If Sony wants my business back, then I am going to need a shiny new version of Final Fantasy VII, updated with today's and tomorrow's graphics.
Well, you can get that already on the PC version of FF VII. There is (was?) a decent sized mod community sporting high-res packs and higher polygon models. It's not today's graphics, but then again -- not even tomorrow's computers do real-time raytracing, so you're left with the pre-rendered 2D play areas + depth map culling.
As far as Sony paying me back -- well, since I've boycotted them for over a decade I don't think there is anything they can do...
Obviously there are people who scrape the letters off their Dvorak Simplified keyboards just to screw with others.
Actually, I just set the OS keyboard layout to Dvorak and type on it without looking at the keys...
Additionally, I do own a keyboard with no key-cap markings, but I purchased it this way...
I find that people are more confused if the key they press has a differently labeled key than the character it generates than if the keyboard has no key-cap markings at all.
(Most keyboards have keys that can be popped off and re-arranged to your preferred layout, but some keyboards mount the F and J keys differently, or have a different key shape for each row...)
Dvorak keyboards that can be used without selecting the OS keyboard preference are expensive because they have to translate the scancodes themselves. You know what I'd be exited about? US Smart phone manufacturers allowing me to select or modify the on-screen keyboard layout... Even the Apple II supported Dvorak, (in fact, OSX supports both single hand layouts (optimized for left or right only). ) oh that's right Steve, I forgot, I didn't want to use any other key layout on the iPad than the one I don't use...
AFAIK the chrome sandbox uses windows NT tokens and function interception to severely restrict process access to the system. The standard sandbox unfortunately would probably also cause the flash plugin not to work.
This appears to entail running a second instance of the flash plugin outside the sandbox, working as a broker.
Since this is the case, it may be possible to exploit both layers. The general sandboxing done for JS and HTML rendering is much simpler, and would likely not be as easy to exploit
So... What you're saying is that the lines have been firmly drawn in the sand. No amount of kicking at the sand (buffer overflow) will obscure the boundary?
Contrast the methods employed with hardware visualized sandboxing under which the answer to my statements would actually be "yes".
Anything short of running in a VM (hardware supported or purely in software), is not a "sandbox" in my book.
It is a Chrome flaw introduced by Google's use of the word "sandboxed" that really doesn't imply a sandbox at all.
Additionally, compiling JS to machine code and having Chrome execute that data is not "sandboxing" either.
A flaw in my VM's interpretor that allows code to escape the sandbox is one thing, running non-virtualized machine code that itself can be exploited is quite another.
At some point, you must stop, wipe your brow, and consider your trek through the desert -- Is there really an edge to this sandbox? Did I miss the line drawn in the wind-swept sand or have I been lied to yet again?
Hi all. Where's my Compiler & distributed revision control? (GCC, GIT), Why can't I rewind a Google Doc? Where's my local LAMP stack? Postgresql? SQLite? Code folding and syntax highlighting in Google docs? Not there? B-But, it's running on top of GNU/Linux. I know it's using some of this underneath, why can't I access it within ChromeOS? This hurts, it's the most limited OS I've ever seen short of on a dumb "smart phone".
No thanks, I've already got all of the benefits of Google's model of cloud storage... I'll keep using my traditional model of robust "cloud" storage: An editor with auto-save enabled, editing files in a local GIT repo, with a cron job doing git commit & git push every 5 minutes or so. Note: that remote repo -- it's part of my private cloud; I also have a cron job that creates a daily private bittorrent of my media collection -- my other PCs rsync the torrent & use BT to distributively sync the media folders I've selected them to store. Bonus, when I'm offline I still have access to all the important data, and some of whatever entertainment data I'm liking right now.
I think that if you want to charge for information that is fine. But you have no right to restrict my use of the information after the sale, to do so infringes my 1st amendment constitutional rights which state that congress shall make no law against my freedom of speech.
The fallacy of the "information owner" idea is that you have actually created something unique, and of your own mind. Without society, your mind would not exist. The form and structure of the information, the words, concepts, frameworks, languages that all of our information, written or electronic, that exists in our culture helped to shape your very mind, and the insubstantial collection and arrangement of such cultural items should not be allowed to be owned by anyone (attributed, perhaps, but not owned).
For example, I created a spoken & written language based on a 16 character alphabet such that words and phases could be easily interpreted by a machine as well as a human, in fact, The concepts of spacial dimensions (0 - 3), time, energy transfer, motion are the building blocks of the language such that even an Alien could understand and use the language with a bit of study.
Everything in that language I invented myself, and as such the language and books produced in the language have no worth outside of the culture that understands and uses those works... (Note: I was still not able to escape the influence of own culture -- I had to borrow the concept of the written word, and simple physics, and even puns!).
