I've found BH emphasizes strategy more than many other games. You just have to use very different strategies than in most other FPS. Once I stopped relying strategies I learned from other FPS and instead analyzed BH's strategic dynamics to develop BH specific strategies, my scores shot up to where I am regularly the high scorer on any server.
I'll grant that BH is not strategic like maybe Rainbow 6 or AA. BH requires a much more dynamic strategy than that. Nevertheless, you can't bunny-hop or twitch shoot your way out of trouble so you have to be very situationally aware and strategically maneuver yourself into positions where you are more likely to kill than be killed.
Maybe BH isn't right for you, but if you want to give it another go, here are some tips. If you want to win at BH, you need to:
Understand the balance between going for kills and going for flag captures (i.e. kills get your team points, flags give your team a multiplier on those points). You must balance the two.
Understand the role your class plays in helping your team (e.g. soldier is the medic/grunt, commando should either be hazing with sniper shots or going invisible for behind-enemy-lines flag captures)
Equip the right weapons and understand when to use them (i.e. long vs short range gun, shootgun vs machine gun, dynamite). You will have to buy some of these weapons, but earning "money" is fairly easy relative to how long items last. I've never needed to spend real world money to get the right equipment even though I play only rarely (i.e. I'm not maximizing my earnings and items are more likely to need to be replaced between sessions).
Understand what vehicle to use when (e.g. dogfights in a plane may be fun, but they rarely help your team).
Build your character's abilities and understand when to use those abilities (e.g. heal). (It also helps to remap your mouse buttons for faster access to the right abilities/weapons.)
Move with a pack. A pack can do more damage per second.
Move with a pack. A pack can take more damage per second without dieing.
Move with a pack. A pack allows you to take advantage of your teammate's power-ups (e.g. a nearby teammate that uses "heal" will also heal you).
Move with a pack. Some abilities actually give you a bigger boost when you share the ability with friendlies (e.g. when you use "heal" you get more of your own HP healed if you used it to also heal friendlies).
Move with a pack. You will have more tactical options (e.g. stepping out of harms way for half a second to reload or recharge an ability) when there is an entire pack to keep the tangos busy.
Isn't there some restriction on your "f" function? For example, it might be nice to compute a diff between two encrypted files, but the resulting size of the diff could reveal a lot of information and thus make the system insecure.
Doesn't Orlando have self-select back diamond lanes? Wouldn't that solve the problem of skipping past the many families that your company was solving using Clear?
Where can I read these "committee notes"? Any place online?
Also since you seem fairly informed on this topic, besides reading through Title 17 what else should I read to get a more solid understanding of copyright law? (e.g. top 50 copyright cases)
Is there an opinion or some other sort of official documentation to read? Or when they deny an appeal, do you just get a "No" without explanation for why is was denied?
Insurance (of any kind) is an exchange where you pay a higher average (i.e. expected value) in exchange for a smaller variability in the outcome (statistical variance or standard deviation).
For example, suppose that each year one out of ten people one will incur a $10000 medical expense while the others incur no expense. The average cost is $1000, but there is a wide variability ($0-$10000).
Now suppose an insurance company charges $1100. If you take the insurance your average costs would be $100 higher. However, you have also eliminated variability. You no longer have to worry about being surprised by a $10000 bill. Instead you know exactly how much you will have to pay each year.
For things that have only a small amount of variability (e.g. utilities), insurance does not make sense. However, for things (e.g. house burning down) where there is a small but very real chance (e.g. 1 in 10000) of a very high cost (e.g. $100,000), insurance decreases the risk of financial ruin in case you happen to be the unlucky 1 in 10000.
This "citation needed" crap really started to make me mad. Go find your own citation, thank you.
I did try to find my own citation and failed. Rather than writing off your claim as wrong, I gave you the chance to back up your claim with evidence. This is the Internet after all; you can't trust what people say. If you don't have any stronger evidence, that is fine. I can just file this under "claimed (by the Tor project) but not supported by independent evidence".
I hate to badger you on this, but the link you provided doesn't provide strong enough evidence for me to feel comfortable supporting your claim.
A link(*) off that page substantiates the claim that the Navy developed it as a research project. However, the Naval Research Labs produce a lot of experimental research so their invention of the project isn't necessarily an enforcement of Tor. That is to say the NRL is about what could be done, not what should be done.
