if we use space as a garbage dump, there's still more space!
The trouble is, the portion of space we have been filling with trash is the part which is close to our planet. Thus, the moer we fill it with debris, the harder it will be to safely LEAVE the planet.
The security folks may not like this approach, of course, but you can always try pointing out (after you've learned how to do it) that if it's so easy, then their security technology isn't much good anyway.
At many organizations, the security people will definitely NOT like it. Most security people tend to want to play things as strictly by the book as possible. I'm pretty certain that using a fake finger would be a clear breach of policy, and could land you in a HEAP of trouble.
Even if you get out of the trouble eventually, you would still be seen as a "troublemaker" by many in security. At best, Security will never like you (you made them and their system look bad), and at worst you can lose your job. If it's at a federal or military facility, it might be worse than that, but I'm not sure.
If you MADE the finger, but never actually used it for access, and then showed it to them, demonstrated it, and asked if you could use it as a solution to your problem, they might accept it... but I'd wager that they won't.
Oooh, good recovery.;) It looked like an ad hominem attack, because it seemed like rather than argue the merits of the encrypting one's communications with others, you instead resorted to a personal attack. Still, I can see where you're coming from. I don't try to impose my "pet obsessions" on friends, or family, or even strangers at parties. I'm not even sure that I would consider this a pet obsession, since I rarely think about it. Hell, I don't even encrypt my mail, so you can see how far this has gotten.
The friends that I discuss this with are the ones I am pretty sure are either open to the idea, or open to the discussion of the idea. This is not about imposing obsessions, but about discussing ideas and their relative merits. I certainly don't go spouting this off at parties, because I know very well that most people could give a rat's ass about whether the government is able/willing to read all of their correspondence.
The "Well, I've got nothing to hide" meme is, sadly, very prevalent.
When I mentioned the need to "preach it" to friends and family, I meant it not as a call to arms, or a statement of what I do, but as a statement of a prerequisite for getting encrypted email universally accepted. I have, on occasion, talked about setting up encrypted mail between my best friend and I (who feels similarly that what we write each other is no one else's business -- if they want to read it, let them get a subpoena). We've never done it.. primarily because of the inconvenience.
Still, I think that it's a good idea. It's much like I might feel that saving 10% of one's income and not using credit cards are Very Good Ideas -- but don't manage to follow it myself.
I don't feel that to discuss the merits of this, and what would be required, is "imposing a pet obsession". At least, no more than discussing the tradeoffs of installing solar panels on one's roof, or buying a hybrid car (it'll be a long time before it actually saves you money, usually), or whether I feel that red-light-cameras are a good thing. Rational discussion is a foundation of intelligent society. To discourage it is... well, I don't think it's a good idea.
Yes, that is the hard part. One must convince all of one's relatives and friends that (a) it's good to do, and (b) it's not hard to do. The "Uninterested Dad" factor is not to be discounted. Still, that is VERY much the crux of the crusade: convincing others, preaching the evils of universal surveillance.
I'm at the believing phase, not at the preaching phase.:)
The reason why many want to encrypt all email traffic (or as much as possible) is one of inconveniencing the government. I do not feel that the feds are snooping on ME specifically, nor do I feel that I might email to my father is worth wasting processor time on cracking.
If the only mail a person encrypts are those they feel are politically "damaging" (such as political beliefs about abortion, free speech, keeping or bearing arms, etc), then any snooper LOOKING for such information will already know which messages to crack. If, however, a person under surveillance encrypts ALL traffic (infeasible, I know), or even a majority of benign/mundane traffic, then it's no longer obvious which packets need to be decrypted.
The same thing works on a per-person basis, as well.
If one person encrypts their mail, they stand out, get hassled, and the authorities might wonder "what they might be hiding". Why? Because most people feel that only the Bad Guys have information that need to be hidden from prying eyes, and thus only Bad Guys will be using encryption.
However, when enough normal people start encrypting their mail (even shopping lists, happy birthday wishes, etc), the situation changes. Anyone that tries to find Bad Guys by the fact that they encrypt their mail will be swamped with false positives. Once they realize this, they will have to filter all the mail they decrypt -- even more wasted resources.