The culture gives your informational work merit, we prosper as a species BECAUSE WE CAN EXCHANGE IDEAS. It is evil to contribute a very small amount of work in relation to the culture's total information collection, and then discriminate against who can use the information afterwards.
You are free to share or not share your contributions with whomever you please and to require an exchange of some sort prior to sharing, but you do not have the moral right to restrict what they do with the information you share. Currently you have the legal right to seek monetary penalties for those who do not respect your restrictive wishes, this was not always the case. In fact, I posit that were this the case we would still be living in the Dark Ages at best, but most probably the Stone Age -- surely not the Information Age.
Copyright law was designed to benefit the society as a whole. The US Constitution states the purpose of copyright is to “promote the
Progress of Science and the useful Arts.” Our highest court (The Supreme Court) has upheld this constitutional premise: “The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the [copyright] monopoly lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors.”
When the general public is harmed by copyright law, infringing upon the society's 1st amendment rights, and basic human drive to share information (which allowed the very creation of the works, society and laws) it no longer serves its purpose, and it is your duty as a thinking social being to reject the unjust uses of such a law.
Schrödinger's cat does not exist in two states until the opening of the box. The cat entered the box in one state, and will exit it in only one state. The equations must be manipulated as if the cat were in multiple states in order to contain either outcome in a single expression, but in fact the cat will be in only one state: An undead zombie cat, both living and not.
Am I the only one who realizes that one of the many benefits of broad adoption of the driverless car is that the cost of a driver can be factored out of the production of Google Street View images?
If Google opened up their search engine wouldn't it just allow developers to make clones?
If im not mistaken, the meat of a search engine is the algorithms that organize compiled results. If you copy Google's search algorithms, your search produces results identical to those of a Google search. How is that innovative? How does Google keeping their algorithms to themselves stifle innovation? Additionally, if Google open-sourced their search engine it would allow a SEO to see exactly how things tick and exploit Google's advertising arm. That'd make it even more useless than it already is.
No, that's the brains of a search engine. The "meat" of a search engine is the database that is created using the algorithms... Google open sourcing their code would allow others to build a Google, but with empty data sets... Ergo: It would be so far behind that it wouldn't just be non-innovative, it would be less relevant. With AGPL licensed Google search code release, competitors could add improvements to the code, but it would do them little good against Google (because Google would be able to take advantage of the innovation of others).
My conclusion is along the same lines as yours, Google's search source code is only worth anything if they also provide the dataset they've built up over the years, and even then competitors would have little incentive to improve the codebase if it means sharing the tech with Google.
Can we just accept the fact that they're all corrupt, and simply require that politicians publish their price, and who's pocket they're in so that the general public can try to buy a few?!
I'm pretty much the same level of "geek" as I was at age 8.
Fortunately I fit in with a group of weird kids in junior high school and beyond; Before that I wasn't anti-social, just different (and difference make others uncomfortable) -- I could make friends with older kids & adults easily...
I'm glad there is less of a "shun the geek" trend now days. It seems like people have finally realized what I've known all along:
If you ostracize geeks, only geeks will be ostrich-sized!
Energy prices already fluctuate depending on usage times (even if you have abstracted this detail away with a fixed rate plan).
What I want to see a public API for accessing this data so we can tell when to get the best drain for our bucks.
Ultimately, I see this evolving similarly to the stock market. We can have computers that precisely control our lighting and appliances much like a high frequency trader's computers do.
Imagine being able to get the absolute best price for electricity, (a few dollars cheaper per month than your neighbors!) except that the shower is never heated for more than a few minutes at a time, and turning on a light results in a sporadic strobe effect.
As far as quality is concerned, I think that a Geek's attention to detail does allow them to produce the best quality Adults.
However, if sheer quantity is your aim, you can get a much better deal by lowering your standards a bit -- After all, even low quality humans taste pretty much the same (so long as they have functional kidneys). So I'd say whether you should get your adults from a Geek or just a run of the mill cultivator depends on what you're using the adults for: Entertainment or Food.
Oh, you mean the humans themselves? Absolutely not, no, the "geeks" don't turn out to be good as Adults. You may be able to keep them distracted and complacent as children, but the "geek" variety are hard to integrate properly into a conformant (and fast breeding) populous.
Geeks themselves tend to stand out and draw attention to the logical flaws in the environments we've built to contain them (especially the breeding program). The mere possibility that they'll reveal these truths to others and lead a revolt is enough to opt for the less intelligent variety when it comes to Adults.
TL;DR: Geeks, while entertaining as children, are too cumbersome to keep as adults; They're too smart for their own good.