This brings us back to the claim that the DOD "suggests their own personnel to use it when abroad". The Tor page claims this, but doesn't give specifics or cite a DOD source for this information. For that matter, the Tor page doesn't say it is US militaries that use Tor. The page only claims that some agents of some armed force of some country use Tor in some capacity. If I were to try to convince someone else, I would want more specific facts. Ideally the exact document in which the DoD allegedly suggests their personnel use it.
Again I'm not saying your claim is incorrect. I'm just asking for evidence (documentary or otherwise) in support of that claim, so I can use it if I were to attempt to persuade someone. The claims on the "torproject" page are just to vague and unsubstantiated to use in a debate.
Also, is there anyway to make sure that donated bandwidth is helping Iran rather than getting diluted by use from others? (If there is no way to do this for security reasons, that is fine, but I figured I'd ask if there was.)
If you have questions about legitimacy of helping such a system, US DOD itself designed it and suggests their own personnel to use it when abroad.
Not that I doubt you, but do you have a cite for that? That sounds like a really strong argument for Tor, but before I start using it, I'd want to be able to back up that claim with more than "someone on the Internet told me that...".
Many users may already be using IPv6 without knowing it. When my ISP added IPv6 support, it was so smooth that I didn't even know they had added it until one day I noticed the extra entry in my ipconfig. Check http://www.whatismyipv6.net/ to see if you have an IPv6 address.
IIUC, with IPv6 you don't have to run a DHCP server that keeps track of all assigned addresses. Instead you just have a server that periodically announces the network's link address.
But I think you are right. From the user's perspective, IPv6 won't change anything(*) just like from the user's perspective moving from 16-bit to 32-bit didn't really change anything.
(*) The one killer-app I've heard of for IPv6 is IPSec, but SSL, TLS, IPSec-on-IPv4 have kind of taken the winds out of that sail.
Who's to say that there isn't a field in database row 28360595 that contains the IP address of the system used to post that message?
That's sort of what I'm asking. Is there such a field? Even if there isn't a field by itself, are there multiple fields that together could be used together to infer a single IP or come up with a short candidate list? (Or for logged-in users that check the "AC" box, is there a way to track back to the user name?)
If the logs aren't there, the subpoena doesn't hurt anything. So I ask what sort of logs does slashdot keep that could conceivably be used to track down an AC? Be imaginative in your answers (e.g. someone could try matching the HTTP access logs against the time the comment was posted(*)). Think like a smart technical cop who really wants to figure this out.
(*) There are probably too many accesses in a single minute to determine that reliably, but it may give you a candidate list that you could then correlate with other data. Like I said, be imaginative.
"Faster than light equates to time travel because at the speed of light you have stopped time(*); to go any faster, time has to run backwards(*)"
(*) At least in one particular reference frame, but once you get it in one frame, you can daisy chain your frames together to run backwards in all frames. Also these speeds are in a hyperbolic metric where "faster" and "slower" are slightly different than in the euclidean metric.
(This is a very gross simplification (almost like calling the internet a series of tubes). Do not attempt to draw any inferences from it. If you do, they will probably be wrong. But maybe it will help your intuition become comfortable with the idea.)
Wouldn't a Alcubierre drive violate causality? While locally you are not traveling FTL, IIRC globally traveling FTL is sufficient to violate causality and build a time machine.
In academia this sort of setup is already quite common. My university (acting as my ISP) pays the journal publishers quite a lot of money so that I can access published papers. If they didn't, I would have to sign up on my own and pay out of my own pocket. Corporate research centers often have similar setups with the journal publishers. I think even sites like MSDN are sometimes set up the same way.
I agree with you that can be annoying (especially since the personal subscription rates are so high), and I wouldn't want a large fraction of the web to go that route. However, this isn't something entirely new, and allowing it sometimes makes life easier (e.g. it is in the employer's interest that its researchers have easy access to published papers). Personally I'm a bit torn on this issue.
It's a loophole because if I want to conduct an illegal online investigation on someone and use the evidence in court I just have to make sure I do it from a different state. It effectively allows me to dodge the laws regarding private investigations.
While MediaSentry didn't hack into her machine, your justification for why the evidence should be allowed seems to work just as well for the case where someone does hack into her machine. If you abide by the principal "if they weren't in this state when they broke the law then the evidence is admissible", then a natural conclusion would be that the same applies for hacking. And since (I would hope) evidence obtained through hacking would be thrown out, which is the opposite of the conclusion from the principal, then the principal must be flawed. If the principal is flawed, then the Judges reasoning for allowing the evidence is problematic even if technically legal.
