Comment Interesting links (Score 1) 48
See also an interesting paper on the history of Erlang, by Armstrong, and Erlang, The Movie.
See also an interesting paper on the history of Erlang, by Armstrong, and Erlang, The Movie.
Now instead of sitting on the couch wasting 90-120 minutes of my life at a time, I'm spending that time enjoying getting around
Or to reverse that argument:
Now, instead of sitting on my bike, wasting days of my life travelling, I'm spending my time enjoying films in 90-120 minute blocks!
:-)
Disclaimer: I've just come back from a long weekend touring with my bike
TFA repeats itself a lot, and doesn't really contain any interesting information, other than a few brief outlines of UFO encounters, none of which contain any more details than the summarised eye-witness reports.
I used to play AssaultCube (aka ActionCube) a fair bit, where cheating was a fairly common occurrence. The AC solution was rather depressingly inefficient. The admin could kick cheaters (with some servers allowing bans too), but that was about all.
In the Cube-derived games, anyone can be an admin. When there is no admin currently active, a player can request it. Therefore, rogue admins were quite common, and the powers of the admin were typically limited for obvious reasons. The server admin could, of course, claim full power when they were online, but many server admins were either ignorant of this, decided not to, or were rarely online.
I've always felt that a web of trust-style system could work quite nicely. Clans act as good hubs of authority, where the top 5 or so clans are commonly known among frequent players. Open matches could be played when the server's admin is online, such that cheaters could be properly dealt with. When the admin is offline, an automatic system could allow only reasonably trusted players to play. Players who have not obtained any trust could do so in the open matches.
Something that could be interesting would be to allow all players to enter a game, but only allow players to directly interact with players who share a mutual trust. Players with whom you do not share a mutual trust might have low opacity, and can not harm, nor be harmed by, you.
Of course, this would introduce problems. If three players are in a fight (assuming every-man-for-himself, to simplify things): Joe, Jim, and Bob. Joe and Jim trust each other, but only Jim trusts Bob. In such a situation, Jim is at a disadvantage, for he can sustain damage from both Joe and Bob; whereas the other two can only sustain damage from Jim.
Interesting algorithms could be used to assign handicaps to players in such circumstances.
"I think Michael is like litmus paper - he's always trying to learn." -- Elizabeth Taylor, absurd non-sequitir about Michael Jackson