Why do Windows users get all kinds of great software like this, now with the source, maybe we can finally get some really great malware for Linux.
You jest, but your joke is confused. A "Linux port" would mean that users of Linux would be able to use the attack toolkit -- not that they would suddenly become susceptible to the Windows exploit vectors.
Thus a port wouldn't enable us to create malware targeting Linux any more than a Windows port of GCC suddenly makes MS Visual Studio better.
Unfortunately, the technological advances developed during the search for and manufacture of said unobtanium also vastly cheapens the cost of computer AI and cyborgs which leads to the rise of a global military industrial corporation named Genom.
After the Second Great Kanto Earthquake of 2025 divides Tokyo's in two, physically as well as culturally, the vast difference of wealth distribution sparks a cultural upheaval and Genom looses its cyborgs on humanity.
Our only hope will be the all-female powered armor equipped mercenaries known only as The Knight Sabers.
Trust me -- The space junk problem pales in comparison to the issues caused by its solution.
It was an 80s-ish RPG. One of the background stories was that Word War 3 broke out and because of all the space weapons and counter-weapons blasting each other to bits and throwing up buckshot at each other, Earth's orbit becomes full of so much shrapnel that it's impossible to achieve orbit. When the Chinese tested that laser on a satellite target, that's what I immediately thought of. Space weapons are a stupid, expensive, potentially disastrous idea. Look at how bad space junk is getting and we haven even *tried* to fill orbits with crap.
Just to clarify: Space weapons are a bad idea because weapons in general are a bad idea. If it weren't for the mentality of some humans' that cause some of us to refuse to cooperate and instead drives the desire to destroy others, the weapon problem would not exist.
Tools, on the other hand, can also be dangerous, and extreme caution should be used when using dangerous tools...
Slashdot Mirror
If Sony wants my business back, then I am going to need a shiny new version of Final Fantasy VII, updated with today's and tomorrow's graphics.
Well, you can get that already on the PC version of FF VII. There is (was?) a decent sized mod community sporting high-res packs and higher polygon models. It's not today's graphics, but then again -- not even tomorrow's computers do real-time raytracing, so you're left with the pre-rendered 2D play areas + depth map culling.
As far as Sony paying me back -- well, since I've boycotted them for over a decade I don't think there is anything they can do...
Need I say more?
Obviously there are people who scrape the letters off their Dvorak Simplified keyboards just to screw with others.
Actually, I just set the OS keyboard layout to Dvorak and type on it without looking at the keys...
Additionally, I do own a keyboard with no key-cap markings, but I purchased it this way...
I find that people are more confused if the key they press has a differently labeled key than the character it generates than if the keyboard has no key-cap markings at all.
(Most keyboards have keys that can be popped off and re-arranged to your preferred layout, but some keyboards mount the F and J keys differently, or have a different key shape for each row...)
Dvorak keyboards that can be used without selecting the OS keyboard preference are expensive because they have to translate the scancodes themselves. You know what I'd be exited about? US Smart phone manufacturers allowing me to select or modify the on-screen keyboard layout... Even the Apple II supported Dvorak, (in fact, OSX supports both single hand layouts (optimized for left or right only). ) oh that's right Steve, I forgot, I didn't want to use any other key layout on the iPad than the one I don't use...
AFAIK the chrome sandbox uses windows NT tokens and function interception to severely restrict process access to the system. The standard sandbox unfortunately would probably also cause the flash plugin not to work.
This appears to entail running a second instance of the flash plugin outside the sandbox, working as a broker.
Since this is the case, it may be possible to exploit both layers. The general sandboxing done for JS and HTML rendering is much simpler, and would likely not be as easy to exploit
So... What you're saying is that the lines have been firmly drawn in the sand. No amount of kicking at the sand (buffer overflow) will obscure the boundary?
Contrast the methods employed with hardware visualized sandboxing under which the answer to my statements would actually be "yes".
Anything short of running in a VM (hardware supported or purely in software), is not a "sandbox" in my book.
It is a Chrome flaw introduced by Google's use of the word "sandboxed" that really doesn't imply a sandbox at all.
Additionally, compiling JS to machine code and having Chrome execute that data is not "sandboxing" either.
A flaw in my VM's interpretor that allows code to escape the sandbox is one thing, running non-virtualized machine code that itself can be exploited is quite another.
At some point, you must stop, wipe your brow, and consider your trek through the desert -- Is there really an edge to this sandbox? Did I miss the line drawn in the wind-swept sand or have I been lied to yet again?
Does it run on Linux?