I agree that they shouldn't have to comply with all 50 states, but if the evidence is illegal both in the state where they were physically when obtaining the evidence and in the state where they are bringing the case, then the evidence should not be allowed.
This sounds like a loophole big enough to drive a truck through. I mean what if MediaSentry had actually hacked into her machine? I would hope the evidence would be excluded. (For the moment let's ignore federal laws and only deal with state laws; suppose MediaSentry were based on Canada so federal laws don't apply.)
Slashdot Mirror
I can run 100+ tabs in FF with no problem. Chrome starts choking after 10-15. At least in my humble experience.
I've found BH emphasizes strategy more than many other games. You just have to use very different strategies than in most other FPS. Once I stopped relying strategies I learned from other FPS and instead analyzed BH's strategic dynamics to develop BH specific strategies, my scores shot up to where I am regularly the high scorer on any server.
I'll grant that BH is not strategic like maybe Rainbow 6 or AA. BH requires a much more dynamic strategy than that. Nevertheless, you can't bunny-hop or twitch shoot your way out of trouble so you have to be very situationally aware and strategically maneuver yourself into positions where you are more likely to kill than be killed.
Maybe BH isn't right for you, but if you want to give it another go, here are some tips. If you want to win at BH, you need to:
Isn't there some restriction on your "f" function? For example, it might be nice to compute a diff between two encrypted files, but the resulting size of the diff could reveal a lot of information and thus make the system insecure.
Doesn't Orlando have self-select back diamond lanes? Wouldn't that solve the problem of skipping past the many families that your company was solving using Clear?
Where can I read these "committee notes"? Any place online?
Also since you seem fairly informed on this topic, besides reading through Title 17 what else should I read to get a more solid understanding of copyright law? (e.g. top 50 copyright cases)
Is there an opinion or some other sort of official documentation to read? Or when they deny an appeal, do you just get a "No" without explanation for why is was denied?
If you own a car auto accident/repair insurance is optional. Only auto liability insurance is required by law.
Insurance (of any kind) is an exchange where you pay a higher average (i.e. expected value) in exchange for a smaller variability in the outcome (statistical variance or standard deviation).
For example, suppose that each year one out of ten people one will incur a $10000 medical expense while the others incur no expense. The average cost is $1000, but there is a wide variability ($0-$10000).
Now suppose an insurance company charges $1100. If you take the insurance your average costs would be $100 higher. However, you have also eliminated variability. You no longer have to worry about being surprised by a $10000 bill. Instead you know exactly how much you will have to pay each year.
For things that have only a small amount of variability (e.g. utilities), insurance does not make sense. However, for things (e.g. house burning down) where there is a small but very real chance (e.g. 1 in 10000) of a very high cost (e.g. $100,000), insurance decreases the risk of financial ruin in case you happen to be the unlucky 1 in 10000.
This "citation needed" crap really started to make me mad. Go find your own citation, thank you.
I did try to find my own citation and failed. Rather than writing off your claim as wrong, I gave you the chance to back up your claim with evidence. This is the Internet after all; you can't trust what people say. If you don't have any stronger evidence, that is fine. I can just file this under "claimed (by the Tor project) but not supported by independent evidence".
I hate to badger you on this, but the link you provided doesn't provide strong enough evidence for me to feel comfortable supporting your claim.
A link(*) off that page substantiates the claim that the Navy developed it as a research project. However, the Naval Research Labs produce a lot of experimental research so their invention of the project isn't necessarily an enforcement of Tor. That is to say the NRL is about what could be done, not what should be done.
This brings us back to the claim that the DOD "suggests their own personnel to use it when abroad". The Tor page claims this, but doesn't give specifics or cite a DOD source for this information. For that matter, the Tor page doesn't say it is US militaries that use Tor. The page only claims that some agents of some armed force of some country use Tor in some capacity. If I were to try to convince someone else, I would want more specific facts. Ideally the exact document in which the DoD allegedly suggests their personnel use it.
Again I'm not saying your claim is incorrect. I'm just asking for evidence (documentary or otherwise) in support of that claim, so I can use it if I were to attempt to persuade someone. The claims on the "torproject" page are just to vague and unsubstantiated to use in a debate.
(*) http://www.onion-router.net/
Instead of an arithmetic mean maybe the foreman should have taken a geometric mean.
Also, is there anyway to make sure that donated bandwidth is helping Iran rather than getting diluted by use from others? (If there is no way to do this for security reasons, that is fine, but I figured I'd ask if there was.)
