Re:Yerp. Figure it Out, Already.
on
Game Breakers
·
· Score: 1
I don't understand why you're complaining that Metroid Prime didn't have enough spawn points. I had no problem completing the game (even on Hard difficulty) with the amount of save points it had. Perhaps you just suck at it? (Just kidding) Mostly I just got in the habit of saving when I was near a save point, whether I really needed to or not. Perhaps I'm just more patient?
At any rate, I wouldn't use Metroid Prime as an example of insufficient spawn/save points. I'd go more with something like Zelda: Majora's Mask, where there are very few save points (5 or 6 in the whole game IIRC) and saving requires you to quit (unless you go back to the first day). Oh, and starting from that save point deletes it, too, I think. That's just a pain in the ass. I liked the way OOT did it better, where you could save anywhere, but there was generally a specified spawn point for each "area".
I thought that you were still able to get critical updates. If so, the botnet thing isn't as big of an issue. On the other hand, the amount of users, including businesses, that would be calling in complaining that WGA is saying they don't have a "genuine" copy would be ridiculous. Also, if MS doesn't realize right away that it is in fact a virus, they will end up having repeat callers.
Wasn't there also something about WGA limiting Internet usage to 30 min. or something when the OS wasn't "genuine"? This would be a kick in the nuts to businesses that rely on having access to the Internet.
The virus wouldn't necessarily be used to create botnets so much as to piss people off and cause a lot of backlash against MS.
And just to protect myself in the even that this sort of this ends up happening... I have not written, nor will I ever write, a virus that does the aforementioned things.
... on a virus right now that effectively shuts down any Vista computer by causing WGA to always detect the OS as a pirated copy.
Actually, for some reason, I had never thought of this before. You probably wouldn't really even have to mess with WGA all that much, just change whatever it's checking to see if the OS is valid. Not sure how easy that would be, but considering the number of false positives that are cropping up on XP, it should be quite doable.
I don't really intend to reply to my own comment, but it's easier than replying to everyone individually. Some of you don't understand what I mean at all, or think I mean the opposite of what I do. So to clarify...
Even if devices are "turned off" they still draw power. My PC can be completely turned off (as in not in standby mode) and still draw power, yet if I flip the switch on the power strip, the power draw is gone. The same goes for a lot of appliances. I find it strange that devices that don't need to draw power while "off" (as in devices that aren't operated via remote, don't maintain settings in volatile memory, and don't have a clock) don't have hard switches for on/off. It can't be that difficult to implement.
Why apply this only to standby mode? Why not apply this to devices that are completely powered down as well? I've noticed a significant reduction in power consumption when I've unplugged appliances and other electrical devices (most notably my PC) when they're not in use. Is it that difficult to implement a hard switch within the device? Understandably, we wouldn't want this for devices that are operated via remote.
I agree. The only reasons to pre-order is if you get free swag or if you expect there to be a real shortage and don't want to wait another month or two for one. I did the same thing as you with Windwaker just to get the OOT/MQ disc. EBGames/Gamestop are especially stupid with pre-orders since you generally aren't promised the item on release. You're basically just buying a spot on a waiting list. I'll probably wait until after Christmas to get one, just because I'm hoping someone will be awesome enough to get me one for my birthday or Christmas.
That was a design flaw, not a technical bug. You couldn't return it for a new one because of it, and it wasn't covered under any sort of warranty. It was (believe it or not) supposed to be that way.
Has Nintendo ever had these sorts of problems with their consoles or handhelds? I don't recall any. I think it's pretty safe to bet that there won't be any. Not to mention that they've said (too lazy to find a reference) that they've paid attention to these sorts of things.
As some others have pointed out, there are tools to get around that sort of thing. You should be validating all input server side, whether it's validated client side or not. There are also very easy ways to deal with SQL injection already, such as parameterized stored procedures. Doing what you suggest would involve a hell of a lot of recoding, break a hell of a lot of existing sites, and proceed to punish good coders by making them work around the "safe-guard". Programmers who don't take steps to protect against SQL injection deserve to have their sites hacked. And guess what? If they have their sites hacked, they'll probably remember to do something about it in the future, or hire someone who already knows how.
I may sound like an elitist by saying the following, but secure programming should not be "easy" for the "masses". It should be reserved for those who know what the hell they're doing, and they should be paid accordingly. I do not believe it's wise to give the average Joe the tools to make even slightly sophisticated programs. We've seen what happens when we do this; take a look at most websites from the dotcom bubble.
