell the character and all of his cash on eBay, pay off my house, and sit around playing fantasy games for the rest of my life...
Thinking back on my earliest fantasy game experiences (heck, even my earliest RPG experiences, for that matter), they were basically hack and slash. AD&D and its kin developed to a level where real campaigns could be organized--some central theme or idea that would pull all of the diverse adventures or componnents together. I've DMed both fantasy and sci-fi systems (I really loved Traveller in the sci-fi arena), and it can be much more difficult to pull together a sci-fi campaign (in my case, perhaps because I read more fantasy as a kid). The other thing that comes to mind in this regard is that most fantasy worlds (and by this I mean no disrespect--I'm sure there are tremendously unique realms out there that defy my characterization) are just an attempt to reimagine a fabled past--they play out on the stories and fairy tales that were told around the world. For sci-fi, it requires the development of something completely different to stand out, otherwise the worlds look much like our own present-day one, but with better technologies and some different (alien) races. The plots and stories I've encountered in much sci-fi RPGing are reflections of our modern age--mega corporations, organized crime--or references to those fairy tale roots (e.g., rescue the damsel in distress).
I believe that any of the "canned" sci-fi environments (e.g. Star Trek, Star Wars, Stargate) could be made into a MMO experience, but it would take some real conceptual work to develop a highly playable system that does not become a giant shootout in every corridor.
One game I did enjoy in the past, though not MMO, was the old play-by-email game VGA Planets. It certainly was only a strategy game, but when you were playing your turn files as a result of the actions of the other players, the experience was always fascinating. Perhaps one avenue to approach making sci-fi more MMO-friendly would be to create a defacto adversarial condition--where some conflicts are deliberately staged between parties to get the universe going. Then, once immersed in the world, the dynamics should be able to maintain the mythos and the virtual worlds. In most canned sci-fienvironments, the adversarial roles are already defined (e.g., Romulans vs. Federation, Rebels vs. Empire, Goa'uld vs. Tok'ra/SG-teams). You may end up with a majority of people playing on one side, ensuring an unbalanced game. You could use AI for the agitant, but that would become old quickly.
Imagine a MMO sci-fi game that starts on a single world/planet (server). In time, as others are added to the mix, new worlds (servers) are discovered. Interactions begin to take place. Conflict arise. Players could interact with their own world, or choose to travel to other worlds. What if there were a search for some sort of ancient artifact (e.g., a 14.4 fax-modem!), or for some amazing power supply? An SG-1 game world would support this kind of environment, with new worlds beyond every gate address. Take a more traditional VGA Planets approach, and you have a need to expand to other worlds to gather resources or establish colonies (sorry, no stinking Prime Directive here).
Ah! I've caught myself rambling again. Anyway, I think it's possible. You just need to get the right creative minds together to make it happen.
I agree that nothing is safe, and I will concede that home users don't need to get in a huff over this, but I disagree that the smaller target (whether linux, or Mac, or smart phone) makes for an acceptable risk.
Were I intent on getting into an enterprise's information systems today, I would be targeting attacks specifically at systems people will assume are "safer".
The days of brute force attacks against the front gate are dwindling. Unless the frontal assault is a distraction for the orcs in the tunnel, that is...
It won't be long (imo) before the first successful attacks are carried out.
Absolutely true! I just wish I could package a pill that would give executives a dose of healthy paranoia.
Of course, on the converse, I would also like to have a pill (or hammer) to use when they are using baseless fears as an excuse to inhibit technological progress (e.g. the "all wireless is evil" approach).
CA said criminals do not have an economic incentive to develop malicious code and...
I spend a good number of my waking hours working with tech auditors who look at financial institutions and big firms. Saying that there is no economic incentive to develop malicious code (even if only limiting the argument to mobile devices) is absurd. Script kiddies will still wreak periodic havoc, but fear the coder who can't make ends meet (especially in the former soviet block) and sells out to organized crime interests.
