LotR was a decent movie, with great special effects, scenery, and cinematography. But the storytelling was rather poor. After the fellowship leaves on its journey, the movie is two hours of barely related events which are fun to watch, but meaningless in terms of advancing the story. There's no sense of progress, not really any background explanation of the places and people they come across. A good movie should NOT require you to read the book it's based on to follow the story!
Essentially, I feel this was a (successful) attempt to put readers' favorite scenes from the book on film, and to do it in a very expensive way, and to make a lot of money off that hype. But I think it fails at being a great movie on its own. This was definitely better than The Phantom Menace, but it is far from being the best movie ever.
Back in the DOS days, there was a program called "Gametools" that worked like a Game Shark for PC games. It was a whole lot more useful, though, because you could easily come up with codes yourself by searching through memory for interesting values as you played the game.
(You could also use it to write cracks for your software. Some day, this kind of software will probably end up being illegal.)
These days there are SoftICE and GDB, but programs are getting a whole lot bigger and more complicated. It's just not as fun...
I actually really do like mozilla more than IE now. Mozilla basically supports everything IE does, now, and has some extra nice features like tabs.
I agree with you about the anti-microsoft stuff. I hate microsoft too, but I think it's just wishful thinking on the part of slashdot kids that Microsoft software is automatically insecure and Linux/UNIX is automatically secure. I recall many recent high-profile vulnerabilities in linux software, for instance, and to get rooted through those I didn't need to browse to some hacker's site -- just sit back and let them do all the work.
Personally, I think as MS moves to.NET and higher-level, safe languages like C#, they are going to be the ones laughing at us. I wish it wasn't so...
Well, everybody seems to have their own ideas about what the various classes mean. Your post contradicts what I thought, so I looked it up:
NP-Hard: From a solution to an NP-hard problem, we can solve any problem in NP.
NP: Can check a polynomial-size solution in polynomial time.
NP-Complete: Intersection of NP and NP-Hard.
Thus, NP-hard problems are "harder" than NP-complete in the sense that a solution to an NP-hard problem gives you a solution to any problem in NP-complete.
I am almost positive that factoring is in NP, since it should be straightforward to check a solution in polynomial time.
I'm pretty sure factoring is in NP. (The solution will be polynomial in the size of the input, and verifiable in polynomial time.) If someone were to prove P=NP, we'd have "fast" solutions to all of the problems in NP, not just the NP complete ones. (That's never gonna happen though..!)
I think your sentiment is ok, but I don't agree with you that "any site can be hacked" or "any protection can be broken" or "anything can be done". It is possible to develop systems and then prove them unbreakable/unhackable, even relatively complicated ones. It's just that almost nobody bothers to do this (because ad hoc methods work pretty well and are much cheaper), not that it isn't possible.
Something tells me that they aren't reading your post and crying that they've lost a customer... (If I were a game developer, I'd be crossing my fingers waiting for the day when the only windows operating systems were "real" operating systems (ie, 2000, XP)!)
Windows 2000 doesn't have any invasive spyware or pervasive copy protection measures, by the way.
I think this will make a good bus for communicating between digital devices (say, a DAT and your computer, or maybe a keyboard/MIDI box and a computer), but it seems to be a pretty crummy way to communicate between a guitar and an amp. (And I am sure as hell not going to record guitar directly into my PC!)
One good side effect, though, will be "ruggedized" ethernet cables available at my local music store. =)
- Chu Chu Rocket (Dreamcast)
- Advance Wars (GBA)
- Paper Mario (N64)
Golden Sun for GBA looks really good. RTCW and Max Payne were pretty fun for the PC, but I think I am personally a sucker for bad single-player FPS games.
Can anybody actually read more than a paragraph of that shit without their eyes glazing over?
I can read scholarly papers about programming languages in all their greek letter glory, but this is just too much. It's all enterprise-this and acronym-that and just terrible to understand. Maybe I should have gone to business school?;)
I was just listing software packages adored by many slashdot style hackers that have had buffer overflows. I was thinking particularly of suidperl, which has had many holes, at least one of which was a buffer overflow:
http://www.insecure.org/sploits/sperl.overflow.m es s.html
Perl scripts are often dangerous (as most people know), but for a different reason that I didn't address in my post.
Well, I think you are partially joking, but I'll bet they do take some of your issues seriously. I think they are working on more plaintext tests, since those are very convenient to deliver and should be accessible to anyone.
Of course, it's highly unlikely that google would be sued because part of its website is not accessible to people with certain disabilities or with lack of certain information!
Slashdot Mirror
Perl is in the badly written hack category, right?
A movie called 'Attack of the Clones' will never be #1 on IMDB.
LotR was a decent movie, with great special effects, scenery, and cinematography. But the storytelling was rather poor. After the fellowship leaves on its journey, the movie is two hours of barely related events which are fun to watch, but meaningless in terms of advancing the story. There's no sense of progress, not really any background explanation of the places and people they come across. A good movie should NOT require you to read the book it's based on to follow the story!
Essentially, I feel this was a (successful) attempt to put readers' favorite scenes from the book on film, and to do it in a very expensive way, and to make a lot of money off that hype. But I think it fails at being a great movie on its own. This was definitely better than The Phantom Menace, but it is far from being the best movie ever.
