Why would you need to replace the design team for that to happen? That's just a silly thought, IMO.
As for PVE, I would envision some separation between PVE and PVP. There are two forms of PVP now - the standard GW1 PVP and a new PVP. I would expect the old-style PVP to use a level cap while the new PVP follows the leveling of PVE. To assist, you wouldn't be able to bring your PVE character into the old-style PVP but you could bring it into the new PVP mode.
I currently play Guild Wars and I love it. It's an MMORPG the way it's meant to be - no monthly fees, a fun game, and one that you can just sit down and play with a group of friends or random people from the Internet. Both the expansion and GW2 look nothing short of awesome. I can't wait for more details!
I totally agree. I would love to get my hands on old software that just isn't viable. I realize that some things can't be open-sourced, especially if some components are still in use. But there's no reason not to make downloads of ISOs or the installation files available for free or low costs ($5).
Why would you need this? The patent examiner is supposed to have knowledge in the field. If there are going to be patents on software, then the USPTO should hire computer scientists and software engineers to review those patents.
Why don't they store the shuttle under some kind of solid covering that, on launch day, will open like a dome on a sport field? Or from some form of underground "silo"? It would help protect the shuttle, or, in the future, whatever they are using to go to space.
OpenDNS involves changing the DNS servers that you use. Most people at home won't know how to do this or just don't even know that this exists. What Microsoft wants to do, regardless of their motives, is shut these people down and potentially let others who have a real interest in the domain have the ability to acquire them.
I'm sure it's just not exercise, but exercise + education that makes a person not "dumb". But compare the same person with and without exercise, the one with will perform better on brain tests.
Enterprise-ish is something that is professional, powerful but easy to use, and expandable to multiple conditions and types of users (from the office secretary to an ace developer).
I used Ubuntu for about a day. I found it to be childish and rudimentary. It didn't strike me as something professional or suitable for a working environment, but rather something that I would use in a school (elementary or middle/junior high) or at home for someone who is new to computing or new to Linux.
I must admit, though, that it's been about a year since I tried Ubuntu. Maybe it has changed. But I read the site around the time the last release (Fiesty Fawn, I think it was) came out and it didn't look like a lot had changed.
It strikes me as a good distro for individuals new to Linux, but I personally would never deploy Ubuntu in a business or government setting. I would go for something a little more enterprise-ish, like Fedora, (Open)SUSE, or Debian.
This is still new. From what I've heard, the government is starting to embrace open source software. In a few years, I hope things like this become mainstream.
I'm all for open-source software, but not against closed-source. We need more open source programs to compete with closed source programs. Perhaps even government endorsement of this.
Or why does anyone need credentials? If you read something (either on the Internet, in a book, or even see something on TV), take it with a grain of salt. Find other sources that back it up that you know yourself are valid.
After re-reading both the story here and the article linked to, it doesn't say anything about IBM being hired or paid to do this. In fact, the use of "teaming up" makes it seem like it wasn't about the financial gain for IBM. If this was a normal contract, then it would be different. But I don't see why IBM would want any part of this unless they were doing something for their gain. I'm failing to see how IBM will gain from this.
You are forgetting about the noise pattern. Any kind of editing will alter the noise pattern. If you know what camera took the image, you can see if the entire image matches the camera's noise pattern. If not, editing happened. I highly doubt people interested in forging images will go through the trouble of editing the noise pattern for the camera.
I'm familiar with some of her work. Specifically, the papers "Detection of Copy-Move Forgery in Digital Images", "Determining Digital Image Origin Using Sensor Imperfections", "Digital Bullet Scratches for Images", "Digital Camera Identification from Sensor Noise",
However, the paper "Detecting Digital Image Forgeries Using Sensor Pattern Noise" from last year covers the topic of this article perfectly.
As a disclaimer, I'm a college student in a software engineering program. I do more than just browse the web or use basic office functionality on my laptop.
Why would anyone want this?