If anything, F-Secure is sounding a warning. Mobile viruses may not be the primary attack vector now, but with smart devices ever increasing (and a propensity of some executives to store everything on them, including passwords), it makes sense to stir up a little fear in the hope of preventing future harm.
Fear is not bad if it is founded in reality. I've seen enough reality to know that this fear is warranted.
You likely posted this tongue-in-cheek, but it does raise an issue that may not be clear for some. Copying of albums (or even CDs, for that matter) to cassette tape was considered fair use (and was codified as such in the Copyright Act of 1983) as long as the tapes were not sold--they had to be given away (or, if memory serves correctly, minimal costs could only be recouped for the actual cost of creating the tape). These recordings did not worry the recording industry to a great degree because there would always be some signal degredation with analog media. Not until CD-to-CD recording (in reality, digital-to-digital recording) was possible did they start pushing to move this "fair use" into the realm of criminality, since they feared that these "perfect" digital copies would undercut their primary sales platform.
I challenge RIAA to adopt a compromise position. Allow anyone to make copies of their music, so long as the sampling rate is significantly below CD quality. Most of the MP3s I rip (from CDs which I own) are created using FM-radio quality. I enjoy the benefits of the smaller file size, and the RIAA can never claim I was making "perfect" copies that undercut their sales platform.
Unfortunately, the deliberate pirates, the real bozos who screwed it up for the rest of us are the ones they should target, not users who want backup copies of their music or the ability to play back on a variety of devices. In the past week alone, I know of two people who purchased CDs based on singles I played back for them that were ripped from a CD I own.
There may be a free music scene, and you may be able to get *some* people to adopt that model, but the ones who need to be reached are the up-and-coming musicians. When they finally get noticed by a talent scout, agent, or label, all they can see through the paperwork is the promise of paychecks and royalties.
Sure, there will always be some purists who pursue the art form for its own sake, but there are too many out there who want success and will sign contracts without thinking about file sharing, RIAA/copy protection, you, or me.
My statement regarding adjusted costs for fuel still hold true. Just because we (typical consumers) didn't plan for price increases that were bound to come around (old enough to remember the energy crisis in the '70s?) does not change the facts. Yes, it hurts to pay twice as much at the pump today than you paid last year (gas here was nowhere near half of today's prices last year), but it was a forseeable event.
Continued fuel price increases will make a difference, but not so much as some would hope (the US will never be car free, or even close to it). In some housing markets, migration trends are reversing. People are giving up on their long commutes and moving into urban cores, nearest to their jobs. For me, I'm leaving the city, with plans to work in the small town economy. Change is not impossible, and it's not as difficult as it may seem.
As to electric car safety, they would not be on the road if they did not meet minimum safety standards. That said, I would not want to be in a subcompact (gas, hybrid, or electric) if I was going to be hit by an SUV...
We are not "virtually required to have a car." We choose to have cars and then justify our choices by stating that living here without a car is nigh impossible.
Most of us can bike or walk, whether in smaller communities or large cities, and city dwellers do have mass transit options. We make choices regarding our homes, jobs, and services (e.g. doctors, dentists, shopping), and we make choices about our transportation as well. Most Americans prefer cars and the mobility they afford over biking or walking, or other modes of transit (where available). It was not long ago that people stayed relatively close to their place of birth, and most end-user/consumer commerce was local. People once lived their entire lives within a single city, county, or region [I'm not saying that this is either good or bad]. The train, automobile, and airplane have brought recent generations a level of mobility that is unprecedented. And, during this short time, we have come to believe that such mobility is a natural part of life rather than a chosen lifestyle.
As stated in a reply to another comment, our (US) gas prices are, adjusted for inflation, at their lowest level in decades. In my opinion, gas prices are not yet high enough (and, no, I'm not a tree-hugging liberal). When prices hit $5-7 (US) per gallon (provided it is in the next year or two), maybe other US residents will start to examine their transportation choices and we will see some changes. Until that happens, the American infatuation with the car will continue.
You are entitled to your opinion, but I am offended by some of your comments. I'm saddened that your experience with other North Americans leads you to believe this one negative stereotype reflects all of us.
