Degenerate into an oozing fest of self indulgence and crappy quizzes about peoples aura/star sign/some other mystic crap or how good they are in bed, and...?
"If that happens, then I predict a mass exodus from gasoline to electric powered cars that will make the Toyota Prius look like a fad."
I doubt it.
Nano batteries sound expensive.
Electric cars don't have much muscle (People like muscle).
People don't (shouldn't, learn your lesson you fools!) run out an buy cars every 3 years.
The original Prius' uptake was actually slow, and it was limited by production (I expect this would be more so).
The Prius is kinda like the iPod.
It wasn't always the defacto standard.
I'm with you, though.
As long as my games run acceptably, fuck upgrading.
Eye candy is nice, but fun games are nicer. With more money I can afford more games, or, you know, save it.
With hot new GPUs I play the same old shit with better textures, and then I look around and see 1, maybe 2 games worth buying. Typically, these are the games that play great on older hardware too.
Hind sight is 20/20, and I think I would have done well if I had done the following:
GeForce 2 --> 9800 Pro (ATi) --> 8800 Ultra/GTX
Sorry AMD and Nvidia, unless there's a damned good game I NEED to play immediately, I'll be waiting til you bring out the 6870 (ATi) / 485 (Nvidia). They're coming out in what, another year? I can wait.
"That vessel, the Emma Maersk and her sisters," should be "That vessel, the Emma Maersk, and her sisters,".
We're using commas to separate list elements. Let's not drop commas just because we have the word "and" there - that's sloppy, lazy, and ambiguous. English is shitty and ambiguous enough, so we need to avoid that shit whenever we can.
Now, if "that vessel" is referring to the Emma Maersk, then it should be a parenthetical. "That vessel (the Emma Maersk), and her sisters,".
But who the fuck knows what that sentence was actually supposed to mean.
Wall-E? You mean a cute version of Johnny Five, an anthropomorphized iPod, and fat people?
Yeah, not fine artists. I'm not stretching my imagination at all. They do a good job, but I haven't seen anything from Pixar that I'd consider art anymore than I would stuff I've seen in Speed Racer (movie) or Dead Space (game).
You bitch about people dismissing things as not being art, but you yourself can give no definition of art. Your only actual argument here is that it's not the medium and that it's the "artistic quality".
You fail to define "artistic quality", of course. Well, what if someone thinks the medium affects the artistic quality? How is their opinion any less valid than your own?
All we actually get from you is that you think the person making the art has an impact (by virtue of being who they are) on the artistic quality.
Paint splatters by person X are art, but when person Y does them it's not?
And thus we have your true, honest definition of what constitutes art. It's not the medium, it's not the content, it's the pompous fuck who made it, or if he's dead/deranged/otherwise an outcast, it's the opinions of the pompous fucks who latched onto his name.
Art is completely subjective. If they have a different opinion, too fucking bad. Telling others what they should think is and isn't art and why makes you a pompous fuck.
You can prove any of the first three sandbox functions just fine. But you can't prove them on the operating system side.
If your sandbox is a regular old sandbox that just walls up some memory, then the proof of the sandbox boils down to proving all the sandbox code, which won't be turing complete, and then proving all the OS code, which is turing complete.
If your sandbox implementation is more in the line of a vm type setup, you'll have to deal with your hypervisor, etc., which will be turing complete.
The bottom line is that the implementation as a whole is what matters. You can define a wall and it may be impenetrable, but the ground itself may be easy to burrow through.
There is no point in proving a sandbox to be "secure" while ignoring the same issues where the sandbox is implemented.
The poster waaaaaaaaaaay up said: "Image file formats and HTML pages are not Turing complete, while Javascript is. Consequently, the former are "safe" in that it's possible to prove that a particular implementation is free of exploits that would allow running arbitrary code, while Javascript by definition can never be; the whole point of Javascript is to allow arbitrary code execution, so the best you could ever prove is that the code never leaves the confines of the Web browser - but having a script post comments does not require that."
You can prove code will never leave your sandbox due to a fault of the sand box but the implementation of the sandbox is turing complete. You can't prove the entire thing won't come tumbling down.
Thus, you can never prove it is safe to run arbitrary, turing-complete code on a turing complete machine, regardless of whatever sandboxing you use.
Slashdot Mirror
Degenerate into an oozing fest of self indulgence and crappy quizzes about peoples aura/star sign/some other mystic crap or how good they are in bed, and...?
That's what Facebook is.
"If that happens, then I predict a mass exodus from gasoline to electric powered cars that will make the Toyota Prius look like a fad." I doubt it. Nano batteries sound expensive. Electric cars don't have much muscle (People like muscle). People don't (shouldn't, learn your lesson you fools!) run out an buy cars every 3 years. The original Prius' uptake was actually slow, and it was limited by production (I expect this would be more so). The Prius is kinda like the iPod. It wasn't always the defacto standard.
By the time Diablo 3 comes out, your 8800 GT will be dead.
They're all defective.
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1038400/nvidia-g92s-g94-reportedly
I'm with you, though.
As long as my games run acceptably, fuck upgrading.
Eye candy is nice, but fun games are nicer. With more money I can afford more games, or, you know, save it.
With hot new GPUs I play the same old shit with better textures, and then I look around and see 1, maybe 2 games worth buying. Typically, these are the games that play great on older hardware too.