Basically, we don't feel that our encrypted mail should be snoopable, much as we don't like the idea of a government steaming our mail open and reading all our letters. This should not be necessary in a civilized society.:)
I wish there was a publisher (like early LA/early EA) that actually sought out a limited number of fantastic games
There have been a few studios from whom I have always been impressed. Not all of them are "current", but have all been similar as faras providing great games.
Bioware. I may not always like their games,and Neverwinter Nights does show its age, but it (and the KOTOR) series have been unmatched in my game library for replays, short of Fallout and Fallout2.
Monolith. I loved SHOGO, and aparently several of their more recent games (No one lives forever, etc) have been good too. I haven't played them, though.
Bethesda Softworks. Creators of the Elder Scrolls games, which are simply mindblowingly immense. Oblivion (Elder scrolls IV, I believe) looks simply stunning. LOTS of opportunities for exploration, advancement, etc, are a staple of the elder scrolls games. Almost the whole game could be considered a giant side-quest, but in a good way.
They also created Sea Dogs (which was fun!), and the Pirates of the Caribbean game (which I didn't hear as much good stuff about). The games may sometimes need polish, but often they are pretty original, and/or do a VERY good job of getting the core gameplay down well.
UbiSoft: They've changed a bit now, but I remember when they were the Rainbow Six people still. Now, they've started brancing out into new series, some of which are awesome (Prince of Persia), some are less so. Still, if you haven't played Prince of Persia and Splinter Cell (or at least demos), you have missed out.
Bungie: OK, owned by MS now, I think. Still, Oni was pretty interesting, and the Halo/Marathon series are hard to beat as far as story. Tho, I hear they dropped the ball with Halo 2...:)
why dont they just put a prog at the urls the virus checks, which an infected coputer can run and it will delete the virus!!
Why not, indeed? Disregarding the possible ethical issues of whether it's OK to run code on someone else's computer, [b]many[/b] people did exactly this when the Code Red worm was making its rounds. I remember seeing code that would let Apache "strike back" at the attacker, remove the worm, and patch the vulnerability.
I'm not sure why the parent was modded funny; I almost modded it insightful, but then decided I'd rather remind people of relatively recent history.
Take my brother for example he installs anything he wants on his computer and dosen't care because as soon as I come home to visit my mother guess who is going to format and reinstall the OS again and make everything beter again and this cycle goes on and on.
Why do you take this abuse?
If he breaks it once, yeah it's cool to fix it. Tell him how to keep it from getting messed up. Give him a chance, but then if he messes it up... well, maybe let him wait until the NEXT time you come over, or the next. For him to continually expect you to fix his mestakes is disrespectful, and wastes both your time and his.
You can also tell him that, "Oh, you can call a repair person if you want -- it's only X/hr" -- but that might seem mercenary. However, you might consider getting him to trade "services". Fix his computer, make a Ghost image of it (or something), and then every time you fix his machine, he gets to do yard work, or paint your patio, etc.;)
Just as it's only by convention that computers use binary (they could use any imaginable base representation)
This may be my lack of knowledge about computer engineering (despite my CS degree;)), but how would we use any representation other than binary? Do we have transistor logic that can do base three, or any other base? Isn't it all based on logic gates, which are inherently binary?
This is, ofcourse, ignoring the research into quantum computing -- because I don't consider that as within the reach of general-use tech yet.
I don't see what any of this has to do with wired versus wireless networks. Packet sniffers can be used on wired networks as well. Every packet you ever send across the internet is public, and could pass through fifty different machines, none of which are guaranteed to be owned by nice people.
On a wired network, you know that the only thing between you and your service provider (and thus your upstream ISPs usually) is a wire (and possibly the feds;)). This is most likley the case because good ISPs use switched connections (and thus you usually can't packet sniff your neighbors).
On an unsecured wireless network, where your packets are broadcast, everyone in the cafe around you can access them, given the correct hardware. That guy in the corner over at the cafe? He could be harvesting "interesting" data.
This is different from a Man in the Middle type situation (which COULD happen on a wired network), and is more of a Guy who Looks Over Your Shoulder while you Write your Letters type of attack. He's not *between* you and your destination, but can still learn information about you that you'd rather have secret.