While I'll concede that the poor in North America (especially the US) are wealthier than most of the world, I cannot agree that we all make too much money. The value of income is relative to the cost of living. Earning $10 per hour in a rural area of the United States may allow someone to live comfortably (if the money is well managed and one's expectations are not too high), but it would leave someone without housing in most of our urban areas. In the US, (most) people can make lifestyle choices regarding their income and spending habits. My family chose to have only a single earner, so one of us could be the primary care giver for our children (no, our primary earner does not have a six-figure salary). We could have opted for two incomes, but chose not to do so. We've never bought a new car (most of our cars have cost less than $2000), and we don't have cable/satellite TV, a cabin, or a variety of personal toys (e.g. JetSkis, snowmobiles, boats). We buy used furniture and second-hand clothing, and we try to help our neighbors when we can. Most of my contemporaries have opted for "the good life" (as they see it) which includes all of those extras that people somehow think demonstrate that they have "arrived." To me, it's just more stuff to worry about, fix, and fuss over. If somone eggs my car, I won't like it, but I won't get bent out of shape about it either. If I lend a tool to a neighbor and it never returns, I'll figure they needed it more than I needed it. Sure, it's counter-cultural in the US, but there's more to life than just the accumulation of stuff.
As to gas prices, I'll recommend talking to folks in Europe. We've had (and, adjusted for inflation, still have) some of the cheapest gas prices on record.
As to Cabbage Patch Kids, Tickle Me Elmo, and all sorts of other unnecessary items that consumers deceive themselves into believing are needs rather than wants, all I can say is: they are just that--unnecessary. Little Johnnie won't die if he doesn't get his Elmo. Little Suzie didn't die when she didn't get her Cabbage Patch Kid. As a parent, if my kids really wanted one of the items-du-jour that carried the rediculous "supply and demand" prices, we just skipped it. Perhaps we might consider it after the craze died down (if our child was still interested, and if it was within budget). Supply and demand isn't a perfect system. I've always said that if someone is dumb enough to pay the price, someone will be smart enough to charge it.
As to the American people being "too bitter, proud and stupid to want our neighbours to get a discount on it too," I can only say that you are wrong. At least in my circles. When I find bargains, I inform my friends. I might even purchase something for one of them if I know it is something for which they were looking. If your neighbors fit the description you provide, then perhaps its time to look at moving to another community or neighborhood...
Respectfully yours,
Andrew James Riemer St. Paul, Minnesota a.k.a. HikingStick
Yeah, wouldn't the real bargain be had by the same 500 or more buyers if they cut out the retailer entirely and just ordered from the manufacturer or wholesaler? Isn't that just an old fashioned "buyers' club" like those still organized and used around the US (mostly for grocery purchases)?
A bargain is only a bargain if you were planning to purchase the item (or spend the money) anyway. Otherwise, it's just another example of buying for buying's sake...
I can imagine another weakness, in cases where the merchant is aware that the mob is coming: phony markups prior to arrival. Inflate the price a few percent before the group arrives, then when they get their discount, the discount is not as large as the customers perceive it to be.
Such practices are (ttbomk) illegal in the US, but would be hard to prove. If the concepts grows further in China, it will be interesting to see if merchants start building in a bigger margin in anticipation of such tactics. If they do that (an across the board margin increase rather than creating a phony markup on a single item or group of items to create the impression of a sale), then we all may end up paying higher prices.
Perhaps its their spin doctors then. I've read numerous feeds and interviews that have FBI folks stating that (to the effect of) making a bit-copy is technically difficult and unlikely. All I'm stating is that making such a copy is not difficult for a would-be attacker, and would be the preferred method if they planned for the laptop to be "found" after a period of absence.
What frightens me most is that they surmise that making a bit copy would be unlikely, difficult, or technically compex (I've read the government's view on this from numerous sources). My six year old can do it. This is like assigning nearsighted guards to the top of a town's wall without corrective lenses: "yeah, sure, there are people out there--or are they animals? or maybe bushes?--either way they don't look threatening."
