Are trivially secure networks "open?" If not, then this law is meaningless. If so, then without drawing a clear line between "secure" and "trivially secure" (which would be impossible), then this law is meaningless.
Here's another source, admittedly it's probably better supported.
Two black eyes and 10 pissy telegrams! Does this sound like mass hysteria to you? Alas, history has preserved in amber the perception that The War Of The Worlds broadcast was the epitome of mass hysteria.
So the people of the U.S.A. had fallen for a hoax -- but the report of the spread of panic is something of a hoax itself.
But you don't need to trust me, you can Google for this stuff on your own.
The next day, newspapers across the country carried stories of terrorized people hiding in basements, panic flight from New Jersey and New York, stampedes in theaters, heart attacks, miscarriages, and even suicides. During the months that followed, these stories were shown to have little if any substance, yet today the myth of War of the Worlds stampedes and suicides persists as part of American folklore.
-Prof. David L. Miller, Introduction to Collective Behavior and Collective Action.
...Google could always [use dynamic URLs to avoid blacklisting]."
China could then use a whitelist, or some combo white/blacklist. Rest assured, 500 million Chinese are busy making information ever more secure. Of course, the other 500 million are busy making information ever more free. What an awesome fight!
Anyone actually know what combinations of whitelisting and blacklisting the Great Firewall uses?
Action games lack story, obvious view. So bear with me as I try to explain why the original Doom actually had a pretty good one.
It's basically magnified Mary Shelley. You're battling against tides of evil, all unleashed by man's own hubris, his own self-congratulating experimentation. But Frankenstein's been around a while, so this much would just be cliche. So here's the real punch: the game actually makes you feel powerful towards the end of the game. For a while, you actually think you can take on hell and save the world.
Then you see a cute little bunny in a meadow, with its head on a pike. Shudder... The horror didn't stem from the imagery nearly as much as it stemmed from the reflection upon your own impotence before the march of impeneterable Doom (tm) (well, the imagery definitely helped).
Think about that. You're a complete badass with the Biggest Fucking Gun in the solar system. And you're a failure. It wasn't just horrifying because of the visceral graphics, it was also horrifying because of how it completed the arc of the main character, an arc they achieved without having him ever say a meaningful word. A modern Greek tragedy without any dialogue, that's no small accomplishment.
Doom isn't about blowing up monsters, it's about inevitable failure and crushing depression, brought on by the self-same technology that allows you, one tiny soldier, to maybe survive, if just for today. But save the planet? From Hell? Sorry.
Sure, this ignores the sequels, but it's hard enough defending one of the Doom games, so cut me some slack!!!
The mouse+keyboard camp has two specific arguments, both about the resolution of control:
1) More buttons are accessible on a keyboard, therefore more control.
2) A thumbstick lacks the control of a mouse, their range is directly correlated with their resolution.
The pro-controller camp responds with:
"Well, everything's subjective."
Pretty weak. Let mouse/keyboard combos compete with console controllers online, then we'll see how subjective it is. It's a tool designed for a function. Its effectiveness can be measured.
One of the issues in MythBusters was what kind of materials Archimedes had available. Did Archimedes have access to quality mirrors? It's unclear. If not, I'm thinking this myth is still pretty busted.
By the way, "perfectly flat" is sub-optimal, slightly concave helps cancel dispersion, and is preferred, according to the article.
Besides, if the market really wants content to be produced within these arbitrary boundaries, why do we need centralized ratings at all?
So what could explain this apparent disconnect? Maybe it's because rating boards are supported by nothing more than industry-wide collusion. Collusion makes the baby market cry.
Someone who respected capitalism would prefer an open market of ratings systems that compete fairly with one another, as I advocate, rather than propping up these coersive cartels.
So why not make the "official" ratings system incredibly permissive, and let people who disagree with it consult one of the free alternatives that already exist? All this does is kill the chilling effects of a centralized system. This lets you keep your ratings system for your kids, letting me choose differently for mine. Why is that such a threat? Why do you need everyone else to follow the ratings system you happen to prefer, when it's supported by neither a free market nor democracy?
But personally, I think the baby CAN eat steak. My kid's growing up listening to Snoop and watching John Woo. For some reason, I worry more about deprivation of culture than about potentially unlocking a sociopath.
But more importantly, to say ratings systems have nothing to do with censorship ignores the chilling effects of centralized speech guidelines. Content producers constantly strive to comply with arbitrary ratings systems contrived by the MPAA or ESRB. Effectively, ratings ARE censorship.
We'd be better off with decentralized ratings boards, and each community could listen to the ones it respected the most. People who want more restricted content already do that, they consult Parents Television Council or something similar. Since people with more restrictive values will already fend for themselves, it seems like the official ratings should be the most permissive. That's the only way to make the most people happy.
