Disregarding whether Network Solutions is a good company (your experience is *Hugely* different from mine), this change will actually have nothing to do with your DNS service from NetSol.
Verisign sold NetSol a couple years ago to a separate company (who I'm too lazy to google), to avoid a lot of the conflict of interest claims that were coming up. Verisign now is only running the registry. In other words, you will never speak to Verisign if you're registering a domain. You might have to speak to them if you're involved in an improper transfer (like, the panix.com thing), but Network Solutions != Verisign anymore.
Ah, see...that's the point that Blizzard understands and Verant has lost sight of: games are *entertainment*. So, something that makes me, as you put it, "feel good about myself" is much better entertainment than something that feels like work. I do enough work already. When I hit a quest in WoW where I had to log out & look it up on a hint sight, it was very jarring, and very, very rare...I had to do that all the time in EQ.
Challenging is fine, and I am playing one of the more complex classes in WoW for the challenge (warlock). But, at its base, this is still entertainment...I don't want my entertainment to feel like work. It should be fun.
Nice troll, but your sarcasm presents a common fallacy: that work on one issue (adding features like this) means that less work is being done on some other issue (cleaning up security problems). The fact is, throwing more people at a problem does not always make it better, especially if the people you throw at it don't know the subject (which the author of this algorithm may not, can't speak for him).
In other words: if you have someone who's good at writing Genetic Algorithms, but not so good at searching for kernel vulns, why devote that person to security? Why not let them write their contribution, and have the guys who are good at security do their part separately? Why should we only do one thing at once?
Well, if you're a fan of Godel, there are always going to be some gaps (things that are true which we can't prove), so there is some minimum size to God...now there's an interesting subject for a research paper....
Editors/Slashdot managers,
in the interest of keeping the discussion on Roland's stories civil, I'd like to make a Slashdot enhancement request: Could you please create a category for Roland's stories, which interested users could remove from the front page (like many people did with the Jon Katz years ago)?
If people could remove his stories, many of the whining about his stories would vanish, since they'd have a way to avoid him.
On selling characters, there's an expectation that the higher-level characters will serve an important social role in the game. High-level folks are assumed to be Guild leaders, key members of raids, etc. Folks who have just bought their way to the top will not be able to fill that role, since they'll have very little idea of what they're doing or how they got to the point they're at.
If you're trying to build a real community around the game, people buying their way to the top rungs can be very disruptive.
As for selling items, I suspect that's more of a self-protection and fraud prevention issue. The GM's have no way of handling the situation where an EBay auction goes bad, and both sides are claiming the other's lying. If they ban all outside sales, they can at least have audits in-game to be able to tell if someone did make the promise that was claimed and can take appropriate action. Without that, I can totally understand them not wanting to be in the middle of disputes about auctioned goods.
Oh, man, this is a flash game waiting to happen...Choose your offensive and defensive coordinators from a list of historical figures, each of which has a distinct play style. Hitler as a defensive coordinator: always blitz. Always. Ghandi as an offensive coordinator: go for the least confrontational play possible (probably short screens). Combine that with some really bent inter-play video, and you've got yourself a hit.
Because everything *except* the data backup are traditional "security" roles. Backup is needed, and recognized by security folks as good, but backup isn't traditionally considered a "security" product. So, to the market (and to many outsiders), this looks like Symantec trying to buy their way into a market they have no expertise in.
Given my experience with Symantec's other areas that they bought their way into (firewalls, for example), I think this means it's time to stop considering Veritas...if it's any good now, it'll completely suck in 2 years.
Seriously, read the story that's linked there. The story has that title for a reason. No, it's not a good word, but it's still just a word. It won't kill you, it won't hurt you, and the article is a good one.
And then have to have surgery every time a wire breaks, battery dies, or they come out with an improvement? No thanks. The fact that it doesn't need to be implanted is a huge advantage from my point of view.