Buy several CDs from them. INstall the rootkit, then call their customer support number to ask to remove it. Be very patient, slow, play dumb, but be persistent. Use up those toll free minutes. Ask to talk to supervisors if they give you trouble.:)
However, just because *you* do not have time, does not mean that someone else might not have. Since all articles are entered by volunteers, chances are someone cares enough about the subject. Most of the time, these peopel care enough about the subject not to spout drivel. Often they link to more authoritative sources, or to where the information was compiled from.
I'm certainly not saying that one should cite Wikipedia as gospel, nor that it is always the best source of information. It's not going to give you the same level of detail as someone's dissertation on the Hall Effect, and probably not on anything else either.
However, in the case that the GP referenced (the Wikipedia definition of a rootkit), it's a very GOOD first-pass definition. Not exhaustive, but certainly better than I would expect to find in Britannica or the dictionary. (A quick search of Britannica's online encyclopedia shows *NO* reference for a root kit. Or rootkit.)
Wikipedia's not going to be the best definition, but as a "What the hell is this?" resource, it's a GREAT tool for finding out basics on subjects. Or, as basic as the general public is going to care or understand about.
Just for the record, what subjects do you consider important, which Wikipedia has been lacking in? What are you comparing it to?
Neither of these goes into as much detail as current research has (for example, no mention that I noticed of electronic propulsion via Hall Effect Thrusters). However, the Wiki article appeared to have generally more information, with room for growth. If someone wanted to know, "What's the Hall effect?", and did not have ready access (or time) to read the latest research papers and background material, it's a good start.
[T]hey should check first as a reference a 'encyclopedia' that lets 12-year olds edit and delete stuff posted by Ph.D.'s working in the field?
And your hoping for competence???
I am neither a 12 year old nor a Ph.D.:)
My experiences with Wikipedia (tried to add a friend to an alumni list at his university;)) have shown me that some pages with any useful information have someone that has chosen to be its caretaker. Yes, the 12 year old can make changes, say that red is blue or that Mr. Rogers was a Navy Seal. However, soon (usually within a few hours), that Ph.D (or bored grad student, or zealous historian of Mr. Rogers) will change it back to the proper data.
Wikipedia isn't exhaustive, but I trust its accuracy (at least to a certain extent) on matters that Geeks and/or scientists consider important. I expect its explanations of math, science, and computer tech to be a LOT more exhaustive and pedantically-complete than most articles you'd find in Encarta or Brittanica.
This has a LOT of info, mostly correct (probably more correct than *I* would be able to be). The only place where I have read a better explanation is in the "Big Red Book" of Cryptography, Bruce Schneier's [b]Applied Cryptography[/b] (an excellent read). I suspect that any entry in Britannica or Encarta or whatever other "major", "respected" encyclopedia will have far less information, and be less useful as a learning aid.
For my money and time, Wikipedia is an invaluable tool. Don't discount it just because anyone can edit it.
some people use roleplaying (or anime, novels, what have you) as a form of escapism. But I'll bet there are a lot more who use them simply as a form of entertainment
I always thought that entertainment WAS a form of escapism, by very definition.
Playing with legos? I used to get lost for hours. (well, back in elementary school.)
Reading? I've read for 13 hours at a time. That certainly counts as escapism in my book.
My wife and I can watch Law and Order for hours on end. I'd rather spend that time, if I am to be escaping, in WoW or some other computer game, rather than watching TV.
I've used PSP since I believe version 3 or 4. My computer hs PSP 5 installed, and my wife has PSP 9 on hers.
I cannot think of any large imrovements between the two -- but I can say that the experience of using PSP with PSP 9 was noticeably more enjoyable than on my copy. I was surprised by this, as I came at it expecting things to be just more bloat -- but there seemed to have been some minor UI tweaks.
Though, I do miss that the 'L' key doesn't open the layers dialogue anymore... grrrrr...:D
Also, I work in Manhattan. It's a short 2-block walk to the nearest game store.
Oh.:-D I guess that is one definite perk of living or working in the city. As for the "games for your kid" aspect, how is that any different from games for yourself, when it comes to the level of pre-screening than can be done?