At 6 inches wide, it's really tiny. I don't see room for a highly productive screen or keyboard on this thing. I've had a laptop for about 4 months now, and I'm still getting used to the laptop keyboard when I'm not at my desk (I don't lug a full keyboard around with me to classes, but I do have one plugged into my docking station).
A 30 gig HDD isn't that big. Especially when you start saving word processor documents, e-mails (potentially with attachments), start installing programs and applications. I wouldn't want anything less than 100 gigs in a machine, which is what I have now. Even then, I would want a larger external drive for archival.
The processor...Pentium M. Is there anyone who can get by without a Core 2 or something similar? The article mentions Windows Vista. I'm not running Vista, but from my experiences with it, I wouldn't want to run it without a Core 2 Duo and 2 gigs of RAM at the bare minimum. I wouldn't even want to run XP without at least a Core 2 and a gig or gig and a half of RAM.
3.5 hours of battery life? If you aren't getting 5 or 6, I can't see businesses buying these for anyone.
And finally...$2000? I paid that for my current laptop + docking station + wireless mouse. If you can get something better for the same price (or cheaper), why buy this?
Not as much, I don't think. I would rather have Software Engineers who can pull their weight at every step in the software life cycle. From my (limited) experience, CS is focused on implementation and (to some extent) maintenance. SE takes requirements gathering, design, test planning, implementation, and maintenance and puts it into a nice pretty package.
But that's not to say we don't need CS. We do - these people have the theory needed to develop the next big idea - a new language to make everything easier or a new design pattern to help solve problems. But even those in CS and IT need to have some experience in Software Engineering.
My final thought: Everyone going into a "programming" style field must know Software Engineering. However, we need people who are good at all points in software life cycle.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would you need to replace the design team for that to happen? That's just a silly thought, IMO. As for PVE, I would envision some separation between PVE and PVP. There are two forms of PVP now - the standard GW1 PVP and a new PVP. I would expect the old-style PVP to use a level cap while the new PVP follows the leveling of PVE. To assist, you wouldn't be able to bring your PVE character into the old-style PVP but you could bring it into the new PVP mode.
I currently play Guild Wars and I love it. It's an MMORPG the way it's meant to be - no monthly fees, a fun game, and one that you can just sit down and play with a group of friends or random people from the Internet. Both the expansion and GW2 look nothing short of awesome. I can't wait for more details!
I totally agree. I would love to get my hands on old software that just isn't viable. I realize that some things can't be open-sourced, especially if some components are still in use. But there's no reason not to make downloads of ISOs or the installation files available for free or low costs ($5).
Why would you need this? The patent examiner is supposed to have knowledge in the field. If there are going to be patents on software, then the USPTO should hire computer scientists and software engineers to review those patents.
Why don't they store the shuttle under some kind of solid covering that, on launch day, will open like a dome on a sport field? Or from some form of underground "silo"? It would help protect the shuttle, or, in the future, whatever they are using to go to space.
Maybe pneumatic tubes. Or carbon nanotubes. Or inner tubes.
OpenDNS involves changing the DNS servers that you use. Most people at home won't know how to do this or just don't even know that this exists. What Microsoft wants to do, regardless of their motives, is shut these people down and potentially let others who have a real interest in the domain have the ability to acquire them.
Maybe Microsoft should show that they are "cracking open the door to OSS". I don't care what they say, I won't believe it until I see it.
I'm sure it's just not exercise, but exercise + education that makes a person not "dumb". But compare the same person with and without exercise, the one with will perform better on brain tests.
I'm still trying to put my stand into words. I'm for software patents, for open-source, and not against closed-source.
Enterprise-ish is something that is professional, powerful but easy to use, and expandable to multiple conditions and types of users (from the office secretary to an ace developer).
I used Ubuntu for about a day. I found it to be childish and rudimentary. It didn't strike me as something professional or suitable for a working environment, but rather something that I would use in a school (elementary or middle/junior high) or at home for someone who is new to computing or new to Linux.
I must admit, though, that it's been about a year since I tried Ubuntu. Maybe it has changed. But I read the site around the time the last release (Fiesty Fawn, I think it was) came out and it didn't look like a lot had changed.