Facebook itself is not protected. If I understand correctly, the argument for 1st Amendment protection is that these students have a right to free expression (as currently interepreted as an extension of freedom of the press). That right to free expression would include allowing a student to voluntarily post information to sites like facebook.
Other/.ers have hashed all the arguments for or against this action, especially the retroactive nature, so I'll not weigh in on those angles. A contract could have been written with lifestyle provisions that did not specifically reference facebook; now all the athletes need do is find some other alternate form of expression that is not otherwise prohibited.
I'm just not sure if the school was trying to modify student behavior, or simply protect its reputation from possibly being besmirched.
Overall, I wonder what will happen when this becomes commonplace in other arenas. How about an employer sending out an HR notice stating that anyone revealing illegal activity through a blog or similar site will be fired? After all, the company's reputation is on the line...
I wrestle with this one. I see a need to allow citizens to maintain their privacy, but I also see the desire for businesses to protect their reputations. Rather than barring the service altogether, including a lifestyle clause (for future groups--not retroactive) would be a better option. Services will change, but not the underlying behavior without an understanding of the consequences for making certain choices.
I used to carry service contracts with a number of big houses, and one of them had a contractual requirement for ties to be worn for their high-end network service calls. Many times it made sense--at banks, insurance companies, and the like, but I knew it was overkill when I was sent out to a John Deer farm implement dealer location in the boonies.
Slashdot Mirror
Corn based ethanol is certainly not a good deal. Our subsidies are so high that, should they disappear (another topic entirely), ethanol would be dead. Sugar (i.e. sugar beets, sugar cane) produces a much more energy-dense ethanol, but we are up against the corn lobby (yes, there is one) in making that transition.
An interesting read, regardless. I do believe that most oil companies are aware of environmental concerns, though most will not agree as to how successful (or sincere) they are. As a business person, it would make sense for the traditional oil companies to get their hands in the ethanol coffers (ahem, I mean, business) sooner rather than later.
Ethanol may not be the be-all-end-all of fuels, but it would be a heck of a lot better (as a renewable resources) than relying solely on petroleum.
But would a true gonzo journalist clear the hurdle of political correctness?
I know the gonzo journalist wouldn't care (heck, most of you would likely say the gonzo was non-gonzo if concerned about PC), but so many in society today don't want to offend anyone. Have we innoculated ourselves against strong opinions by raising a generation that believes that hurting someone else's feelings is tantamount to murder?
Remember what is was like to go out to eat in the non-chain world? If you wanted a burger, you went to this place. If you wanted fish and chips, you went to that place. The whole blogosphere has done to media what chain restaurants did to food. There are now too many choices, and no one knows what to order. Dang! I sure wish McDonalds had stuck with burgers, fries, and shakes. No, I don't want six kinds of chicken and salads and whatnot. When I go to McDonalds, I want an artery-clogging burger. When I want fried catfish (and I'm in Chicago), I go to Fish Port. When I want an Italian Beef sandwhich near St. Paul, I go to Ziggys.
With millions of bloggers out there, and so many of them trying to duplicate everyone else's "menu", I find it easier to ignore them all and eat in (i.e., surf, read, research, and come to my opinions--very rare these days--something like cooking from scratch).
I agree. I think the need is not for another HST per se, but for another unique and authoritative voice.
It's amazing...for all of the choice and diversity of opinion available on the Net, people return to wanting one person to tell them what is good or not, or what products are worthy and which are not.
Sure, anyone can post their opinions on the web. I don't believe that is the point, however.
Yes, we can now log on read any number of opinions from any number of "experts". We can develop our own short list of sites and blogs that we use when cultivating our thoughts. That is the benefit of the Internet, but I believe that the author would also see that as its Achilles' Heel.
Finding a strong voice that captures the attention of many, inside and outside of the primary subculture, is something that helps bring people together. It gives them a common point of reference, a little piece of particularistic comembership, that makes it easier to establish a relationship. The other party, upon referencing this common thread (e.g., a common reviewer), immediately has a point of connection with us. Discussion may ensue, and society continues to grow based on realtionships and interconnections. [That is not to sugges that Internet relationships have no substance or value; I believe that a qualitative analysis of online friendships vs. in-the-flesh relationships would, however, demonstrate that virutal relationships cannot provide all of the same benefits of in-the-flesh relationships in many situations.]