OK, now that I think about it -- kids' games are probably a LOT less likely to be reviewed than those marketed for teens or adults. If, however, the game you are thinking of is marketed in that area, chances are that at least one or two gaming sites (at least GameSpot or IGN, I imagine) would have at least a cursory review/preview / set of screenshots.
And, I'm sorry, but I don't have the time to research every game on the internet for half an hour... I'd rather spend that time interacting with my child.
Where do you live that the anticipated return trip to the store, and subsequent line at the customer service desk, is less than half an hour? I would waste at least that driving to/from the store, and usually end up being in line for 10 mins to talk to an employee.
Online research is a good thing. Many people can read a review, decide quickly (15-30 mins) what level of violence/sex/etc there is, at least on some level, and then either (a) not buy it, or (b) buy it online or (c) actually go to a store and buy it.
Go to Gamespot.com, or Gamespy.com, or even just Google the game name, and you will probably find several screenshots in addition to the review. Many times, you don't have to look much farther to see that Far Cry involves a guy carrying a gun (and thus probably shooting people), or that The Sims has people hugging and making out in a bedroom.
I would rather spend some time researching a game to see what reviewers think (violent? bad plot? sex scenes? Crappy control scheme?) before buying, than waste my time and effort going back and returning something. (That, and many stores don't allow software returns)
Perhaps this is due to my MANY experiences buying a game or CD and then realizing once I've played it for about 3 hours that I really don't like it, and regret the purchase. Thus, I now do a LOT more research, and buy fewer games.
Or else, like Scott Evil, the son is surprisingly wily and resilient and has been successfully thwarting/avoiding/resisting his father's continued attempts on his ilfe.:)
Slashdot Mirror
if we use space as a garbage dump, there's still more space!
The trouble is, the portion of space we have been filling with trash is the part which is close to our planet. Thus, the moer we fill it with debris, the harder it will be to safely LEAVE the planet.
Consider making a fake finger.
The security folks may not like this approach, of course, but you can always try pointing out (after you've learned how to do it) that if it's so easy, then their security technology isn't much good anyway.
At many organizations, the security people will definitely NOT like it. Most security people tend to want to play things as strictly by the book as possible. I'm pretty certain that using a fake finger would be a clear breach of policy, and could land you in a HEAP of trouble.
Even if you get out of the trouble eventually, you would still be seen as a "troublemaker" by many in security. At best, Security will never like you (you made them and their system look bad), and at worst you can lose your job. If it's at a federal or military facility, it might be worse than that, but I'm not sure.
If you MADE the finger, but never actually used it for access, and then showed it to them, demonstrated it, and asked if you could use it as a solution to your problem, they might accept it... but I'd wager that they won't.
Oooh, good recovery. ;) It looked like an ad hominem attack, because it seemed like rather than argue the merits of the encrypting one's communications with others, you instead resorted to a personal attack. Still, I can see where you're coming from. I don't try to impose my "pet obsessions" on friends, or family, or even strangers at parties. I'm not even sure that I would consider this a pet obsession, since I rarely think about it. Hell, I don't even encrypt my mail, so you can see how far this has gotten.
.. primarily because of the inconvenience.
... well, I don't think it's a good idea.
The friends that I discuss this with are the ones I am pretty sure are either open to the idea, or open to the discussion of the idea. This is not about imposing obsessions, but about discussing ideas and their relative merits. I certainly don't go spouting this off at parties, because I know very well that most people could give a rat's ass about whether the government is able/willing to read all of their correspondence.
The "Well, I've got nothing to hide" meme is, sadly, very prevalent.
When I mentioned the need to "preach it" to friends and family, I meant it not as a call to arms, or a statement of what I do, but as a statement of a prerequisite for getting encrypted email universally accepted. I have, on occasion, talked about setting up encrypted mail between my best friend and I (who feels similarly that what we write each other is no one else's business -- if they want to read it, let them get a subpoena). We've never done it
Still, I think that it's a good idea. It's much like I might feel that saving 10% of one's income and not using credit cards are Very Good Ideas -- but don't manage to follow it myself.
I don't feel that to discuss the merits of this, and what would be required, is "imposing a pet obsession". At least, no more than discussing the tradeoffs of installing solar panels on one's roof, or buying a hybrid car (it'll be a long time before it actually saves you money, usually), or whether I feel that red-light-cameras are a good thing. Rational discussion is a foundation of intelligent society. To discourage it is
*laughs* ... yeah.
