Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:But the REAL question on all our minds is... (Score 1) 139 does one get to be a game historian and get paid for it?

You start with a childhood lover of D&D. You thenspend a few years trolling through library collection of old zines that were printed off of memograph machine in lots of ~100, looking for prototypical examples of rules that later crystalized in mass market products. You will need to supplement that with a working knowledge of the first 50 years of Weird fiction, when eventually split into Fantasy and golden-age science fiction. You then add that to a copious amount of personal reading on topics such as 17th century chess variants and Prussian kriegspiel. After you've done that unpaid for a few years, you can take some time off from your real job to write a 600 page treatise on wargaming. After that, all those sweet, sweet unpaid interviews with NPR start rolling in!

(I'm about 200 pages in on Playing at the World. It's massive and comprehensive. If you like early D&D history, you can also check out the blogs he follows, with Delta and Zenopus doing especially good detective work.)

Comment Re:Idea owners unite? (Score 4, Interesting) 139

The summary uses the most stilted possible working for the facts presented in the article. (In other words, the summary is accurate, it just has a much more accusatory tone. Also, the article is 2 pages printed: people can stop being lazy and just read it.)

But you, petry, are also putting on blinders. The D&D fireball is what WoW and Magic cribbed from, because it's the famous fireball. (And if by "the gods" you just mean Zeus, then yes, things were thrown: lightning, not fire.) D&D linked fireball and wizards in peoples' minds. Chainmail is the basis of D&D, and now we find Chainmail cribbed from another game, which is interesting. Nobody is trying to claim ownership or copyright or patent or whatever the people who only read the summary seem to believe. Certainly no one is looking for a settlement or royalty or free Arby's sandwich or whatever your feel angry about them "wanting".

Here are the facts:

* The mechanical roots of D&D are Chainmail. Chainmail's Fantasy appendix is more limited in scope to Tolkien than D&D would become. At one point Gygax called the Fantasy rules that became the most popular part of it, "an afterthought". Until now, the line of thought was that the wizard's fireball and lightning (the only spells they had in Chainmail) were respective fantasy versions of Medieval catapult and Napoleonic cannon rules. It is illuminating to find otherwise.

* The mechanics of the Fantasy appendix use similar terms, identical mechanics, and generally numbers within +/-1 of the rules of Patt. It's directly cribbed. The other author of Chainmail, Jeff Perren, is on the subscription list for the very issue where Patt's rules are printed. There's no real doubt.

* Gary Gygax did take from everything without attribution. In Dragon he presented aerial combat for D&D as "Battle in the Skies", never mentioning the rules are identical to those in Avalon Hill's "Fight in the Skies" board wargame. The thief class of later D&D was invented by Wagner of the Aero Hobbies crew and shared with Gygax by and Switzer of the same group: he later rolled his own version to market, but to many on the outside (and inside) it looked like he just stole it whole because there was no attribution. Pretty much the only time he did attribute is when he didn't want to type out the rules anew, such as when D&D refers the reader to Chainmail for combat rules and to the Outdoor Survival boardgame for overland journeys. This is how the hobby worked back then, and this friction is what happens when a friendly hobby becomes a real business.

Comment Re:The cries of a dying business (Score 2) 418

In fairness to them, their strategy does make some sense. They are trying to support the mobile web, and the Australis design does do a better job of that on phones (where you want basically no interface at all). And extensions do break and destabilize things all the time. And once you acknowledge that, and note that the cross-platform interface structure Firefox is based on just flat does not work on adroid, it makes sense to get rid of that too. And once you acknowledge that, themes have to change pretty much every build anyway, so why even allow them that level of flexibility?

All their decisions have been perfectly reasonable, long-term decisions. Now, this is not to say that the ideas are good, because they sacrifice everything that made Firefox unique so that it can be the best possible also-ran browser. But I can at least see signs of thought.

Comment Seems counter-productive (Score 1) 418

So the response to a tool becoming unavailable is to make information about the tool unavailable? I appreciate that this is supposed to put some pressure on Jobb, and I enjoy petty acts of spite against nutjobs as much as the next guy. But this seems like it just further harms the tool users (and potential tool users), not so much Jobb.

Comment Re:We need an OS fix (Score 5, Insightful) 95

I'm going to propose a more radical fix: we need to stop letting the DOM have reliable access to so damn much information.