Actually, one of the things I'd love to see in Thunderbird, but may take a while, is tabbed accounts similar to the tabbed browsing for Mozilla. In other words, each email account would appear in Thunderbird as a tab. (You could put a little email icon in the tab if that account has new mail.)
That would (I think) clear up some valuable window real-estate for those of us with multiple email accounts.
No, they woudn't find you guilty of that because that action is covered by a different law. (small, non-commercial sharing is also not illegal, but because of a different law.)
My point was that you were claiming an action that was not time-shifting was covered by the time-shifting clause. It isn't. It may still be legal, but not due to the time-shifting justification.
No, that's downloading. Time-shifting would be taking a broadcast that you had access to (like the broadcast of the show), and recording it for viewing at a later time (with vcr, tivo, freevo, etc).
It's a subtle, but important, difference. The end-result may be the same (you, with a digital copy of the show), but the path to that end result does matter.
It's real easy...make any comment about how someone's user-ID is way too high for them to be saying what they're saying, and all the folks with crazy low UID's will come out of the woodwork. It's like slashdot catnip...they can't resist.
You know, the Bellagio hotel in Las Vegas has a water show set to that particular piece of music. I've walked past it a few times now, and every time I marvel at the fact that no one thought twice about setting a water show to music about losing someone to drowning.
All it really needs is a good, cheap engine for the type of game you're looking to create. Some will probably never be easy (MMORPGs need lots of infrastructure, that'll never come cheap), but others will probably come pretty quick after the availability of an engine.
It's starting already, actually: Look at all the player-created stuff that's come out for Neverwinter Nights based on their editor.
How would that work? I mean, seriously...even if you open the door to the coop, they'd just stay in & play games. What can you do if your free-range programmers don't want to range free? Can you still use the "organic software" (now there's an interesting term) label if you gave them the choice, but they didn't take it?
What he's referring to is the "localizing" of servers by major geographic area...North America versus Europe, for example. Blizzard has stated quite clearly that the only way to get onto the North American servers is to have a North American billing address (australia is, I believe the exception, as they're being considered North American).
Rumor has it that this is being forced on them by Vivendi, but that's entirely speculation. The fact is, they've said that you have to have a local billing address to get to the servers, and they do not want people crossing areas.
Having been in the open beta, and running a 1Gz box (512MB ran and a 32MB RAM video card), I can say with some authority that older systems have no problem at all with WoW. I didn't have any frame lag, and the game automatically set the various video settings to minimal for my box. It was quite nice to be able to play a game that didn't require me to build up some insane machine.
The best liars are the ones who actually believe what they're saying.
Re:Labor Unions unappreciated
on
NYT on EA Games
·
· Score: 1
The problem is, from the point of view of a young employee (and I remember this feeling when a shop I was in at 23 wanted to unionize), unions are your enemy.
If you're convinced that you're a hotshot who's smarter than half the lifers that work at your office (find me a 23-year-old who *doesn't* think that way), then the union reliance on seniority over talent is not in your interest. A union shop would promote the ancient, Mordac-the-preventer dork who's been there forever and still thinks Windows 3.1 was a fine OS over you, even if you have more skill and knowledge.
Once you hit 30 or so, have gotten married & possibly have kids, you look at a union much more favorably. I think that's at least part of the reason why there are so few unions in the tech world, and why people are starting to talk about it now: the folks who started the revolution (for lack of a better word) are now hitting 30 and changing their priorities.
Don't expect the 20-somethings to play along, though.
Slashdot Mirror
Disregarding whether Network Solutions is a good company (your experience is *Hugely* different from mine), this change will actually have nothing to do with your DNS service from NetSol.
Verisign sold NetSol a couple years ago to a separate company (who I'm too lazy to google), to avoid a lot of the conflict of interest claims that were coming up. Verisign now is only running the registry. In other words, you will never speak to Verisign if you're registering a domain. You might have to speak to them if you're involved in an improper transfer (like, the panix.com thing), but Network Solutions != Verisign anymore.