Thanks for the info. I was apparently making some very incorrect assumptions. And now being enlightened, I can say with confidence that the people that pay to have their gamerscore increased are merely doing it for the boost to their e-peen.
So... you pay someone $300 to get your gamerscore higher, and when you actually start playing again, it falls right back to where it was because you still suck? Riiight.
I don't know much about the gamerscore system, but for a moment, let's assume that the system matches you up with players with similar scores. So now you've spent $300 so that you can play against people that are better than you, and you've developed zero skill while doing so. Not only are you going to get trounced (assuming not everyone is doing this) but you're also going to have zero fun and lose score at the same time. Sounds like a total waste of $300 to me. I'd rather spend that $300 on the electricity I would use playing the game long enough to develop the amount of skill it would take to get my score that high to begin with. But I guess some people will do anything for that brief moment where they can show off how huge their e-peen is, even if it's going to get destroyed John Bobbet-style a few moments later.
Good point. The more I think about it, the harder I find it to disprove that. The only real argument against it that I can come up with is: Isn't complete apathy a form of extremism? To be completely moderate, you'd be apathetic about the things that truly don't matter but be concerned with the things that truly do matter, or some variation thereof. Other than that, you might be on to something.
I couldn't agree with you more. It's unfortunate that Christian basically means Christ-like, because that's the perfect definition of the word you're looking for. Perhaps since we're basing things fundametally on the Beatitudes, it should simply be Beatitudism.
As a side note, I also like one of the fundamental ideas of Buddhism (from what little I've learned and remember of it), which is to live a life of moderation. Living your life at any extreme is spiritually (and sometimes physically) unhealthy. One should walk as near to the middle of the road as possible. There's a lot more to it than that. I'm obviously summarizing A LOT.
I do accept that I don't know everything. That's not the point. Nor is it that God is required to fill in the gaps. The point is that God/religion can fill in the gaps in science, and science can fill in the gaps in religion. They don't have to, they simply can. The people that find that impossible to accept are the people I was referencing in my original comment. By no means am I saying that you have to believe in some sort of god or anything like that. I just find it very naive and closed minded to completely deny the existence or validity of one or the other because of what the Bible (or whatever other religious text) or scientific text says. Don't get me wrong, you can deny the existence of God. Just don't tell me that science and God are mutually exclusive.
What, do you think religion can explain anything? Science at least is dependable.
That's not what I said. Religion just helps to fill in the gaps where science doesn't have any explanation or isn't proven. It's called faith.
Also, there's lots of theories about the Big Bang, and I'm familiar with some of them, including the one you mentioned. I'm just using it as an example. Religion fills in the beginning/end of the universe questions that currently don't have a definite answer.
I think at this point you're just arguing for the sake or argument. Either that or you're one of those science extremists.
No worries as long as you've got her heart medicine handy. Just make sure you don't drop her pills into a freezing river. Though, the end result is pretty nice, but the hypothermia might suck a bit.
...on fusion/cold fusion when Dr. Emma Russel already knows the answer? All someone has to do is seduce her and steal the cards out of her brazier! A much simpler plan. Plus, you get some booty from a hottie while you're at it!
But if we killed all the extremists, wouldn't we then become the extremists? So should we kill ourselves then? Or, knowing this, should we just kill ourselves to begin with and save ourselves the trouble of hunting them all down? Or should we just kill everyone? Oh, great, now I've gone cross-eyed.
That's easy - 'the creation story is an allegory. It isn't meant to be taken literally'. See? Easy.
No, not easy. A lot of them take that story very literally, even to the point of thinking that everything was created in six 24 hour days. Trust me. I've said nearly this exact same line to quite a few "Christians" in my day, and they will argue about it until they're blue in the face.
Like what, exactly?
What, do you think science can currently explain everything? If you do, you're terribly naive. I really don't even want to dignify this with a response, but what about what the universe was before the Big Bang? What about "miracles" or things that just don't have a rational explanation?
Go to europe sometime - the christians there are far more sensible.
I would if I had the money, and you're probably right. Europeans are far more sensible in a lot of respects compared to Americans. Also, these would not be the "Christians" I'm talking about.