When we started the move away from webpages and toward web applications, we let the DOM have access to pretty much everything, because applications are big and general and data-hungry: The DOM captures keystrokes so each website can have it's own controls and hotkeys (and which unintentionally lets a user be identified by keystroke dynamics). The DOM has access to blocks of offline memory so that applications can be stable offline or when infrequently connected (and which is another vector for super-cookie tracking). It has access to viewports and peripherals for responsive layouts (which is more data for a browser signature that can easily allow user activity to be correlated). CSS needs read access to layout colors if it's going to be changing them dynamically (which means that those colored as recently-visited by the browser are know, which allows for history-based signatures).

Hell, we still have to live with all the ancient tracking methods and features like HTTP referer [sic], cookies, and user agent strings. And even though the World Wide Web was meant to be extensible, fail gracefully wherever possible, and be tolerant or varying levels of technological support, most modern websites will go out of their way to detect that you are not 100% compliant with their demands, then tell you to play by their rules or get off the net. Usually this is couched in the language of "reasonable compatibility testing" or "consistent experience", but most such sites will work perfectly well once you spoof some parameter, thus proving it wasn't necessary after all (for example, Gmail after spoofing javascript). Some I can only believe are deliberately architectured to fail: static pages which could be served entirely as native HTML, but instead decided to have just enough HTML to call Javascript to do all the real work by manipulating DOM to insert HTML into a mostly-blank structure (looking at you, Board Game Geek).

The DOM has demanded every piece of data available to the browser in the name of ever more byzantine applications, even though all but an insignificant portion of the web is still consumed in a page-like way. You can use NoScript and set Opera/Firefox/Chrome preferences until your blue in the face, but you will never reduce your tracking cross-section while the standards bodies insist on pushing these very broad, demanding features in the standards themselves.

Comment Re:Meh (Score 4, Funny) 830

I'm reminded of one time back in high school when we were discussing a poem by Margaret Atwood. The English teacher mentioned as an aside, "who knows where Margaret Atwood is from," thinking it would be a good segue. Silence. "I'll give you a hint: she's writing in her native language."

- "No."
- "No."
- "No." There was another pregnant silence and before I could hazard a guess on New Zealand, he gave up and said, "Canada! Margaret Atwood is perhaps the most famous Canadian poet!"

So help me, my thought at the time was actually, "Ohhh. Canada... they exist too."

The point of the story is, just because you speak English doesn't make it any more likely we'll remember that your country exists. Sorry, Canada. If it helps at all I'm in Texas, so you're not exactly foremost in our thoughts.

Comment Re:Meh (Score 1) 830

Most of my immediate neighbors are blonde, yet I still have no desire to dye my hair. What other people do amounts to squat from the American perspective. It only matters when you have a multinational company that wants to sell liters in the U.S.

And guess what: that's perfectly fine. They do it all the time. The U.S. standard AND metric. We buy milk by the gallon and soda by the liter. The supermarket sells bananas by the pound and drug dealers sell cocaine by the gram. Hell, two of my favorite bars serve completely different "pints" of beer. No one is confused because, frankly, there's not a lot of practical overlap to lead to confusion. No one compares milk to soda on a equal-volume basis. You just use whatever units you damn well feel like.

Confusion usually only reigns in technical fields. For example, a naval project may use miles, kilometers, and nautical miles all in the same bit of code. (And frankly, while it's a headache, we should be the most capable members of society when it comes to jumping through these hoops.) But for the the average person? It doesn't matter.

Comment Re:Whatsisname is...mistaken (Score 1) 289

First, the headline is a "duh" headline. Of course the lure of robots is the ability to do without humans. That's the whole point -- the very defining characteristic -- of a robot. To automate complicated work.

Second, you assume an all-or-nothing future. That will not be the case. If you have a few more robots and a few more workers, you can drive unit prices down and pick up a few more customers, even without the recently dismissed human workers that can no longer afford to be those customers. That's true at every tier of production, from commodities to luxury goods. This drops the price of labor, and concentrates wages more in the (relatively) few jobs that can't yet be automated. What you see is further stratification of the economy, not collapse.

In your scenario, we're all too poor to be the economy going, and so the economy will never let us get to that point. In a more realistic scenario, a very large portion of the people are out of work, many more have dropped from middle- to lower-class, the wealthiest experience no change -- all while robot labor allows, say, 2/3 of the previous customer base to support the same level of profit for a given product.

10% unemployment is such an absurdly high number that it produces a lot of civil unrest when it actually happens. 30% unemployment would mean a complete re-structuring of society as we know it. The invisible hand proposes the stability of the market, not the stability of our place or our civilization's place in it.