Ah, see...that's the point that Blizzard understands and Verant has lost sight of: games are *entertainment*. So, something that makes me, as you put it, "feel good about myself" is much better entertainment than something that feels like work. I do enough work already. When I hit a quest in WoW where I had to log out & look it up on a hint sight, it was very jarring, and very, very rare...I had to do that all the time in EQ.
Challenging is fine, and I am playing one of the more complex classes in WoW for the challenge (warlock). But, at its base, this is still entertainment...I don't want my entertainment to feel like work. It should be fun.
Okay...what are they? I can think of a couple:
1) Boy meets girl, boy acts like an idiot & almost loses girl, boy comes to his senses & wins girl
2) Evil dude hurts hero, hero trains for long time, reaches near-enlightened state, kicks evil dude's ass
3) road trip!
4) Boy meets girl, then everyone dies (most tragedy fits in here).
But I'm missing the other 4. Any hints?
Ahhh...vegas cons...the only place where the phrase "check out that rack!" can have more than one meaning.
Nice troll, but your sarcasm presents a common fallacy: that work on one issue (adding features like this) means that less work is being done on some other issue (cleaning up security problems). The fact is, throwing more people at a problem does not always make it better, especially if the people you throw at it don't know the subject (which the author of this algorithm may not, can't speak for him).
In other words: if you have someone who's good at writing Genetic Algorithms, but not so good at searching for kernel vulns, why devote that person to security? Why not let them write their contribution, and have the guys who are good at security do their part separately? Why should we only do one thing at once?
Well, if you're a fan of Godel, there are always going to be some gaps (things that are true which we can't prove), so there is some minimum size to God...now there's an interesting subject for a research paper....
Editors/Slashdot managers,
in the interest of keeping the discussion on Roland's stories civil, I'd like to make a Slashdot enhancement request: Could you please create a category for Roland's stories, which interested users could remove from the front page (like many people did with the Jon Katz years ago)?
If people could remove his stories, many of the whining about his stories would vanish, since they'd have a way to avoid him.
There are two main reasons I can think of:
On selling characters, there's an expectation that the higher-level characters will serve an important social role in the game. High-level folks are assumed to be Guild leaders, key members of raids, etc. Folks who have just bought their way to the top will not be able to fill that role, since they'll have very little idea of what they're doing or how they got to the point they're at.
If you're trying to build a real community around the game, people buying their way to the top rungs can be very disruptive.
As for selling items, I suspect that's more of a self-protection and fraud prevention issue. The GM's have no way of handling the situation where an EBay auction goes bad, and both sides are claiming the other's lying. If they ban all outside sales, they can at least have audits in-game to be able to tell if someone did make the promise that was claimed and can take appropriate action. Without that, I can totally understand them not wanting to be in the middle of disputes about auctioned goods.
Oh, man, this is a flash game waiting to happen...Choose your offensive and defensive coordinators from a list of historical figures, each of which has a distinct play style. Hitler as a defensive coordinator: always blitz. Always. Ghandi as an offensive coordinator: go for the least confrontational play possible (probably short screens). Combine that with some really bent inter-play video, and you've got yourself a hit.
Wait, so where do you train to be a retired English teacher? Can I study to go straight into retirement in other fields?
(Yes, I know what you mean, but turnabout is fair play. :)
Because everything *except* the data backup are traditional "security" roles. Backup is needed, and recognized by security folks as good, but backup isn't traditionally considered a "security" product. So, to the market (and to many outsiders), this looks like Symantec trying to buy their way into a market they have no expertise in.
Given my experience with Symantec's other areas that they bought their way into (firewalls, for example), I think this means it's time to stop considering Veritas...if it's any good now, it'll completely suck in 2 years.
Seriously, read the story that's linked there. The story has that title for a reason. No, it's not a good word, but it's still just a word. It won't kill you, it won't hurt you, and the article is a good one.