If you've ever viewed '50s TV and movies, there's a common housewife stereotype: the stay-at-home mom who spends much time on the phone. I believe that the Internet, for many, has simply replaced the phone as a point of connection (while acknowledging it also provides many more content channels than simple communications), just as the phone supplanted talking over the back fence or visiting someone over tea. People have not entirely abandoned any of these avenues of communication, although trends seem to demonstrate a continued (and long term) shift away from personal, in-the-flesh interactions to those facilitated remotely via phone, IM, text message, and eventually videophone and virtual presence (projected hollography). We have similarly seen a decline in the old fashioned letter now that so many use email. There are pros and cons to for each, and I do not want to dive into a specific position on any of them here...
It is not that these points of connection are entirely absent now, but rather that the focus of these connections is less likely to be a person and more likely to be a service or technology. Instead of talking about a reviewer's column, people, whether music-philes or not, are talking about iPods. Even people who do not have (or do not extensively use) the Internet have conversations about the Web, security risks (often framed in the sense of "that's why I don't use the Internet"), or the site-du-jour (e.g., MySpace, [in its time] eBay).
Many smaller computer shops will only sell you a copy with a qualifying hardware purchase--in most cases, a case mounting screw (for around $0.06 USD) will suffice.
I'm sure it is not what Micro$oft intended, but I've not seen their legal team beating down the doors of any Minneapolis/St. Paul computer shops where this happens...
I do think you're on to something here, in the need to define limits to the technology, but nothing would limit us from implementing a different set of expectations based on real science. In other words, we would just need to create a game that agrees with itself, and leave the real world out of it.
In my early RPG days, beam weapons were a real drag. I imposed limits--cycle times, maximum charges, etc.--to help keep the game balanced. Hey, just because ray guns exist doesn't mean that everyone can even afford one!
I still think that designing and implementing a good sci-fi MMORPG is possible. It just needs to be developed from the ground up, so it can be made balanced and playable at all levels.
One other aspect I've not seen addressed thus far is time. If interstellar travel will be involved, how do you synch up with other events in the game world. Sure, you can hop on a transport, spend six days (or six years!) in a cryo-sleep chamber, but then your character is potentially ahead of all of the other players (or they are all behind). The time paradox of such a game would be interesting to study in and of itself.
Well, if they do come out with a MMO sci-fi game, I want to develop a character who can troubleshoot and repair other players' devices (guns, computers, ships...you name it). Then, I can charge the players uber-amounts of in game credits or currency for my services. After about six months of marathon gaming, I'll sell the character and all of his cash on eBay, pay off my house, and sit around playing fantasy games for the rest of my life...
...is this the fantasy?
Wait...
I do think you're on to something here...
Thinking back on my earliest fantasy game experiences (heck, even my earliest RPG experiences, for that matter), they were basically hack and slash. AD&D and its kin developed to a level where real campaigns could be organized--some central theme or idea that would pull all of the diverse adventures or componnents together. I've DMed both fantasy and sci-fi systems (I really loved Traveller in the sci-fi arena), and it can be much more difficult to pull together a sci-fi campaign (in my case, perhaps because I read more fantasy as a kid). The other thing that comes to mind in this regard is that most fantasy worlds (and by this I mean no disrespect--I'm sure there are tremendously unique realms out there that defy my characterization) are just an attempt to reimagine a fabled past--they play out on the stories and fairy tales that were told around the world. For sci-fi, it requires the development of something completely different to stand out, otherwise the worlds look much like our own present-day one, but with better technologies and some different (alien) races. The plots and stories I've encountered in much sci-fi RPGing are reflections of our modern age--mega corporations, organized crime--or references to those fairy tale roots (e.g., rescue the damsel in distress).