Thanks for the ad hominem attack, it was very considerate.
Yes, that is the hard part. One must convince all of one's relatives and friends that (a) it's good to do, and (b) it's not hard to do. The "Uninterested Dad" factor is not to be discounted. Still, that is VERY much the crux of the crusade: convincing others, preaching the evils of universal surveillance.
:)
I'm at the believing phase, not at the preaching phase.
The reason why many want to encrypt all email traffic (or as much as possible) is one of inconveniencing the government. I do not feel that the feds are snooping on ME specifically, nor do I feel that I might email to my father is worth wasting processor time on cracking.
:)
If the only mail a person encrypts are those they feel are politically "damaging" (such as political beliefs about abortion, free speech, keeping or bearing arms, etc), then any snooper LOOKING for such information will already know which messages to crack. If, however, a person under surveillance encrypts ALL traffic (infeasible, I know), or even a majority of benign/mundane traffic, then it's no longer obvious which packets need to be decrypted.
The same thing works on a per-person basis, as well.
If one person encrypts their mail, they stand out, get hassled, and the authorities might wonder "what they might be hiding". Why? Because most people feel that only the Bad Guys have information that need to be hidden from prying eyes, and thus only Bad Guys will be using encryption.
However, when enough normal people start encrypting their mail (even shopping lists, happy birthday wishes, etc), the situation changes. Anyone that tries to find Bad Guys by the fact that they encrypt their mail will be swamped with false positives. Once they realize this, they will have to filter all the mail they decrypt -- even more wasted resources.
Basically, we don't feel that our encrypted mail should be snoopable, much as we don't like the idea of a government steaming our mail open and reading all our letters. This should not be necessary in a civilized society.
I wish there was a publisher (like early LA/early EA) that actually sought out a limited number of fantastic games
:)
There have been a few studios from whom I have always been impressed. Not all of them are "current", but have all been similar as faras providing great games.
Bioware. I may not always like their games,and Neverwinter Nights does show its age, but it (and the KOTOR) series have been unmatched in my game library for replays, short of Fallout and Fallout2.
Monolith. I loved SHOGO, and aparently several of their more recent games (No one lives forever, etc) have been good too. I haven't played them, though.
Bethesda Softworks. Creators of the Elder Scrolls games, which are simply mindblowingly immense. Oblivion (Elder scrolls IV, I believe) looks simply stunning. LOTS of opportunities for exploration, advancement, etc, are a staple of the elder scrolls games. Almost the whole game could be considered a giant side-quest, but in a good way.
They also created Sea Dogs (which was fun!), and the Pirates of the Caribbean game (which I didn't hear as much good stuff about). The games may sometimes need polish, but often they are pretty original, and/or do a VERY good job of getting the core gameplay down well.
UbiSoft: They've changed a bit now, but I remember when they were the Rainbow Six people still. Now, they've started brancing out into new series, some of which are awesome (Prince of Persia), some are less so. Still, if you haven't played Prince of Persia and Splinter Cell (or at least demos), you have missed out.
Bungie: OK, owned by MS now, I think. Still, Oni was pretty interesting, and the Halo/Marathon series are hard to beat as far as story. Tho, I hear they dropped the ball with Halo 2...
why dont they just put a prog at the urls the virus checks, which an infected coputer can run and it will delete the virus!!
Why not, indeed? Disregarding the possible ethical issues of whether it's OK to run code on someone else's computer, [b]many[/b] people did exactly this when the Code Red worm was making its rounds. I remember seeing code that would let Apache "strike back" at the attacker, remove the worm, and patch the vulnerability.
I'm not sure why the parent was modded funny; I almost modded it insightful, but then decided I'd rather remind people of relatively recent history.
[automatic coral caching] would also prevent users under a company-wide HTTP proxy from ever seeing TFAs.
:D
Really? I didn't realize that. Oh well. Pity it can't be a preference we can set, still.
Take my brother for example he installs anything he wants on his computer and dosen't care because as soon as I come home to visit my mother guess who is going to format and reinstall the OS again and make everything beter again and this cycle goes on and on.
