And just like MUDs this sort of game is only going to appeal to a very niche market of RPG nerds. Maybe that's all they need to keep this game afloat, but I doubt it. Today's MMORPGs require huge amounts of upfront development work ($$$) and when it hits the market there's a lot of competition. Good luck...they'll need it.

What would happen if while law enforcement was hacking into a suspect's computer, or multiple suspected computers as proposed by the DOJ in the article, evidence of a different type of criminal activity was observed than originally suspected under the warrant? I can understand that with current technology law enforcement could justify broader warrants to hack into multiple computers potentially related to a suspect, but that would also exponentially increase the chances of finding other unrelated criminal activities on those computers. It sounds like this could easily be abused into essentially cyber-fishing for criminals. Does anyone know how law enforcement would have to deal with that situation? I'm not intimately familiar with cyber-law, but I would assume there's something in the law books already for hacking into a single computer that would be a precedent. Sarcastic, flame-bait responses are unnecessary...

I'll bet they got a lot of good leads from their imbedded World of Warcraft agents! ( http://games.slashdot.org/stor... )

I hear you... but I always considered "lame" tactics (like camping) as either failures of the game's design or a failure of other opposing players to adapt to counter the lame tactic properly. For example in most well-made FPS games there are ways to counter or completely avoid a camper, but it can require a significant adaption, which many players aren't willing to do, so they just complain about the camper instead. If there really is no way to counter a lame tactic then that's on the developers for poor game design and I probably won't be playing said game much longer.

Yeah the only thing hard about hunting a moose is dragging that massive carcass out of the woods/swamp. A full-grown moose has no fear of a silly little hairless creature pointing a weird stick at them, then BOOM!

I'm totally with you to here. You're right. The non-fatal hunt is the sport.

One could find the animal with a drone and basically walk directly to the target's location and shoot. If you want to walk/run/ski and then shoot, there are several real Olympic sports for those activities, but none of them are called hunting.

Or they are protecting the sport from being ruined by a minority of people, who really just want to shoot animals, and skip the hunting part (i.e. the "sport" part). I'm sure when portable spot-lights hit the market we had the same discussions, and most states decided spot-lighting deer shouldn't be allowed.

I don't think those poor rural hunters who supplement their food with game are using $1,000+ drones. $1,000 could buy a lot of other necessities, food or otherwise. I'm not saying your wrong and I wouldn't stop those people from hunting, but the argument doesn't apply to this situation.

I sort of answered this in another post below, but there are plenty of reasons to limit technology in hunting for the purpose of sport and to give the animals a chance. If herd populations warrant additional culling and more technology is needed then fine, but I think that should be on a case-by-case basis. I won't pretend to know anything about the health of Alaska's game herds (I live in PA), but I would guess the herds there are in a much more natural balance than other more populated states and giving hunters extra advantage isn't really in the interest of the herds. If anything, with tech like this I would expect more "trophy-hunters" who are just going after the biggest and strongest of the animals... not culling of the weak/sick animals as should happen naturally.

Nope, I read the article just fine and didn't assume anything. We don't let hunters use automatic rifles. Many states out-law "spot-lighting" of deer for good reason. We don't let fisherman use electro-shock or dynamite to catch fish. There are reasons to limit technology in hunting for the purpose of sport and to give the animals a chance.

Because at some point you can't call this "hunting" anymore. Good for Alaska.

I agree, but highly scientifically-educated people probably isn't the target audience. Cosmos has to appeal to a broader audience, which probably has less scientific background and knowledge than the average reader of Slashdot's science stories. The show is a good level for middle-school and high-school kids too. If I had a child who showed any interest in Cosmos, I'd be damn sure to sit down with them and watch every week, even if I was a little bored at times.

I agree that Apple's designs are very good, but they still make plenty of mistakes that Apple enthusiasts overlook... The roll-out of their GPS road map software was so buggy they even recommended customers use other services temporarily. Apple had that antenna issue where if you held the iPhone incorrectly it hung up on you. That bug probably would have bankrupted another Android-based company, but it was barely a blip on their earnings because Apple has hordes of people locked into their systems. But worse is Apple's controls over their system and 3rd parties is simply anti-consumer...from iTunes control, attempts to manipulate e-book markets, litigiously pursuing their overly broad patents to stifle competition, to their non-removable batteries. Not even Microsoft was/is as bad as Apple with the manipulation and control. And then there's the Apple price tag. No thank you.

Atheism and religion are more similar than either group cares to admit. 1) Science has yet to prove or disprove the existence of a God, Creator, or other supernatural deity. Therefore, individuals who choose to completely reject the possibility of God are doing so without factual proof. If you can't prove something factually, but believe that it's true anyway that's called "faith." I would argue placing faith in science is no more or less than the faith one puts into a religion. 2) Every normal person feels to more or less degree a desire to belong to a group or community and retain a sense of identity. Historically this was dominated by various religion, but as others have pointed out it's clear that many who believe in atheism are actively seeking very similar communities. Atheism and religion are two sides of the same coin in many ways (faith, community, identity, etc.) I honestly don't think faith in a religion or atheism/agnosticism is more or less valid than the another. The attacks and conflict between belief structures are human failures, not necessarily failures of the beliefs.

As technologically exciting as triangulating broadcasts may be, prisons could go the more mundane route and just install more cameras. They might not be able to get the person on the outside controlling the drone, but if they see the delivery, see who picks it up, and get them right away that seems almost as good and relatively low cost.

This just in... there was a follow-up raid of South Korean troops dressed up as animals to evade Kinect detection!