Wow, I have never seen a score of "0, Insightful" before this.
During the period after the old show was canceled (when the movie with Paul McGann came out), and the new revived series, they have set a whackload of Dr Who adventures starring Paul McGann's iteration of the doctor. They are radio-plays effectively, available here: http://www.bigfinish.com/
There are also recorded episodes for a pile of other popular but now defunct TV shows. My wife has listened to a ton of these and says they are very well recorded, full cast stories.
If you count these, Paul McGann has likely done more Dr Who stories than most of the other actors playing the Doctor
Check out http://www.swgemu.com/ if you hadn't noticed it exists. You need your old install disks, but its free, and its SWG as of Patch 14.1 - or will be once they are done rewriting it. Currently much of it exists and is functioning, and its receiving regular improvements.
And these are all problems that have come up in previous games, been resolved, and then ignored in modern games.
I think the problem is mostly the players mind you, people do not want to group, do not want to PvE and learn the skills, they want to PvP and be Uber right away. Developers are catering to this because of course they want the number of players to increase and they think simplifying a game and making it soloable will do so, but I think thats a mistake in the long run.
The MMORPGs I have stuck with the longest have been those in which it was fun to group up to face a challenge, in which there were enjoyable PvE experiences and PvP (if any) was an add on as the end game. The best example of this, bar none, was Dark Age of Camelot. Best PvP game ever, despite its flaws, and a decent PvE experience at least early on. As it aged though, they made leveling up 100x easier, ignored the PvE side for the most part, and made changes to the game that were in many ways damaging to it, based on feedback from players who after all, are *not* game designers.
Yeah, what would actually happen is somewhere between what is legally supposed to be possible under US and international laws and what has actually happened in the past that was in no way legal. Given the choice, I would assume that the US Government would do whatever the fuck it wanted and completely ignore the laws. Assange would be in Gitmo inside of 24 hrs, never to be seen again.
The fact that he is not a US citizen and has broken no laws since he isn't subject to US law unless he is inside the US, is completely irrelevant.
that way if we make a programming error we can just comment "Bad Wolf" (too much exposure to Dr Who recently)
Very well said. The best form of government it seems to me, is the one that grants the government only the power and authority it needs to function and no more - as defined by the citizens not the government
Look up "Sin of Onan" then you will see the wordplay involved
and if they had made encryption the default - they would have handed over the keys to the NSA anyways.
It only takes a few years after something wonderful is invented for somebody else to come along and make their livelihood by fucking up the wonderful new thing.
I would like to think these sockpuppet firms would get their asses sued into the ground somehow but I can't see that happening. In fact I think increasingly you cannot trust any opinion in any comments these days because there is so much of this shit going on everywhere.
The first mistake we made was in allowing commercial enterprises on the 'net
Those of us who are capable of living outside of the war to control resources, are able to do so because someone else is waging that war for us.
The coming wars will be not only over hydrocarbons, but over water. Since a large percentage of the world's politicians and industries are hell-bent on ignoring or denying the climate change we see around us, water is going to become a very important resource and a cause for future conflicts - along with food of course since we are denuding the oceans of their life as well.
When that happens you do want *your* society to be able to do something about protecting your resources from those who will take them. the more we can do to make fighting over resources unnecessary the better, but our whole capitalist system is founded on harvesting and selling resources to gain money and power. I don't see that changing so conflict is inevitable as an outcome of our economic system.
Sadly, I honestly expect it will take the deaths of a few *billion* people over the next 40 years or so for us to find a different way, if we ever do. Mind you if enough people are slaughtered by our ignorance and willful stupidity, a lot of the resource pressure will go away. Its just the wrong way to resolve things.
Until they get used for Riot Control, or sold to dictatorships for the same etc.
Plus of course a lot of sensational tragedies - shootings in schools come to mind - are likely perpetrated at least in part *because* those responsible know they will reach everlasting fame (albeit negative fame) at the hands of those very news services that report on them.
We need news services but we might benefit if they returned to actual reporting and research rather than merely over the top sensationalism.
This is more or less a justification for any action the NSA might take.
They already have access to pretty much *all* communications in the world. I for one am sure glad that helped prevent the Boston bombings and the recent attack on the mall in Kenya.
If they are already unable to detect and prevent bad things from happening at the hands of terrorists, what justifies attempting to crack one of the few means of privacy we have left? In their rampant pursuit of obtaining *all* communications they have trampled the rights of individuals to any shred of privacy - and apparently accomplished absolutely nothing of major value before it happened. Sure, the ability to subvert communications world wide might let them track down a terrorist leader a decade or so later but is that enough justification for crushing the rights of every human on the fucking planet?
They used to do this stuff using human assets - actual members of the CIA going out and recruiting agents, analyzing data received, finding targets and then determining what to do about them, but when they came across the absolute "sexiness" of electronic spying, they cut waaaaaaay back on human spying, turned the problem over the NSA and cut the budget (more likely spend more on the NSA than they did on CIA employees and bribes to prospective agents). In the process they apparently decided it was necessary to spy on all American citizens as well, in violation of the law, as well as on all the citizens of their friends and allies.
I hope they have been unable to crack TOR, even though I don't use it, because its one of the few options people have for privacy, and I have yet to hear them provide any details on anything they have concerning terrorists actually using this technology.
Well perhaps the point isn't that any new algorithms are uncrackable so much as they present a more considerable obstacle to being deciphered. If the current NIST-approved cyphers have been deliberately weakened by the NSA, its so that its easier and more importantly faster for them to decipher the text - with their available computing power and budget they can probably do a lot of these on the fly.
If you increase the difficulty of that task, and if its implementation is more widely spread, then they may have to prioritize what they attempt to decipher because it isn't a weakened algorithm, therefore there might be some added security in that even if they *can* crack your ciphertext, its not worth bothering to do so unless some other factor marks you as a person of interest. Not much but better than nothing and we will likely never know the NSA's true capabilities anyways.