... well, maybe let him wait until the NEXT time you come over, or the next. For him to continually expect you to fix his mestakes is disrespectful, and wastes both your time and his.
;)
Why do you take this abuse?
If he breaks it once, yeah it's cool to fix it. Tell him how to keep it from getting messed up. Give him a chance, but then if he messes it up
You can also tell him that, "Oh, you can call a repair person if you want -- it's only X/hr" -- but that might seem mercenary. However, you might consider getting him to trade "services". Fix his computer, make a Ghost image of it (or something), and then every time you fix his machine, he gets to do yard work, or paint your patio, etc.
Mod this guy up! :) Automatic coral-caching of links (with an alternate collection of direct ones) would help prevent such issues.
Just as it's only by convention that computers use binary (they could use any imaginable base representation)
;)), but how would we use any representation other than binary? Do we have transistor logic that can do base three, or any other base? Isn't it all based on logic gates, which are inherently binary?
This may be my lack of knowledge about computer engineering (despite my CS degree
This is, ofcourse, ignoring the research into quantum computing -- because I don't consider that as within the reach of general-use tech yet.
[picking up credit card.etc info]
;)). This is most likley the case because good ISPs use switched connections (and thus you usually can't packet sniff your neighbors).
I don't see what any of this has to do with wired versus wireless networks. Packet sniffers can be used on wired networks as well. Every packet you ever send across the internet is public, and could pass through fifty different machines, none of which are guaranteed to be owned by nice people.
On a wired network, you know that the only thing between you and your service provider (and thus your upstream ISPs usually) is a wire (and possibly the feds
On an unsecured wireless network, where your packets are broadcast, everyone in the cafe around you can access them, given the correct hardware. That guy in the corner over at the cafe? He could be harvesting "interesting" data.
This is different from a Man in the Middle type situation (which COULD happen on a wired network), and is more of a Guy who Looks Over Your Shoulder while you Write your Letters type of attack. He's not *between* you and your destination, but can still learn information about you that you'd rather have secret.
Get a throwaway computer.
:)
Buy several CDs from them.
INstall the rootkit, then call their customer support number to ask to remove it. Be very patient, slow, play dumb, but be persistent. Use up those toll free minutes. Ask to talk to supervisors if they give you trouble.
Yeah, that's givin' him the bird ... :D
Doh -- forgot to paste the wikipedia link for Hall Effect:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hall_Effect
You bring up good points.
y =hall%20effect&ct= (~375 words)
However, just because *you* do not have time, does not mean that someone else might not have. Since all articles are entered by volunteers, chances are someone cares enough about the subject. Most of the time, these peopel care enough about the subject not to spout drivel. Often they link to more authoritative sources, or to where the information was compiled from.
I'm certainly not saying that one should cite Wikipedia as gospel, nor that it is always the best source of information. It's not going to give you the same level of detail as someone's dissertation on the Hall Effect, and probably not on anything else either.
However, in the case that the GP referenced (the Wikipedia definition of a rootkit), it's a very GOOD first-pass definition. Not exhaustive, but certainly better than I would expect to find in Britannica or the dictionary. (A quick search of Britannica's online encyclopedia shows *NO* reference for a root kit. Or rootkit.)
Wikipedia's not going to be the best definition, but as a "What the hell is this?" resource, it's a GREAT tool for finding out basics on subjects. Or, as basic as the general public is going to care or understand about.
Just for the record, what subjects do you consider important, which Wikipedia has been lacking in? What are you comparing it to?
As an example of my basis of comparison:
Britannica: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9038924?quer
Wikipedia: (More, with pictures.)
Neither of these goes into as much detail as current research has (for example, no mention that I noticed of electronic propulsion via Hall Effect Thrusters). However, the Wiki article appeared to have generally more information, with room for growth. If someone wanted to know, "What's the Hall effect?", and did not have ready access (or time) to read the latest research papers and background material, it's a good start.
[T]hey should check first as a reference a 'encyclopedia' that lets 12-year olds edit and delete stuff posted by Ph.D.'s working in the field?