Hind sight is 20/20, and I think I would have done well if I had done the following:
GeForce 2 --> 9800 Pro (ATi) --> 8800 Ultra/GTX
Sorry AMD and Nvidia, unless there's a damned good game I NEED to play immediately, I'll be waiting til you bring out the 6870 (ATi) / 485 (Nvidia). They're coming out in what, another year? I can wait.
"Hero worship produces the idea that humans have different worthiness according to certain measurements"
That idea is correct.
"the essential principle of fascism;"
If you say so.
"worse, it puts heroes up on a pedestal so most others assume they can only dream of achieving what they can."
The truth hurts.
Oh, but I do carry a second battery.
Troll the you're?
Art isn't what and is what people telling.
Told got you!
It with deal.
You're the troll?
Telling people what is and what isn't art?
You got told?
Deal with it?
It's missing a comma, too.
"That vessel, the Emma Maersk and her sisters," should be "That vessel, the Emma Maersk, and her sisters,".
We're using commas to separate list elements. Let's not drop commas just because we have the word "and" there - that's sloppy, lazy, and ambiguous. English is shitty and ambiguous enough, so we need to avoid that shit whenever we can.
Now, if "that vessel" is referring to the Emma Maersk, then it should be a parenthetical.
"That vessel (the Emma Maersk), and her sisters,".
But who the fuck knows what that sentence was actually supposed to mean.
Species travels to new location on it's own, on another animal, on a boat, truck, or whatever.
Species takes root and kicks ass. Weaker species die out. It's just nature doing its thing. I think Disney wrote a song about it.
What you're preaching is segregation.
But as always, rule 34 does apply.
Microban won't hold up in the ocean for more than a few hours.
"or through the nano-molecular arrangement of their skin" should be "or through their skin".
Oh wait, we talked about pores already?
The entire sentence should be dropped.
Not everything has to be nano, cyber, 2.0, cloud-based, or other such bullshit, kids.
You're the troll.
Telling people what is and what isn't art.
You got told.
Deal with it.
Yeah it would.
My point is that I disagree with your priorities.
Chiefly on the whole "oh shit, emergency, call 911" issue.
Hope you never have to dial 911 when your battery is low.
You're the troll.
Telling people what is and what isn't art.
You got told.
Deal with it.
It's a fucking phone.
Radio functions (making fucking calls) should be the last thing to go.
Wall-E?
You mean a cute version of Johnny Five, an anthropomorphized iPod, and fat people?
Yeah, not fine artists. I'm not stretching my imagination at all. They do a good job, but I haven't seen anything from Pixar that I'd consider art anymore than I would stuff I've seen in Speed Racer (movie) or Dead Space (game).
You bitch about people dismissing things as not being art, but you yourself can give no definition of art. Your only actual argument here is that it's not the medium and that it's the "artistic quality".
You fail to define "artistic quality", of course. Well, what if someone thinks the medium affects the artistic quality? How is their opinion any less valid than your own?
All we actually get from you is that you think the person making the art has an impact (by virtue of being who they are) on the artistic quality.
Paint splatters by person X are art, but when person Y does them it's not?
And thus we have your true, honest definition of what constitutes art. It's not the medium, it's not the content, it's the pompous fuck who made it, or if he's dead/deranged/otherwise an outcast, it's the opinions of the pompous fucks who latched onto his name.
Art is completely subjective. If they have a different opinion, too fucking bad. Telling others what they should think is and isn't art and why makes you a pompous fuck.
I play poker with my dog.
He loves it so much he started gambling with his friends and wearing old-timey clothes.
We have some pictures at our site http://www.dogsplayingpoker.org/gallery/coolidge/ .
You can prove any of the first three sandbox functions just fine. But you can't prove them on the operating system side.
If your sandbox is a regular old sandbox that just walls up some memory, then the proof of the sandbox boils down to proving all the sandbox code, which won't be turing complete, and then proving all the OS code, which is turing complete.
If your sandbox implementation is more in the line of a vm type setup, you'll have to deal with your hypervisor, etc., which will be turing complete.
The bottom line is that the implementation as a whole is what matters. You can define a wall and it may be impenetrable, but the ground itself may be easy to burrow through.
There is no point in proving a sandbox to be "secure" while ignoring the same issues where the sandbox is implemented.
The poster waaaaaaaaaaay up said:
"Image file formats and HTML pages are not Turing complete, while Javascript is. Consequently, the former are "safe" in that it's possible to prove that a particular implementation is free of exploits that would allow running arbitrary code, while Javascript by definition can never be; the whole point of Javascript is to allow arbitrary code execution, so the best you could ever prove is that the code never leaves the confines of the Web browser - but having a script post comments does not require that."
You can prove code will never leave your sandbox due to a fault of the sand box but the implementation of the sandbox is turing complete. You can't prove the entire thing won't come tumbling down.
Thus, you can never prove it is safe to run arbitrary, turing-complete code on a turing complete machine, regardless of whatever sandboxing you use.
You're right.
The first three can be proven relatively easily.
The fourth is the issue.
It doesn't matter if the API is public or not.
It doesn't matter if you have a damned API.
If running an sand-box environment to contain another turing-complete machine, then the physical machine must be turing complete.
All that matters is whether or not that code can withstand all possible series of inputs.
Good luck formally proving that.
Light pulses of encoding?
I can't wait for the light pulses of devouring.
Ah, so it's like shared hosting, where the bill you per storage, CPU usage, bandwidth, etc.
Welcome to the 1970s!
Yes I have.
As that code must be turing complete for it to be of any use.
"US soil was never under threat from the Japanese in WWII"
Congratulations.
This is the dumbest fucking thing I have read all day.