I believe that any of the "canned" sci-fi environments (e.g. Star Trek, Star Wars, Stargate) could be made into a MMO experience, but it would take some real conceptual work to develop a highly playable system that does not become a giant shootout in every corridor.
One game I did enjoy in the past, though not MMO, was the old play-by-email game VGA Planets. It certainly was only a strategy game, but when you were playing your turn files as a result of the actions of the other players, the experience was always fascinating. Perhaps one avenue to approach making sci-fi more MMO-friendly would be to create a defacto adversarial condition--where some conflicts are deliberately staged between parties to get the universe going. Then, once immersed in the world, the dynamics should be able to maintain the mythos and the virtual worlds. In most canned sci-fienvironments, the adversarial roles are already defined (e.g., Romulans vs. Federation, Rebels vs. Empire, Goa'uld vs. Tok'ra/SG-teams). You may end up with a majority of people playing on one side, ensuring an unbalanced game. You could use AI for the agitant, but that would become old quickly.
Imagine a MMO sci-fi game that starts on a single world/planet (server). In time, as others are added to the mix, new worlds (servers) are discovered. Interactions begin to take place. Conflict arise. Players could interact with their own world, or choose to travel to other worlds. What if there were a search for some sort of ancient artifact (e.g., a 14.4 fax-modem!), or for some amazing power supply? An SG-1 game world would support this kind of environment, with new worlds beyond every gate address. Take a more traditional VGA Planets approach, and you have a need to expand to other worlds to gather resources or establish colonies (sorry, no stinking Prime Directive here).
Ah! I've caught myself rambling again. Anyway, I think it's possible. You just need to get the right creative minds together to make it happen.
HikingStick
I concede that point. I agree. It is much easier to malign a competitor than to stand on one's own merits.
Point well made.
I agree that nothing is safe, and I will concede that home users don't need to get in a huff over this, but I disagree that the smaller target (whether linux, or Mac, or smart phone) makes for an acceptable risk.
Were I intent on getting into an enterprise's information systems today, I would be targeting attacks specifically at systems people will assume are "safer".
The days of brute force attacks against the front gate are dwindling. Unless the frontal assault is a distraction for the orcs in the tunnel, that is...
It won't be long (imo) before the first successful attacks are carried out.
Absolutely true! I just wish I could package a pill that would give executives a dose of healthy paranoia.
Of course, on the converse, I would also like to have a pill (or hammer) to use when they are using baseless fears as an excuse to inhibit technological progress (e.g. the "all wireless is evil" approach).
If anything, F-Secure is sounding a warning. Mobile viruses may not be the primary attack vector now, but with smart devices ever increasing (and a propensity of some executives to store everything on them, including passwords), it makes sense to stir up a little fear in the hope of preventing future harm.
Fear is not bad if it is founded in reality. I've seen enough reality to know that this fear is warranted.
You likely posted this tongue-in-cheek, but it does raise an issue that may not be clear for some. Copying of albums (or even CDs, for that matter) to cassette tape was considered fair use (and was codified as such in the Copyright Act of 1983) as long as the tapes were not sold--they had to be given away (or, if memory serves correctly, minimal costs could only be recouped for the actual cost of creating the tape). These recordings did not worry the recording industry to a great degree because there would always be some signal degredation with analog media. Not until CD-to-CD recording (in reality, digital-to-digital recording) was possible did they start pushing to move this "fair use" into the realm of criminality, since they feared that these "perfect" digital copies would undercut their primary sales platform.
I challenge RIAA to adopt a compromise position. Allow anyone to make copies of their music, so long as the sampling rate is significantly below CD quality. Most of the MP3s I rip (from CDs which I own) are created using FM-radio quality. I enjoy the benefits of the smaller file size, and the RIAA can never claim I was making "perfect" copies that undercut their sales platform.
Unfortunately, the deliberate pirates, the real bozos who screwed it up for the rest of us are the ones they should target, not users who want backup copies of their music or the ability to play back on a variety of devices. In the past week alone, I know of two people who purchased CDs based on singles I played back for them that were ripped from a CD I own.