Hi all. Where's my Compiler & distributed revision control? (GCC, GIT), Why can't I rewind a Google Doc? Where's my local LAMP stack? Postgresql? SQLite? Code folding and syntax highlighting in Google docs? Not there? B-But, it's running on top of GNU/Linux. I know it's using some of this underneath, why can't I access it within ChromeOS? This hurts, it's the most limited OS I've ever seen short of on a dumb "smart phone".
No thanks, I've already got all of the benefits of Google's model of cloud storage... I'll keep using my traditional model of robust "cloud" storage: An editor with auto-save enabled, editing files in a local GIT repo, with a cron job doing git commit & git push every 5 minutes or so. Note: that remote repo -- it's part of my private cloud; I also have a cron job that creates a daily private bittorrent of my media collection -- my other PCs rsync the torrent & use BT to distributively sync the media folders I've selected them to store. Bonus, when I'm offline I still have access to all the important data, and some of whatever entertainment data I'm liking right now.
My stopped clock is only correct once a day. I use a 24 hour clock you insensitive clod!
I think that if you want to charge for information that is fine. But you have no right to restrict my use of the information after the sale, to do so infringes my 1st amendment constitutional rights which state that congress shall make no law against my freedom of speech.
The fallacy of the "information owner" idea is that you have actually created something unique, and of your own mind. Without society, your mind would not exist. The form and structure of the information, the words, concepts, frameworks, languages that all of our information, written or electronic, that exists in our culture helped to shape your very mind, and the insubstantial collection and arrangement of such cultural items should not be allowed to be owned by anyone (attributed, perhaps, but not owned).
For example, I created a spoken & written language based on a 16 character alphabet such that words and phases could be easily interpreted by a machine as well as a human, in fact, The concepts of spacial dimensions (0 - 3), time, energy transfer, motion are the building blocks of the language such that even an Alien could understand and use the language with a bit of study.
Everything in that language I invented myself, and as such the language and books produced in the language have no worth outside of the culture that understands and uses those works... (Note: I was still not able to escape the influence of own culture -- I had to borrow the concept of the written word, and simple physics, and even puns!).
The culture gives your informational work merit, we prosper as a species BECAUSE WE CAN EXCHANGE IDEAS. It is evil to contribute a very small amount of work in relation to the culture's total information collection, and then discriminate against who can use the information afterwards.
You are free to share or not share your contributions with whomever you please and to require an exchange of some sort prior to sharing, but you do not have the moral right to restrict what they do with the information you share. Currently you have the legal right to seek monetary penalties for those who do not respect your restrictive wishes, this was not always the case. In fact, I posit that were this the case we would still be living in the Dark Ages at best, but most probably the Stone Age -- surely not the Information Age.
Copyright law was designed to benefit the society as a whole. The US Constitution states the purpose of copyright is to “promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts.” Our highest court (The Supreme Court) has upheld this constitutional premise: “The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the [copyright] monopoly lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors.”
When the general public is harmed by copyright law, infringing upon the society's 1st amendment rights, and basic human drive to share information (which allowed the very creation of the works, society and laws) it no longer serves its purpose, and it is your duty as a thinking social being to reject the unjust uses of such a law.
Schrödinger's cat does not exist in two states until the opening of the box. The cat entered the box in one state, and will exit it in only one state. The equations must be manipulated as if the cat were in multiple states in order to contain either outcome in a single expression, but in fact the cat will be in only one state: An undead zombie cat, both living and not.
Am I the only one who realizes that one of the many benefits of broad adoption of the driverless car is that the cost of a driver can be factored out of the production of Google Street View images?
Apple is big. Arguably the biggest player right now, but it's arguable and that's a good thing.
Microsoft is the has been that isn't forgotten and still wields power.
Now, there is a set of statements that would have caused a reader's head to explode if they had been written in 1998.
I'm not so sure... It seems he really has been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like.
If Google opened up their search engine wouldn't it just allow developers to make clones? If im not mistaken, the meat of a search engine is the algorithms that organize compiled results. If you copy Google's search algorithms, your search produces results identical to those of a Google search. How is that innovative? How does Google keeping their algorithms to themselves stifle innovation? Additionally, if Google open-sourced their search engine it would allow a SEO to see exactly how things tick and exploit Google's advertising arm. That'd make it even more useless than it already is.
No, that's the brains of a search engine. The "meat" of a search engine is the database that is created using the algorithms... Google open sourcing their code would allow others to build a Google, but with empty data sets... Ergo: It would be so far behind that it wouldn't just be non-innovative, it would be less relevant. With AGPL licensed Google search code release, competitors could add improvements to the code, but it would do them little good against Google (because Google would be able to take advantage of the innovation of others).