And then have to have surgery every time a wire breaks, battery dies, or they come out with an improvement? No thanks. The fact that it doesn't need to be implanted is a huge advantage from my point of view.
Actually, one of the things I'd love to see in Thunderbird, but may take a while, is tabbed accounts similar to the tabbed browsing for Mozilla. In other words, each email account would appear in Thunderbird as a tab. (You could put a little email icon in the tab if that account has new mail.)
That would (I think) clear up some valuable window real-estate for those of us with multiple email accounts.
No, they woudn't find you guilty of that because that action is covered by a different law. (small, non-commercial sharing is also not illegal, but because of a different law.)
My point was that you were claiming an action that was not time-shifting was covered by the time-shifting clause. It isn't. It may still be legal, but not due to the time-shifting justification.
Heh. yes, WoW has mechanical squirrels (a non-combat pet that just follows you around and looks cute).
Even beter, though: it has exploding sheep.
There are just so many ways that exploding sheep are wrong...makes me really want to make one.
No, that's downloading. Time-shifting would be taking a broadcast that you had access to (like the broadcast of the show), and recording it for viewing at a later time (with vcr, tivo, freevo, etc).
It's a subtle, but important, difference. The end-result may be the same (you, with a digital copy of the show), but the path to that end result does matter.
It's real easy...make any comment about how someone's user-ID is way too high for them to be saying what they're saying, and all the folks with crazy low UID's will come out of the woodwork. It's like slashdot catnip...they can't resist.
You know, the Bellagio hotel in Las Vegas has a water show set to that particular piece of music. I've walked past it a few times now, and every time I marvel at the fact that no one thought twice about setting a water show to music about losing someone to drowning.
All it really needs is a good, cheap engine for the type of game you're looking to create. Some will probably never be easy (MMORPGs need lots of infrastructure, that'll never come cheap), but others will probably come pretty quick after the availability of an engine.
It's starting already, actually: Look at all the player-created stuff that's come out for Neverwinter Nights based on their editor.
How would that work? I mean, seriously...even if you open the door to the coop, they'd just stay in & play games. What can you do if your free-range programmers don't want to range free? Can you still use the "organic software" (now there's an interesting term) label if you gave them the choice, but they didn't take it?
What he's referring to is the "localizing" of servers by major geographic area...North America versus Europe, for example. Blizzard has stated quite clearly that the only way to get onto the North American servers is to have a North American billing address (australia is, I believe the exception, as they're being considered North American).
Rumor has it that this is being forced on them by Vivendi, but that's entirely speculation. The fact is, they've said that you have to have a local billing address to get to the servers, and they do not want people crossing areas.
Having been in the open beta, and running a 1Gz box (512MB ran and a 32MB RAM video card), I can say with some authority that older systems have no problem at all with WoW. I didn't have any frame lag, and the game automatically set the various video settings to minimal for my box. It was quite nice to be able to play a game that didn't require me to build up some insane machine.
I don't think you'd find much difference.
The best liars are the ones who actually believe what they're saying.
The problem is, from the point of view of a young employee (and I remember this feeling when a shop I was in at 23 wanted to unionize), unions are your enemy.
If you're convinced that you're a hotshot who's smarter than half the lifers that work at your office (find me a 23-year-old who *doesn't* think that way), then the union reliance on seniority over talent is not in your interest. A union shop would promote the ancient, Mordac-the-preventer dork who's been there forever and still thinks Windows 3.1 was a fine OS over you, even if you have more skill and knowledge.
Once you hit 30 or so, have gotten married & possibly have kids, you look at a union much more favorably. I think that's at least part of the reason why there are so few unions in the tech world, and why people are starting to talk about it now: the folks who started the revolution (for lack of a better word) are now hitting 30 and changing their priorities.
Don't expect the 20-somethings to play along, though.