That might be true, but you're basically arguing about symantics. You knew exactly what I meant by "die-hard science type". Should I have been more clear and said "borderline-athiest/agnostic/anti-religious science zealots"? I realize there are plenty of religious scientists out there. Just as there are plenty of scientific religious people. But those are not the people I'm talking about.
Also consider for a moment that I didn't necessarily mean "scientists", just people that believe science is the be-all end-all. You don't have to be a scientist in the classical sense of the term to be a fanatic. Just like you don't have to be a southern baptist preacher to be a religious fanatic. Fanatics come in all shapes and sizes.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't understand why you're complaining that Metroid Prime didn't have enough spawn points. I had no problem completing the game (even on Hard difficulty) with the amount of save points it had. Perhaps you just suck at it? (Just kidding) Mostly I just got in the habit of saving when I was near a save point, whether I really needed to or not. Perhaps I'm just more patient?
At any rate, I wouldn't use Metroid Prime as an example of insufficient spawn/save points. I'd go more with something like Zelda: Majora's Mask, where there are very few save points (5 or 6 in the whole game IIRC) and saving requires you to quit (unless you go back to the first day). Oh, and starting from that save point deletes it, too, I think. That's just a pain in the ass. I liked the way OOT did it better, where you could save anywhere, but there was generally a specified spawn point for each "area".
No, that's who they're using to write the code for the game.
Wasn't there also something about WGA limiting Internet usage to 30 min. or something when the OS wasn't "genuine"? This would be a kick in the nuts to businesses that rely on having access to the Internet.
The virus wouldn't necessarily be used to create botnets so much as to piss people off and cause a lot of backlash against MS.
And just to protect myself in the even that this sort of this ends up happening... I have not written, nor will I ever write, a virus that does the aforementioned things.
... on a virus right now that effectively shuts down any Vista computer by causing WGA to always detect the OS as a pirated copy.
Actually, for some reason, I had never thought of this before. You probably wouldn't really even have to mess with WGA all that much, just change whatever it's checking to see if the OS is valid. Not sure how easy that would be, but considering the number of false positives that are cropping up on XP, it should be quite doable.
I wonder why that is a limitation. IIRC you can force a tie no matter where the first player goes. Anyone care to prove me wrong?
I don't really intend to reply to my own comment, but it's easier than replying to everyone individually. Some of you don't understand what I mean at all, or think I mean the opposite of what I do. So to clarify...
Even if devices are "turned off" they still draw power. My PC can be completely turned off (as in not in standby mode) and still draw power, yet if I flip the switch on the power strip, the power draw is gone. The same goes for a lot of appliances. I find it strange that devices that don't need to draw power while "off" (as in devices that aren't operated via remote, don't maintain settings in volatile memory, and don't have a clock) don't have hard switches for on/off. It can't be that difficult to implement.
Why apply this only to standby mode? Why not apply this to devices that are completely powered down as well? I've noticed a significant reduction in power consumption when I've unplugged appliances and other electrical devices (most notably my PC) when they're not in use. Is it that difficult to implement a hard switch within the device? Understandably, we wouldn't want this for devices that are operated via remote.
I agree. The only reasons to pre-order is if you get free swag or if you expect there to be a real shortage and don't want to wait another month or two for one. I did the same thing as you with Windwaker just to get the OOT/MQ disc. EBGames/Gamestop are especially stupid with pre-orders since you generally aren't promised the item on release. You're basically just buying a spot on a waiting list. I'll probably wait until after Christmas to get one, just because I'm hoping someone will be awesome enough to get me one for my birthday or Christmas.
Problem solved: get a realdoll. Can I have my $1000 USD now?
That was a design flaw, not a technical bug. You couldn't return it for a new one because of it, and it wasn't covered under any sort of warranty. It was (believe it or not) supposed to be that way.
Has Nintendo ever had these sorts of problems with their consoles or handhelds? I don't recall any. I think it's pretty safe to bet that there won't be any. Not to mention that they've said (too lazy to find a reference) that they've paid attention to these sorts of things.
Aye, you're right. And I thought the same thing as I was quoting that bit of TFA. I'm glad someone else noticed.
As some others have pointed out, there are tools to get around that sort of thing. You should be validating all input server side, whether it's validated client side or not. There are also very easy ways to deal with SQL injection already, such as parameterized stored procedures. Doing what you suggest would involve a hell of a lot of recoding, break a hell of a lot of existing sites, and proceed to punish good coders by making them work around the "safe-guard". Programmers who don't take steps to protect against SQL injection deserve to have their sites hacked. And guess what? If they have their sites hacked, they'll probably remember to do something about it in the future, or hire someone who already knows how.