My conclusion is along the same lines as yours, Google's search source code is only worth anything if they also provide the dataset they've built up over the years, and even then competitors would have little incentive to improve the codebase if it means sharing the tech with Google.
I'll be able to re-inflate my solar-powered dirigible's nacelles, and escape the traffic!
The above are wrong... it was Sealab 2021... see: Dolphin Boy.
Can we just accept the fact that they're all corrupt, and simply require that politicians publish their price, and who's pocket they're in so that the general public can try to buy a few?!
I dunno, it has the innuendo and sounds official, but is is a believable chat-up line ?
Probably not, but it might work at a swinger's club with a slight modification:
"I'm a professional penetration taster"
Fortunately I fit in with a group of weird kids in junior high school and beyond; Before that I wasn't anti-social, just different (and difference make others uncomfortable) -- I could make friends with older kids & adults easily...
I'm glad there is less of a "shun the geek" trend now days. It seems like people have finally realized what I've known all along:
If you ostracize geeks, only geeks will be ostrich-sized!
Energy prices already fluctuate depending on usage times (even if you have abstracted this detail away with a fixed rate plan).
What I want to see a public API for accessing this data so we can tell when to get the best drain for our bucks.
Ultimately, I see this evolving similarly to the stock market. We can have computers that precisely control our lighting and appliances much like a high frequency trader's computers do.
Imagine being able to get the absolute best price for electricity, (a few dollars cheaper per month than your neighbors!) except that the shower is never heated for more than a few minutes at a time, and turning on a light results in a sporadic strobe effect.
As far as quality is concerned, I think that a Geek's attention to detail does allow them to produce the best quality Adults.
However, if sheer quantity is your aim, you can get a much better deal by lowering your standards a bit -- After all, even low quality humans taste pretty much the same (so long as they have functional kidneys). So I'd say whether you should get your adults from a Geek or just a run of the mill cultivator depends on what you're using the adults for: Entertainment or Food.
Oh, you mean the humans themselves? Absolutely not, no, the "geeks" don't turn out to be good as Adults. You may be able to keep them distracted and complacent as children, but the "geek" variety are hard to integrate properly into a conformant (and fast breeding) populous.
Geeks themselves tend to stand out and draw attention to the logical flaws in the environments we've built to contain them (especially the breeding program). The mere possibility that they'll reveal these truths to others and lead a revolt is enough to opt for the less intelligent variety when it comes to Adults.
TL;DR: Geeks, while entertaining as children, are too cumbersome to keep as adults; They're too smart for their own good.
I have some buggy whip makers who want to talk with you.
Get with the times, We call them Adult Novelty & BDSM suppliers now.
Why do Windows users get all kinds of great software like this, now with the source, maybe we can finally get some really great malware for Linux.
You jest, but your joke is confused. A "Linux port" would mean that users of Linux would be able to use the attack toolkit -- not that they would suddenly become susceptible to the Windows exploit vectors.
Thus a port wouldn't enable us to create malware targeting Linux any more than a Windows port of GCC suddenly makes MS Visual Studio better.
No, that is exactly the definition of Open Source, and why the FSF shuns the term... It's no good being Open if it's not also Free (as in Freedom).
I'll look elsewhere for the next hardware project to donate my time to.
Sure, all we need is a huge amount of unobtanium.
Unfortunately, the technological advances developed during the search for and manufacture of said unobtanium also vastly cheapens the cost of computer AI and cyborgs which leads to the rise of a global military industrial corporation named Genom.
After the Second Great Kanto Earthquake of 2025 divides Tokyo's in two, physically as well as culturally, the vast difference of wealth distribution sparks a cultural upheaval and Genom looses its cyborgs on humanity.
Our only hope will be the all-female powered armor equipped mercenaries known only as The Knight Sabers.
Trust me -- The space junk problem pales in comparison to the issues caused by its solution.
It was an 80s-ish RPG. One of the background stories was that Word War 3 broke out and because of all the space weapons and counter-weapons blasting each other to bits and throwing up buckshot at each other, Earth's orbit becomes full of so much shrapnel that it's impossible to achieve orbit. When the Chinese tested that laser on a satellite target, that's what I immediately thought of. Space weapons are a stupid, expensive, potentially disastrous idea. Look at how bad space junk is getting and we haven even *tried* to fill orbits with crap.
Just to clarify: Space weapons are a bad idea because weapons in general are a bad idea. If it weren't for the mentality of some humans' that cause some of us to refuse to cooperate and instead drives the desire to destroy others, the weapon problem would not exist.
Tools, on the other hand, can also be dangerous, and extreme caution should be used when using dangerous tools...