You are assuming a lot about the OP's relationship, and none of it is warranted or remotely appropriate. The only thing that's been expressed so far is that OP wants to find ways to interact with his girlfriend despite their distance. He didn't say why he was moving, for how long, when he's going to see her again, how long they've been dating, what they've liked to do together in the past, etc. etc. etc. So how about instead of being a presumptuous asshole and deriding OP for no reason, you make yourself useful and recommend some games or mod up good replies.

WHAT DO YOU DO WITH A PERSON LIKE THAT? YOU DUMP THEM! BLOOD FOR THE BLO okay there are some pretty good games out there that focus on problem solving and exploration, nobody plays this anymore but if it's just you and your girl then I recommend Myst Online, it's kind of old but still pretty for an MMO, and it's all about solving rather abstract and unique puzzles. Oh and it's free.

Lot of other good games got mentioned, but I feel Myst Online deserves some love here, it's a pretty good fit for the kind of gameplay you're looking for.

Except, again, that's not what's being argued. What was said in TFA was the ONLY reason cyber crime, espionage etc etc exist is because of shoddy security design. This is not only completely false, it unnecessarily burdens engineers and sysadmins with the task of somehow managing the impossible.

Except it was suggested. The premise given was that should "poor application or system design, implementation, and/or configuration" be eliminated, so too would "Cyber espionage, crime, and warfare". My argument was tasking engineers with eradicating all of those problems would be like tasking doctors with curing every disease. I'M not the one going to an absurd extreme, it's a direct quote taken from TFA. I'm merely pointing it out.

I don't doubt that.

That would be a proper analogy if it's what was being argued. While the article did call for stricter security standards for commercially produced code, something that I agree with, it also said that breaches of security would not happen if such were the case. Hence the analogy; you can make the system better, you can't make it perfect.

You should read my comment again, because your reply is essentially repeating what my post said to begin with. Do people treat security poorly in the IT industry, yes. Can security be strengthened by more rigid standards and harsher penalties for failure, yes.

What I responded to, and I'll quote it again, was "Cyber espionage, crime, and warfare are possible only because of poor application or system design, implementation, and/or configuration." The implication here is that these things are NOT possible if systems are not poorly designed, implemented and configured. That's a load of bullshit. even with the best security advancements available you are simply not immune. To suggest otherwise is to display ignorance on the subject.

Do you expect medical professionals to be able to cure every disease and infection ever? Do you expect automotive engineers to be able to build mechanically perfect vehicles? No. Of course the attitude the majority of people take towards online security is a joke, but no more so than saying "Cyber espionage, crime, and warfare are possible only because of poor application or system design, implementation, and/or configuration."

Cyber espionage, crime, and warfare exist through the same mechanisms that allow viruses to become resistant to treatment: adaptation. Systems can be designed to be harder to break, systems can't be made to be impenetrable. The language used in this article is just the same old IT-focused yellow journalism we've all come to expect on the subject.

Don't be ridiculous, that's what the drones are for.

This seems unlikely to be a focused surveillance effort as much as a datamining operation for the purpose of statistical analysis. Couldn't say what purpose this would serve, since I'm by no means an infosec or sigint expert, but seems to me it's possible that they're trying to be able to identify behavior patterns, possibly to better locate individuals, or to be able to more accurately predict and track the growth of social/revolutionary movements overseas, etc.

Real "hackers" with experience in network probing, intrusion and forensics also don't need a video game to use tools like nmap and ettercap. This is just a neat toy that provides a layer of visual abstraction to help people better understand the tools that are employed during a (legal) pentest, not a suite of security tools for 00b3r-31337 bl4khA7 PwNl0rDz to expedite their trips to prison.

You've never played Battlefront?

I sincerely doubt that. I'm sure more than a few of those asked to cooperate saw the marketing potential in possibly having one of the few AV services billed as "free from government malware!" Now that all that have been asked have refused, it'd take a death wish for a company to volunteer to be the black sheep.

From TFA:

This issue doesn't just boil down to the trivial numbers you'd like to make it seem like. Not all of us live in big metropolitan areas with a fast food restaurant with a wifi hotspot at every corner.

Not saying this is the case, but I've heard a few people mention that the attempt here is to make programming skills much more common and thus, less valuable. If anyone has any insight on it I'd be glad to hear it.

Either way, though, I just wouldn't trust the American public school system to give students a good feeling for programming of any sort. If it ends up like any other subject being taught, all of which could be said to be interesting, then they'll reduce it not to a series of critical thinking challenges but a tedious exercise in memorizing and regurgitating information weekly, to then just forget it entirely by the time summer rolls around. As I've never attended school anywhere else, I couldn't say how well it'd work for the rest of the world, so the program might fare better elsewhere. But I can't see it generating anything other than disinterest in the subjects among students as has been the case with math, history, science, literature, etc. etc.

Considering the cheesy shit publishers have done to increase profits from sales with on-disc DLC, preorder bonuses, multiplayer passes and the like, none of which EA has any qualms about implementing into their games, I find it odd that it took this long for EA to come to this decision. Brings me back to when Activision's CEO Bobby Kotick openly fantasized about making every game subscription based.

Honestly though, I don't mind that EA is trying this. Publishers don't exist to bring us quality games, that's what developers try to do (some, anyway.) Publishers exist to squeeze every last penny out of IP laws that they can, and tack whatever contrived bullshit onto their games that they think they can get away with. Remember these? Publishers are more often than not just like loan sharks, only where the mafia tries to hide from the scrutiny of the DoJ, corporations can just pay them for even more invasive copyright laws. And if you dare oppose it, you're an un-American anti-capitalist who hates successful people and heartlessly steals from the efforts of hardworking programmers who pour their hearts into their work. They've practically got a free ride at this point.

No, what bothers me are the people who buy into this abusive relationship with people who sell intellectual property. Or lease, I should say, since apparently you don't even own software that you purchase. As long as there's a market that will kowtow to this sort of behavior, IP owners will keep pulling goofy shit like this. And they'll come out winning.