Comment Re:Maxwell's equations fail? (Score 1) 76

It's especially sad to see this from an IEEE publication (even spectrum).

First, the major unifying concept in Maxwell's equation was the displacement current, a quantity for the changing field in a dielectric with units as current density. This answers the age-old question, "how do you have a current circuit when one part (a capacitor) is clearly 'broken' and not conducting?" Maxwell was the first to answer the question with a solid theory. So a better way to write the sentence you quote would be, "Maxwell’s equations explain how high-frequency flows of electrons in conductors generate electromagnetic waves, and they were also the very first to explain how an insulating material, where there is no flow of electrons, would also act in a circuit" Basic electromagnetics education fail.

Second and more to the topic: if we pretend that there is some sort of "magneto current carrier" (a magneton), then we can extend Maxwell's equations to cover a hypothetical magneto current. Pretty much any electric current-flow problem can be re-stated as a dual magneto current-flow problem. There are a lot of practical upshots to this -- such as making simulations that converge to answer much more quickly -- but the one most related to antennas is that you can demonstrate that the radiation of an antenna is related to the conduction gap between it's elements. For example, if you have a dipole antenna with elements separated by width d, then you can also model that as a "cigar band" (open cylindrical sheet) of magneto current. For a molopole, you might use a "washer" (flat cylindrical ring) of magneto current between the conducting element and the ground plane. This is not new. It's been used for decades. This is the shortcut to the concept that's been known for decades. You do not need recourse to any concepts in quantum mechanics.

Comment Re:X-Files vs. Bab-5 - ouch! (Score 3, Insightful) 480

The first two seasons of TNG were pretty bad, but after that they improved. The big issue they overcame was breaking away from the original series mold.

In the early episodes you can really see how they tried to take original series roles and divide them up among a new crew (Riker as the stand-in womanizer for Kirk, Data as the stand-in for Spock, etc.). It also uses a LOT of the conventions of the old show trying to get ahold of that remnant original series audience. We can look back on the omnipotent Q abducting people and making them fight dog-faced Napoleonic soldiers and cringe at how hokey it is. We can look back on the relatively-omnipotent Excalbians abducting people and making them fight Kahless and Genghis Khan with a little help from Abraham Lincoln and get a giddy little thrill. The difference is that TOS had a shoestring budget was aimed at a more forgiving youth audience, and TNG had a respectable budget (but still hokey scripts) and was aimed at those same people after they grew up in to sophisticated adults.

It took two seasons, but they eventually got over that hurdle and turned into their own show. When asked when he first knew that they "had something" in the show, Patrick Stewart said it was while shooting "the Measure of a Man" (s2, ep9). If you think of the question a different way -- "at what point did you realize the job wasn't necessarily shit?" -- then the answer says a lot about the quality of the preceding 33 episodes.

Comment Re:College admissions is not a life-value system (Score 1) 389

If you think "inane, stupid, and soul-crushing" ends at high school, you've been sheltered.

While the goal if college per se is not to churn out office drones, there is a lot of drone-ery to be done, and someone in college can do worse than to fall into one of those jobs. It's a good fallback plan for, say, the history major who just can't find in-field work. For those people, a college degree proves you can show up every day, do a task of moderate complexity, and meet deadlines reliably. That's also exactly what being anything other a straight C student demonstrates.

But most History and Philosophy and Liberal Arts departments around the country don't feel (or at least can hope) that they are training people who will stick with and contribute to the field. At that point, you can argue that you need some creative skills to break new ground. Unfortunately, opportunities for ground-breaking is foreseeably rare, and it's not going to be done if you don't have the necessary information and tools to create. Even a kid making a building-block tower needs to be given building blocks. They need students who are going to absorb that information and grow through participation. Which is exactly what C students have failed to do.

For other fields -- such as engineering -- where you can reasonably expect to get a job in the field, and then to flex your creativity once you're there, "innovation" means being basic competence, coupled with experience. Innovation as people imagine it today -- that the fruits of hard, long work can be cheated out through something cheaper and easier -- is a myth.

I would gladly concede that we need to do more to give our C students real options for becoming productive, prosperous members of society. I just don't think the rest of us are missing out for lack of their "creativity".

Slashdot Top Deals

"Card readers? We don't need no stinking card readers." -- Peter da Silva (at the National Academy of Sciencies, 1965, in a particularly vivid fantasy)