I may sound like an elitist by saying the following, but secure programming should not be "easy" for the "masses". It should be reserved for those who know what the hell they're doing, and they should be paid accordingly. I do not believe it's wise to give the average Joe the tools to make even slightly sophisticated programs. We've seen what happens when we do this; take a look at most websites from the dotcom bubble.
Thanks for the info. I was apparently making some very incorrect assumptions. And now being enlightened, I can say with confidence that the people that pay to have their gamerscore increased are merely doing it for the boost to their e-peen.
So... you pay someone $300 to get your gamerscore higher, and when you actually start playing again, it falls right back to where it was because you still suck? Riiight.
I don't know much about the gamerscore system, but for a moment, let's assume that the system matches you up with players with similar scores. So now you've spent $300 so that you can play against people that are better than you, and you've developed zero skill while doing so. Not only are you going to get trounced (assuming not everyone is doing this) but you're also going to have zero fun and lose score at the same time. Sounds like a total waste of $300 to me. I'd rather spend that $300 on the electricity I would use playing the game long enough to develop the amount of skill it would take to get my score that high to begin with. But I guess some people will do anything for that brief moment where they can show off how huge their e-peen is, even if it's going to get destroyed John Bobbet-style a few moments later.
I couldn't agree with you more. It's unfortunate that Christian basically means Christ-like, because that's the perfect definition of the word you're looking for. Perhaps since we're basing things fundametally on the Beatitudes, it should simply be Beatitudism.
As a side note, I also like one of the fundamental ideas of Buddhism (from what little I've learned and remember of it), which is to live a life of moderation. Living your life at any extreme is spiritually (and sometimes physically) unhealthy. One should walk as near to the middle of the road as possible. There's a lot more to it than that. I'm obviously summarizing A LOT.
I do accept that I don't know everything. That's not the point. Nor is it that God is required to fill in the gaps. The point is that God/religion can fill in the gaps in science, and science can fill in the gaps in religion. They don't have to, they simply can. The people that find that impossible to accept are the people I was referencing in my original comment. By no means am I saying that you have to believe in some sort of god or anything like that. I just find it very naive and closed minded to completely deny the existence or validity of one or the other because of what the Bible (or whatever other religious text) or scientific text says. Don't get me wrong, you can deny the existence of God. Just don't tell me that science and God are mutually exclusive.
Also, there's lots of theories about the Big Bang, and I'm familiar with some of them, including the one you mentioned. I'm just using it as an example. Religion fills in the beginning/end of the universe questions that currently don't have a definite answer.
I think at this point you're just arguing for the sake or argument. Either that or you're one of those science extremists.
No worries as long as you've got her heart medicine handy. Just make sure you don't drop her pills into a freezing river. Though, the end result is pretty nice, but the hypothermia might suck a bit.
...on fusion/cold fusion when Dr. Emma Russel already knows the answer? All someone has to do is seduce her and steal the cards out of her brazier! A much simpler plan. Plus, you get some booty from a hottie while you're at it!
But if we killed all the extremists, wouldn't we then become the extremists? So should we kill ourselves then? Or, knowing this, should we just kill ourselves to begin with and save ourselves the trouble of hunting them all down? Or should we just kill everyone? Oh, great, now I've gone cross-eyed.
What, do you think science can currently explain everything? If you do, you're terribly naive. I really don't even want to dignify this with a response, but what about what the universe was before the Big Bang? What about "miracles" or things that just don't have a rational explanation?
I would if I had the money, and you're probably right. Europeans are far more sensible in a lot of respects compared to Americans. Also, these would not be the "Christians" I'm talking about.
That might be true, but you're basically arguing about symantics. You knew exactly what I meant by "die-hard science type". Should I have been more clear and said "borderline-athiest/agnostic/anti-religious science zealots"? I realize there are plenty of religious scientists out there. Just as there are plenty of scientific religious people. But those are not the people I'm talking about.
Also consider for a moment that I didn't necessarily mean "scientists", just people that believe science is the be-all end-all. You don't have to be a scientist in the classical sense of the term to be a fanatic. Just like you don't have to be a southern baptist preacher to be a religious fanatic. Fanatics come in all shapes and sizes.