It strikes me as a good distro for individuals new to Linux, but I personally would never deploy Ubuntu in a business or government setting. I would go for something a little more enterprise-ish, like Fedora, (Open)SUSE, or Debian.
I'm not too into server architecture, but it sounds like it's a good system to me. Could someone explain why this is so "new" or different?
This is still new. From what I've heard, the government is starting to embrace open source software. In a few years, I hope things like this become mainstream.
I'm all for open-source software, but not against closed-source. We need more open source programs to compete with closed source programs. Perhaps even government endorsement of this.
Or why does anyone need credentials? If you read something (either on the Internet, in a book, or even see something on TV), take it with a grain of salt. Find other sources that back it up that you know yourself are valid.
After re-reading both the story here and the article linked to, it doesn't say anything about IBM being hired or paid to do this. In fact, the use of "teaming up" makes it seem like it wasn't about the financial gain for IBM. If this was a normal contract, then it would be different. But I don't see why IBM would want any part of this unless they were doing something for their gain. I'm failing to see how IBM will gain from this.
Sure, it might be interesting. But why isn't IBM devoting resources to actual space research? Or even something more earth based?
You are forgetting about the noise pattern. Any kind of editing will alter the noise pattern. If you know what camera took the image, you can see if the entire image matches the camera's noise pattern. If not, editing happened. I highly doubt people interested in forging images will go through the trouble of editing the noise pattern for the camera.
You don't think this technology exists? Look at some of the papers I linked to in a previous comment from SUNY Binghamton.
http://www.ws.binghamton.edu/fridrich/publications .html
I'm familiar with some of her work. Specifically, the papers "Detection of Copy-Move Forgery in Digital Images", "Determining Digital Image Origin Using Sensor Imperfections", "Digital Bullet Scratches for Images", "Digital Camera Identification from Sensor Noise",
However, the paper "Detecting Digital Image Forgeries Using Sensor Pattern Noise" from last year covers the topic of this article perfectly.
As a disclaimer, I'm a college student in a software engineering program. I do more than just browse the web or use basic office functionality on my laptop.
Why would anyone want this?
At 6 inches wide, it's really tiny. I don't see room for a highly productive screen or keyboard on this thing. I've had a laptop for about 4 months now, and I'm still getting used to the laptop keyboard when I'm not at my desk (I don't lug a full keyboard around with me to classes, but I do have one plugged into my docking station).
A 30 gig HDD isn't that big. Especially when you start saving word processor documents, e-mails (potentially with attachments), start installing programs and applications. I wouldn't want anything less than 100 gigs in a machine, which is what I have now. Even then, I would want a larger external drive for archival.
The processor...Pentium M. Is there anyone who can get by without a Core 2 or something similar? The article mentions Windows Vista. I'm not running Vista, but from my experiences with it, I wouldn't want to run it without a Core 2 Duo and 2 gigs of RAM at the bare minimum. I wouldn't even want to run XP without at least a Core 2 and a gig or gig and a half of RAM.
3.5 hours of battery life? If you aren't getting 5 or 6, I can't see businesses buying these for anyone.
And finally...$2000? I paid that for my current laptop + docking station + wireless mouse. If you can get something better for the same price (or cheaper), why buy this?
Yeah. I would even assume that if you had this, you could even use a PC that is just a browser to access a server that has the WebOS on it.
Not as much, I don't think. I would rather have Software Engineers who can pull their weight at every step in the software life cycle. From my (limited) experience, CS is focused on implementation and (to some extent) maintenance. SE takes requirements gathering, design, test planning, implementation, and maintenance and puts it into a nice pretty package. But that's not to say we don't need CS. We do - these people have the theory needed to develop the next big idea - a new language to make everything easier or a new design pattern to help solve problems. But even those in CS and IT need to have some experience in Software Engineering. My final thought: Everyone going into a "programming" style field must know Software Engineering. However, we need people who are good at all points in software life cycle.