And people who are PRO-ratings shouldn't have any problem with decentralization. Eliminating centralized ratings would never eliminate ratings, it just means no monopoly on ratings. That way, no one who's anonymous and unaccountable could make capricious decisions about what's commercially feasible, as they do now.
"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." --Robert Heinlein "The Man Who Sold the Moon" p.188.
People say Mark Twain said "Censorship is like telling a man he can't have steak because a baby can't chew it," but I can't find the source for it (and neither can wikiquote).
...or more of the right wing heavily-armed-cop state BS. Neither party is a rich source of social libertarianism right now. So it depends on your PoV.
Right, left, my preferred PoV is first-person. And as a proud player of violent videogames, all I know is that laws like these make me want to take a chainsaw to a legislator.
PS - Check out Barbara Ehrenreich's "When Government Gets Mean: Confessions of a Recovering Statist" from the Nation, 11/17/1997. (Sorry, paper research req'd.) Basically, anarchism isn't just for Grover Norquist anymore.
Note to modders: These paragraphs are intended as insightful/funny/informative respectively. If that's not enough, keep in mind I also love Google and Linux.
Teleflip.com also allows you to send text messages. It's free, no registration, it's all via email.
If the cell phone number you want to reach is 999-555-4444, you just send an email to 9995554444@teleflip.com, it's automatically forwarded through the phone network.
Tournaments, Sponsors, Coaches... we're almost there. When will we get a station to televise gaming competitions with half-decent in-game footage and literate (let alone charismatic) announcers, preferably hosted by people who aren't retarded?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I hear DaVinci was absolutely wretched at royal tennis.
And it's an old anecdote about Einstein's struggles with... what was it... yeah, mortality.
Benjamin Franklin: very embarassing laugh, terrible dancer.
Stephen Jay Gould: liked quiche. Very sad.
We all know that's the kind of thing an idiot would have on his luggage!
Are trivially secure networks "open?" If not, then this law is meaningless. If so, then without drawing a clear line between "secure" and "trivially secure" (which would be impossible), then this law is meaningless.
Ergo, this law is meaningless.
Here's some BBC coverage of one of these lakes in Cameroon. Terrifying.
Here's another source, admittedly it's probably better supported.
Two black eyes and 10 pissy telegrams! Does this sound like mass hysteria to you? Alas, history has preserved in amber the perception that The War Of The Worlds broadcast was the epitome of mass hysteria.
So the people of the U.S.A. had fallen for a hoax -- but the report of the spread of panic is something of a hoax itself.
But you don't need to trust me, you can Google for this stuff on your own.
The next day, newspapers across the country carried stories of terrorized people hiding in basements, panic flight from New Jersey and New York, stampedes in theaters, heart attacks, miscarriages, and even suicides. During the months that followed, these stories were shown to have little if any substance, yet today the myth of War of the Worlds stampedes and suicides persists as part of American folklore.
-Prof. David L. Miller, Introduction to Collective Behavior and Collective Action.
Here's the passage online.
...and her name is John Romero.
...Google could always [use dynamic URLs to avoid blacklisting]."
China could then use a whitelist, or some combo white/blacklist. Rest assured, 500 million Chinese are busy making information ever more secure. Of course, the other 500 million are busy making information ever more free. What an awesome fight!
Anyone actually know what combinations of whitelisting and blacklisting the Great Firewall uses?
Action games lack story, obvious view. So bear with me as I try to explain why the original Doom actually had a pretty good one.
It's basically magnified Mary Shelley. You're battling against tides of evil, all unleashed by man's own hubris, his own self-congratulating experimentation. But Frankenstein's been around a while, so this much would just be cliche. So here's the real punch: the game actually makes you feel powerful towards the end of the game. For a while, you actually think you can take on hell and save the world.
Then you see a cute little bunny in a meadow, with its head on a pike. Shudder... The horror didn't stem from the imagery nearly as much as it stemmed from the reflection upon your own impotence before the march of impeneterable Doom (tm) (well, the imagery definitely helped).
Think about that. You're a complete badass with the Biggest Fucking Gun in the solar system. And you're a failure. It wasn't just horrifying because of the visceral graphics, it was also horrifying because of how it completed the arc of the main character, an arc they achieved without having him ever say a meaningful word. A modern Greek tragedy without any dialogue, that's no small accomplishment.
Doom isn't about blowing up monsters, it's about inevitable failure and crushing depression, brought on by the self-same technology that allows you, one tiny soldier, to maybe survive, if just for today. But save the planet? From Hell? Sorry.
Sure, this ignores the sequels, but it's hard enough defending one of the Doom games, so cut me some slack!!!
In this debate, "PC gamers are quick to point out all the benefits of their sytem whilst the console gamers really don't care."
I completely agree.
The same way you successfully make any other movie: by focusing on the story.