:)
;)) have shown me that some pages with any useful information have someone that has chosen to be its caretaker. Yes, the 12 year old can make changes, say that red is blue or that Mr. Rogers was a Navy Seal. However, soon (usually within a few hours), that Ph.D (or bored grad student, or zealous historian of Mr. Rogers) will change it back to the proper data.
p hy
And your hoping for competence???
I am neither a 12 year old nor a Ph.D.
My experiences with Wikipedia (tried to add a friend to an alumni list at his university
Wikipedia isn't exhaustive, but I trust its accuracy (at least to a certain extent) on matters that Geeks and/or scientists consider important. I expect its explanations of math, science, and computer tech to be a LOT more exhaustive and pedantically-complete than most articles you'd find in Encarta or Brittanica.
For example: Public key cryptography. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-key_cryptogra
This has a LOT of info, mostly correct (probably more correct than *I* would be able to be). The only place where I have read a better explanation is in the "Big Red Book" of Cryptography, Bruce Schneier's [b]Applied Cryptography[/b] (an excellent read). I suspect that any entry in Britannica or Encarta or whatever other "major", "respected" encyclopedia will have far less information, and be less useful as a learning aid.
For my money and time, Wikipedia is an invaluable tool. Don't discount it just because anyone can edit it.
some people use roleplaying (or anime, novels, what have you) as a form of escapism. But I'll bet there are a lot more who use them simply as a form of entertainment
I always thought that entertainment WAS a form of escapism, by very definition.
Playing with legos? I used to get lost for hours. (well, back in elementary school.)
Reading? I've read for 13 hours at a time. That certainly counts as escapism in my book.
My wife and I can watch Law and Order for hours on end. I'd rather spend that time, if I am to be escaping, in WoW or some other computer game, rather than watching TV.
I've used PSP since I believe version 3 or 4. My computer hs PSP 5 installed, and my wife has PSP 9 on hers.
... :D
I cannot think of any large imrovements between the two -- but I can say that the experience of using PSP with PSP 9 was noticeably more enjoyable than on my copy. I was surprised by this, as I came at it expecting things to be just more bloat -- but there seemed to have been some minor UI tweaks.
Though, I do miss that the 'L' key doesn't open the layers dialogue anymore... grrrrr
Also, I work in Manhattan. It's a short 2-block walk to the nearest game store.
:-D I guess that is one definite perk of living or working in the city. As for the "games for your kid" aspect, how is that any different from games for yourself, when it comes to the level of pre-screening than can be done?
/preview / set of screenshots.
Oh.
OK, now that I think about it -- kids' games are probably a LOT less likely to be reviewed than those marketed for teens or adults. If, however, the game you are thinking of is marketed in that area, chances are that at least one or two gaming sites (at least GameSpot or IGN, I imagine) would have at least a cursory review
And, I'm sorry, but I don't have the time to research every game on the internet for half an hour... I'd rather spend that time interacting with my child.
Where do you live that the anticipated return trip to the store, and subsequent line at the customer service desk, is less than half an hour? I would waste at least that driving to/from the store, and usually end up being in line for 10 mins to talk to an employee.
Online research is a good thing. Many people can read a review, decide quickly (15-30 mins) what level of violence/sex/etc there is, at least on some level, and then either (a) not buy it, or (b) buy it online or (c) actually go to a store and buy it.
Go to Gamespot.com, or Gamespy.com, or even just Google the game name, and you will probably find several screenshots in addition to the review. Many times, you don't have to look much farther to see that Far Cry involves a guy carrying a gun (and thus probably shooting people), or that The Sims has people hugging and making out in a bedroom.
I would rather spend some time researching a game to see what reviewers think (violent? bad plot? sex scenes? Crappy control scheme?) before buying, than waste my time and effort going back and returning something. (That, and many stores don't allow software returns)
Perhaps this is due to my MANY experiences buying a game or CD and then realizing once I've played it for about 3 hours that I really don't like it, and regret the purchase. Thus, I now do a LOT more research, and buy fewer games.
Or else, like Scott Evil, the son is surprisingly wily and resilient and has been successfully thwarting/avoiding/resisting his father's continued attempts on his ilfe. :)
So work from home for twelve hours some day, and when he complains, note that it's half of a day.
How long will it take for your annual commuting cost difference to overtake that $40-50k?