There may be a free music scene, and you may be able to get *some* people to adopt that model, but the ones who need to be reached are the up-and-coming musicians. When they finally get noticed by a talent scout, agent, or label, all they can see through the paperwork is the promise of paychecks and royalties.
Sure, there will always be some purists who pursue the art form for its own sake, but there are too many out there who want success and will sign contracts without thinking about file sharing, RIAA/copy protection, you, or me.
My statement regarding adjusted costs for fuel still hold true. Just because we (typical consumers) didn't plan for price increases that were bound to come around (old enough to remember the energy crisis in the '70s?) does not change the facts. Yes, it hurts to pay twice as much at the pump today than you paid last year (gas here was nowhere near half of today's prices last year), but it was a forseeable event.
Continued fuel price increases will make a difference, but not so much as some would hope (the US will never be car free, or even close to it). In some housing markets, migration trends are reversing. People are giving up on their long commutes and moving into urban cores, nearest to their jobs. For me, I'm leaving the city, with plans to work in the small town economy. Change is not impossible, and it's not as difficult as it may seem.
As to electric car safety, they would not be on the road if they did not meet minimum safety standards. That said, I would not want to be in a subcompact (gas, hybrid, or electric) if I was going to be hit by an SUV...
We are not "virtually required to have a car." We choose to have cars and then justify our choices by stating that living here without a car is nigh impossible. Most of us can bike or walk, whether in smaller communities or large cities, and city dwellers do have mass transit options. We make choices regarding our homes, jobs, and services (e.g. doctors, dentists, shopping), and we make choices about our transportation as well. Most Americans prefer cars and the mobility they afford over biking or walking, or other modes of transit (where available). It was not long ago that people stayed relatively close to their place of birth, and most end-user/consumer commerce was local. People once lived their entire lives within a single city, county, or region [I'm not saying that this is either good or bad]. The train, automobile, and airplane have brought recent generations a level of mobility that is unprecedented. And, during this short time, we have come to believe that such mobility is a natural part of life rather than a chosen lifestyle.
As stated in a reply to another comment, our (US) gas prices are, adjusted for inflation, at their lowest level in decades. In my opinion, gas prices are not yet high enough (and, no, I'm not a tree-hugging liberal). When prices hit $5-7 (US) per gallon (provided it is in the next year or two), maybe other US residents will start to examine their transportation choices and we will see some changes. Until that happens, the American infatuation with the car will continue.
You are entitled to your opinion, but I am offended by some of your comments. I'm saddened that your experience with other North Americans leads you to believe this one negative stereotype reflects all of us.
While I'll concede that the poor in North America (especially the US) are wealthier than most of the world, I cannot agree that we all make too much money. The value of income is relative to the cost of living. Earning $10 per hour in a rural area of the United States may allow someone to live comfortably (if the money is well managed and one's expectations are not too high), but it would leave someone without housing in most of our urban areas. In the US, (most) people can make lifestyle choices regarding their income and spending habits. My family chose to have only a single earner, so one of us could be the primary care giver for our children (no, our primary earner does not have a six-figure salary). We could have opted for two incomes, but chose not to do so. We've never bought a new car (most of our cars have cost less than $2000), and we don't have cable/satellite TV, a cabin, or a variety of personal toys (e.g. JetSkis, snowmobiles, boats). We buy used furniture and second-hand clothing, and we try to help our neighbors when we can. Most of my contemporaries have opted for "the good life" (as they see it) which includes all of those extras that people somehow think demonstrate that they have "arrived." To me, it's just more stuff to worry about, fix, and fuss over. If somone eggs my car, I won't like it, but I won't get bent out of shape about it either. If I lend a tool to a neighbor and it never returns, I'll figure they needed it more than I needed it. Sure, it's counter-cultural in the US, but there's more to life than just the accumulation of stuff.
As to gas prices, I'll recommend talking to folks in Europe. We've had (and, adjusted for inflation, still have) some of the cheapest gas prices on record.