You must have a pretty slow computer... I've been using Mozilla almost exclusively for the last 4 months or so, and I think it is really good.
(And, it is truly Free!)
Back in the DOS days, there was a program called "Gametools" that worked like a Game Shark for PC games. It was a whole lot more useful, though, because you could easily come up with codes yourself by searching through memory for interesting values as you played the game.
(You could also use it to write cracks for your software. Some day, this kind of software will probably end up being illegal.)
These days there are SoftICE and GDB, but programs are getting a whole lot bigger and more complicated. It's just not as fun...
How does this bypass mechanisms that control access to a copyrighted work??
The game shark is NOT used to make copies of the games. That is what the DMCA protects against.
I actually really do like mozilla more than IE now. Mozilla basically supports everything IE does, now, and has some extra nice features like tabs.
I agree with you about the anti-microsoft stuff. I hate microsoft too, but I think it's just wishful thinking on the part of slashdot kids that Microsoft software is automatically insecure and Linux/UNIX is automatically secure. I recall many recent high-profile vulnerabilities in linux software, for instance, and to get rooted through those I didn't need to browse to some hacker's site -- just sit back and let them do all the work.
Personally, I think as MS moves to
Well, everybody seems to have their own ideas about what the various classes mean. Your post contradicts what I thought, so I looked it up:
l
NP-Hard: From a solution to an NP-hard problem, we can solve any problem in NP.
NP: Can check a polynomial-size solution in polynomial time.
NP-Complete: Intersection of NP and NP-Hard.
Thus, NP-hard problems are "harder" than NP-complete in the sense that a solution to an NP-hard problem gives you a solution to any problem in NP-complete.
I am almost positive that factoring is in NP, since it should be straightforward to check a solution in polynomial time.
http://www.cs.unb.ca/~alopez-o/comp-faq/faq.htm
> Similarly, we know there are an infinite number of primes, just that nobody has been able to prove it.
/ in finite/
Actually there are loads of proofs of this:
http://www.utm.edu/research/primes/notes/proofs
Otherwise I agree with your sentiment...
If this is a troll, it's a great one. Otherwise, you are an idiot.
Oops, I didn't mean to say "NP Hard" in the subject line. It should say, "Factoring is in NP".
I'm pretty sure factoring is in NP. (The solution will be polynomial in the size of the input, and verifiable in polynomial time.) If someone were to prove P=NP, we'd have "fast" solutions to all of the problems in NP, not just the NP complete ones. (That's never gonna happen though..!)
Did Tony Hoare write QBasic as well as Qsort?
Did you take your complaint to your credit card company??
I think your sentiment is ok, but I don't agree with you that "any site can be hacked" or "any protection can be broken" or "anything can be done". It is possible to develop systems and then prove them unbreakable/unhackable, even relatively complicated ones. It's just that almost nobody bothers to do this (because ad hoc methods work pretty well and are much cheaper), not that it isn't possible.
Something tells me that they aren't reading your post and crying that they've lost a customer... (If I were a game developer, I'd be crossing my fingers waiting for the day when the only windows operating systems were "real" operating systems (ie, 2000, XP)!)
Windows 2000 doesn't have any invasive spyware or pervasive copy protection measures, by the way.
I think this will make a good bus for communicating between digital devices (say, a DAT and your computer, or maybe a keyboard/MIDI box and a computer), but it seems to be a pretty crummy way to communicate between a guitar and an amp. (And I am sure as hell not going to record guitar directly into my PC!)
One good side effect, though, will be "ruggedized" ethernet cables available at my local music store. =)
boring boring boring BORING BORING
- Chu Chu Rocket (Dreamcast)
- Advance Wars (GBA)
- Paper Mario (N64)
Golden Sun for GBA looks really good. RTCW and Max Payne were pretty fun for the PC, but I think I am personally a sucker for bad single-player FPS games.
Ahhh... I never thought I'd see the day when the RJ11 phone jack is the "Legacy Voice" jack!
This looks pretty sweet... I hope my next apartment comes pre-wired. =)
Can anybody actually read more than a paragraph of that shit without their eyes glazing over?
;)
I can read scholarly papers about programming languages in all their greek letter glory, but this is just too much. It's all enterprise-this and acronym-that and just terrible to understand. Maybe I should have gone to business school?
I was just listing software packages adored by many slashdot style hackers that have had buffer overflows. I was thinking particularly of suidperl, which has had many holes, at least one of which was a buffer overflow:
m es s.html
http://www.insecure.org/sploits/sperl.overflow.
Perl scripts are often dangerous (as most people know), but for a different reason that I didn't address in my post.
Some of them are better than others. Try the word recognition test...
I made a mistake. wu_ftpd is not 8000 lines, it is 24,000 lines.
Well, I think you are partially joking, but I'll bet they do take some of your issues seriously. I think they are working on more plaintext tests, since those are very convenient to deliver and should be accessible to anyone.
Of course, it's highly unlikely that google would be sued because part of its website is not accessible to people with certain disabilities or with lack of certain information!