The mouse+keyboard camp has two specific arguments, both about the resolution of control:
1) More buttons are accessible on a keyboard, therefore more control.
2) A thumbstick lacks the control of a mouse, their range is directly correlated with their resolution.
The pro-controller camp responds with:
"Well, everything's subjective."
Pretty weak. Let mouse/keyboard combos compete with console controllers online, then we'll see how subjective it is. It's a tool designed for a function. Its effectiveness can be measured.
Funny, but raises an interesting question: could a clockwork device have security flaws?
Well, I also use it to read /.
But the watch part is far more productive.
Awesome for geeks anyway... we'll all just use adblockers or alternative, open-source brows... er phones.
Just like Jerry Lewis!
John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law
1172 South Dixie Hwy., Suite 111
Coral Gables, Florida 33146
305-666-4366
jackpeace@comcast.net
August 5, 2005
http://www.vgcats.com/jack.php
One of the issues in MythBusters was what kind of materials Archimedes had available. Did Archimedes have access to quality mirrors? It's unclear. If not, I'm thinking this myth is still pretty busted.
By the way, "perfectly flat" is sub-optimal, slightly concave helps cancel dispersion, and is preferred, according to the article.
If I'm bitter about anything, it's the market manipulation.
No one who's seen 1/10th of the internet can honestly say "the market" wants "family-friendly" content. Maybe you're thinking the market only wants adult content in privacy, not in the BnM world. Then why do studios always make
movies that push the edge of the ratings,
NC-17 films that only make it to R
after a healthy bout of resubmissions,
sometimes without changing a thing?
Besides, if the market really wants content to be produced within these arbitrary boundaries, why do we need centralized ratings at all?
So what could explain this apparent disconnect? Maybe it's because rating boards are supported by nothing more than industry-wide collusion. Collusion makes the baby market cry.
Someone who respected capitalism would prefer an open market of ratings systems that compete fairly with one another, as I advocate, rather than propping up these coersive cartels.
So why not make the "official" ratings system incredibly permissive, and let people who disagree with it consult one of the free alternatives that already exist? All this does is kill the chilling effects of a centralized system. This lets you keep your ratings system for your kids, letting me choose differently for mine. Why is that such a threat? Why do you need everyone else to follow the ratings system you happen to prefer, when it's supported by neither a free market nor democracy?
But personally, I think the baby CAN eat steak. My kid's growing up listening to Snoop and watching John Woo. For some reason, I worry more about deprivation of culture than about potentially unlocking a sociopath. But more importantly, to say ratings systems have nothing to do with censorship ignores the chilling effects of centralized speech guidelines. Content producers constantly strive to comply with arbitrary ratings systems contrived by the MPAA or ESRB. Effectively, ratings ARE censorship. We'd be better off with decentralized ratings boards, and each community could listen to the ones it respected the most. People who want more restricted content already do that, they consult Parents Television Council or something similar. Since people with more restrictive values will already fend for themselves, it seems like the official ratings should be the most permissive. That's the only way to make the most people happy. And people who are PRO-ratings shouldn't have any problem with decentralization. Eliminating centralized ratings would never eliminate ratings, it just means no monopoly on ratings. That way, no one who's anonymous and unaccountable could make capricious decisions about what's commercially feasible, as they do now.
Can we get someone to churn out a doom mod replacing the imps with bmp's of representatives?
Because that would be sw33t with a capital 3.
"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." --Robert Heinlein "The Man Who Sold the Moon" p.188. People say Mark Twain said "Censorship is like telling a man he can't have steak because a baby can't chew it," but I can't find the source for it (and neither can wikiquote).
...or more of the right wing heavily-armed-cop state BS. Neither party is a rich source of social libertarianism right now. So it depends on your PoV.
Right, left, my preferred PoV is first-person. And as a proud player of violent videogames, all I know is that laws like these make me want to take a chainsaw to a legislator.
PS - Check out Barbara Ehrenreich's "When Government Gets Mean: Confessions of a Recovering Statist" from the Nation, 11/17/1997. (Sorry, paper research req'd.) Basically, anarchism isn't just for Grover Norquist anymore.
Note to modders: These paragraphs are intended as insightful/funny/informative respectively. If that's not enough, keep in mind I also love Google and Linux.
How about a class where the primary textbook is Google's USENET archives?
Teleflip.com also allows you to send text messages. It's free, no registration, it's all via email.
If the cell phone number you want to reach is 999-555-4444, you just send an email to 9995554444@teleflip.com, it's automatically forwarded through the phone network.
So this is looking easier by the post.
Tournaments, Sponsors, Coaches... we're almost there. When will we get a station to televise gaming competitions with half-decent in-game footage and literate (let alone charismatic) announcers, preferably hosted by people who aren't retarded?