As to Cabbage Patch Kids, Tickle Me Elmo, and all sorts of other unnecessary items that consumers deceive themselves into believing are needs rather than wants, all I can say is: they are just that--unnecessary. Little Johnnie won't die if he doesn't get his Elmo. Little Suzie didn't die when she didn't get her Cabbage Patch Kid. As a parent, if my kids really wanted one of the items-du-jour that carried the rediculous "supply and demand" prices, we just skipped it. Perhaps we might consider it after the craze died down (if our child was still interested, and if it was within budget). Supply and demand isn't a perfect system. I've always said that if someone is dumb enough to pay the price, someone will be smart enough to charge it.
As to the American people being "too bitter, proud and stupid to want our neighbours to get a discount on it too," I can only say that you are wrong. At least in my circles. When I find bargains, I inform my friends. I might even purchase something for one of them if I know it is something for which they were looking. If your neighbors fit the description you provide, then perhaps its time to look at moving to another community or neighborhood...
Respectfully yours,
Andrew James Riemer
St. Paul, Minnesota
a.k.a. HikingStick
Yeah, wouldn't the real bargain be had by the same 500 or more buyers if they cut out the retailer entirely and just ordered from the manufacturer or wholesaler? Isn't that just an old fashioned "buyers' club" like those still organized and used around the US (mostly for grocery purchases)?
A bargain is only a bargain if you were planning to purchase the item (or spend the money) anyway. Otherwise, it's just another example of buying for buying's sake...
I can imagine another weakness, in cases where the merchant is aware that the mob is coming: phony markups prior to arrival. Inflate the price a few percent before the group arrives, then when they get their discount, the discount is not as large as the customers perceive it to be.
Such practices are (ttbomk) illegal in the US, but would be hard to prove. If the concepts grows further in China, it will be interesting to see if merchants start building in a bigger margin in anticipation of such tactics. If they do that (an across the board margin increase rather than creating a phony markup on a single item or group of items to create the impression of a sale), then we all may end up paying higher prices.
Perhaps its their spin doctors then. I've read numerous feeds and interviews that have FBI folks stating that (to the effect of) making a bit-copy is technically difficult and unlikely. All I'm stating is that making such a copy is not difficult for a would-be attacker, and would be the preferred method if they planned for the laptop to be "found" after a period of absence.
What frightens me most is that they surmise that making a bit copy would be unlikely, difficult, or technically compex (I've read the government's view on this from numerous sources). My six year old can do it. This is like assigning nearsighted guards to the top of a town's wall without corrective lenses: "yeah, sure, there are people out there--or are they animals? or maybe bushes?--either way they don't look threatening."
Facebook itself is not protected. If I understand correctly, the argument for 1st Amendment protection is that these students have a right to free expression (as currently interepreted as an extension of freedom of the press). That right to free expression would include allowing a student to voluntarily post information to sites like facebook.
/.ers have hashed all the arguments for or against this action, especially the retroactive nature, so I'll not weigh in on those angles. A contract could have been written with lifestyle provisions that did not specifically reference facebook; now all the athletes need do is find some other alternate form of expression that is not otherwise prohibited.
Other
I'm just not sure if the school was trying to modify student behavior, or simply protect its reputation from possibly being besmirched.
Overall, I wonder what will happen when this becomes commonplace in other arenas. How about an employer sending out an HR notice stating that anyone revealing illegal activity through a blog or similar site will be fired? After all, the company's reputation is on the line...
I wrestle with this one. I see a need to allow citizens to maintain their privacy, but I also see the desire for businesses to protect their reputations. Rather than barring the service altogether, including a lifestyle clause (for future groups--not retroactive) would be a better option. Services will change, but not the underlying behavior without an understanding of the consequences for making certain choices.
I used to carry service contracts with a number of big houses, and one of them had a contractual requirement for ties to be worn for their high-end network service calls. Many times it made sense--at banks, insurance companies, and the like, but I knew it was overkill when I was sent out to a John Deer farm implement dealer location in the boonies.
Hey, I had a contract, so I wore the tie...
I just wore it in my pocket!