If you have questions about legitimacy of helping such a system, US DOD itself designed it and suggests their own personnel to use it when abroad.
Not that I doubt you, but do you have a cite for that? That sounds like a really strong argument for Tor, but before I start using it, I'd want to be able to back up that claim with more than "someone on the Internet told me that ...".
Many users may already be using IPv6 without knowing it. When my ISP added IPv6 support, it was so smooth that I didn't even know they had added it until one day I noticed the extra entry in my ipconfig. Check http://www.whatismyipv6.net/ to see if you have an IPv6 address.
IIUC, with IPv6 you don't have to run a DHCP server that keeps track of all assigned addresses. Instead you just have a server that periodically announces the network's link address.
But I think you are right. From the user's perspective, IPv6 won't change anything(*) just like from the user's perspective moving from 16-bit to 32-bit didn't really change anything.
(*) The one killer-app I've heard of for IPv6 is IPSec, but SSL, TLS, IPSec-on-IPv4 have kind of taken the winds out of that sail.
Who's to say that there isn't a field in database row 28360595 that contains the IP address of the system used to post that message?
That's sort of what I'm asking. Is there such a field? Even if there isn't a field by itself, are there multiple fields that together could be used together to infer a single IP or come up with a short candidate list? (Or for logged-in users that check the "AC" box, is there a way to track back to the user name?)
If the logs aren't there, the subpoena doesn't hurt anything. So I ask what sort of logs does slashdot keep that could conceivably be used to track down an AC? Be imaginative in your answers (e.g. someone could try matching the HTTP access logs against the time the comment was posted(*)). Think like a smart technical cop who really wants to figure this out.
(*) There are probably too many accesses in a single minute to determine that reliably, but it may give you a candidate list that you could then correlate with other data. Like I said, be imaginative.
"Faster than light equates to time travel because at the speed of light you have stopped time(*); to go any faster, time has to run backwards(*)"
(*) At least in one particular reference frame, but once you get it in one frame, you can daisy chain your frames together to run backwards in all frames. Also these speeds are in a hyperbolic metric where "faster" and "slower" are slightly different than in the euclidean metric.
(This is a very gross simplification (almost like calling the internet a series of tubes). Do not attempt to draw any inferences from it. If you do, they will probably be wrong. But maybe it will help your intuition become comfortable with the idea.)
Wouldn't a Alcubierre drive violate causality? While locally you are not traveling FTL, IIRC globally traveling FTL is sufficient to violate causality and build a time machine.
So you are allowed to carry blades as long you carry them in pairs?
I'm going to need a citation for that since most states require a PI license and to the best of my knowledge MediaSentry holds none.
In academia this sort of setup is already quite common. My university (acting as my ISP) pays the journal publishers quite a lot of money so that I can access published papers. If they didn't, I would have to sign up on my own and pay out of my own pocket. Corporate research centers often have similar setups with the journal publishers. I think even sites like MSDN are sometimes set up the same way.
I agree with you that can be annoying (especially since the personal subscription rates are so high), and I wouldn't want a large fraction of the web to go that route. However, this isn't something entirely new, and allowing it sometimes makes life easier (e.g. it is in the employer's interest that its researchers have easy access to published papers). Personally I'm a bit torn on this issue.
I stated exactly how it is a loophole in the first paragraph.
The evidence was illegally obtained in the state in which they reside.
It's a loophole because if I want to conduct an illegal online investigation on someone and use the evidence in court I just have to make sure I do it from a different state. It effectively allows me to dodge the laws regarding private investigations.
While MediaSentry didn't hack into her machine, your justification for why the evidence should be allowed seems to work just as well for the case where someone does hack into her machine. If you abide by the principal "if they weren't in this state when they broke the law then the evidence is admissible", then a natural conclusion would be that the same applies for hacking. And since (I would hope) evidence obtained through hacking would be thrown out, which is the opposite of the conclusion from the principal, then the principal must be flawed. If the principal is flawed, then the Judges reasoning for allowing the evidence is problematic even if technically legal.
I agree that they shouldn't have to comply with all 50 states, but if the evidence is illegal both in the state where they were physically when obtaining the evidence and in the state where they are bringing the case, then the evidence should not be allowed.
This sounds like a loophole big enough to drive a truck through. I mean what if MediaSentry had actually hacked into her machine? I would hope the evidence would be excluded. (For the moment let's ignore federal laws and only deal with state laws; suppose MediaSentry were based on Canada so federal laws don't apply.)