This is why we need additional mod options. I have points, but there's no option for "Interesting, if it's true" or "thanks for the info, but since there's no way to validate, caveat reader."
It's really easy to get bullshit modded up because of the number of people who say "I didn't know that, thanks". How many of the +4 so far are "+1 because it's true" vs. "It's news to me"?
You're not going to get multiple tiny commits. You're going to get this from every single bill:
Rev1: Senator Whatshisname. New bill proposal. (contents copied verbatim from lobbyist e-mail request, but this won't be specified anywhere) Rev2: Senate Committee chair. Updates from committee meeting. (massive replacement of the text, no names specified) Rev3: Senate Committee chair. Merged with House bill upon committee recommendation. (more replacement, no names specified)
And simultaneously: Rev1: House Whatshisname. House version of new bill proposal. (contents copied verbatim from different lobbyist e-mail request, but this won't be specified anywhere) Rev2: House Committee chair. Updates from committee meeting. (massive replacement of the text, no names specified) Rev3: House Committee chair. Deleted bill, updates moved to Senate version.
Why wouldn't you say Joe Weber discovered this, instead of some random physicist? Is his name Joe Weber or is that just what people called him?
I don't know anyone else named Joe Weber so you would not have to say Joe Weber the physicist to clarify either, although I appreciate the additional information. I would have said maybe a dog called Joe or a robot called Joe, but it sounds awkward and a bit insulting talking about people.
Me, I'm a poster called b4dc0d3r - you don't know if this is a person or machine or bitrot. Joe Weber on the other hand, identifies the person, instead of the watery fleshbag it walks around in. Sure he's dead now, but he apparently didn't get the respect he deserved while alive so let's try now that he's wormfood.
Must be having my manperiod, thanks for reading, burn my karma if you wish, carry on.
I was going to buy a Kindle with my tax refund, which I just got. But if they sell me something that is selectively nonfunctional, there's no way. My only other choice seems to be Sony, and I'll be damned if I support them more than I have (just bought a PS2, so it will take a while before I stop feeling bad about that).
IE is the default browser, so MSN is the default search engine. Even though people go to Google automatically these days, I wouldn't be surprised if their new browser is just a cover story. If they work a deal with OEMs, they could have the default browser be Chrome, with the default search engine being Google. Or even if the OEM wants Firefox, Google could still be the default search engine via their past investments and agreements with Mozilla.
Getting IE off windows, or at least not as prominently featured, is probably seen as a key strategy in the fight for search/ad market.
The Microsoft Office Isolated Conversion Environment (MOICE) feature that is added to the Microsoft Office Compatibility Pack for Word, Excel, and PowerPoint 2007 File Formats is used to more securely open Word, Excel, and PowerPoint binary format files.
They have the code to do this securely... but can't implement it because users want the features which allow security holes. Disable macros and probably internet connections too, convert the file, then open it. Look at all the "issues", which are essentially MS saying these are dangerous (but still in the design).
After you use MOICE to convert a file, the default save location is the %temp% folder when you try to save the file. Also, the %temp% folder is the default folder when you try to open a file.
Anyone who has access to the computer can view the files in the %temp% folder.
When you use MOICE to convert a file, the converted file is saved in the %temp% folder. The converted file is not deleted from the %temp% folder when the file is closed. If a file is opened multiple times, the file is converted multiple times. Additionally, more than one copy of the file is saved in the %temp% folder. If you have made changes to the first copy of the document, the second copy of the document will not contain the changes.
By default, the applicable program opens after MOICE finishes a file conversion. Then, the converted document is opened. (...snipped...)
Smart tag data is stripped from PowerPoint presentations when you use MOICE to convert a presentation that contains smart tags.
Macros are stripped from files when you use MOICE to convert files that contain macros.
When you open a file by using a link inside a file that has been converted by MOICE, the linked file is not converted by MOICE.
Embedded documents cannot be converted.
Documents that use rights management cannot be converted.
Documents that use passwords cannot be converted.
You cannot use the Edit Document in Microsoft Office Program_Name feature in Microsoft SharePoint when you use MOICE to convert Office files.
If damage exists, it will be removed from a binary Word 97-2003 Document (*.doc) file during the conversion. Therefore, the contents of the file may change unexpectedly.
That's what they want you to do. You leave without fulfilling your notice, so then they write bad things - self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts and they win. Get your concerns in writing with HR, find out what they can legally say about you in your area, and then do exactly what you said you would do.
If one of your references is the one making threats, however, you're kinda screwed because you essentially gave permission to go beyond the basic information. In that case, follow other advice here.
Knowingly and without permission provides or assists in providing a means of accessing a computer, computer system, or computer network in violation of this section.
The section lists the rules, but he has to knowingly provide access, In other words, he has to do it intentionally.
More importantly, the rules are No Hacking data, phreaking, DOS, release virus, general black hattery... Or providing the tools to do it. No one would say a modem is a hacking tool would they? More so than a gigabit network?
AFK is used more for chat-based systems, like IRC and other multiplayer games where communication is as or more important than the action.
IRL seems to be used more with messaging type software (even if it's used for chatting), such as Messenger or Jabber or maybe AIM.
Another way is purpose-based chat uses AFK, and passing the time chat or whatever those "chat rooms" I keep hearing about where people try to hook up with cops would use IRL. This observation is 10 years old, though, so I don't know if the kids have invented telepathy or something like it yet.
Easier way is: people were confused by the HDTV switch despite 6 months of increasingly heavy advertising. Do we expect them to be able to understand and implement this? Granted, people who have wireless networking are probably a self-selected group of higher average intelligence, but most just plug it in and accept the defaults. I don't see how they would implement this requirement without out-of-the-box hardware support, which means buying all new routers, which means more bailout.
Do they all have the same version of Word? If so, it's easier to make a document you can send. People like having something they can print or whatever else without having to log into some site and navigate to. Otherwise put everything into a wiki, with screenshots instead of random file types like visio or whatever that people won't have.
For each bit, have someone document it, then have someone else use it as-is, and offer feedback. continue until you're comfortable, then require people to use the documentation. If they have questions, point them back to the docs. Have a feedback system so they can ask for clarifications or alert you to changes.
Torrents, web browser, reads my old NTFS files, runs QEmu and VMWare if I get to that point, I'm making the switch.
I spent years reversing applications that ran on windows, learned about Windows API so I could make it do what I wanted, x86 assembly so I could debug windows (as well as shareware that was free for linux, paid for windows), documented IE6 bugs and Explorer quirks, figured out where the usesless registry keys are, and finally how to replace system files when they come with arbitrary limits (half-open connections) because of all the holes for the malware I spent years learning about so I could take it off friends', family's, and customers' computers.
I know a hell of a lot about Microsoft's shitty platform, and the only reason I know about it is because Microsoft kept pissing me off. Over and over. I'm making a list of why windows sucks. I'll paste it in here, after my VPN's computer g-mails it to my non-VPN'ed computer because I can't find my flash drive and VPN skips the router. My point is, if I had spent that time being able to accomplish something instead of being driven to fix as much of the turdpile as I could, if I'd had something that "Just works", I'd have turned out a different person. For good or for bad, the fact that Microsoft turned out year after year of mediocre dogshit affected my personality and life experience in ways I'll never truly understand.
I haven't re-read this, there might be some rough edges.
Why Microsoft sucks.
Bottom line, solutions are "good enough" and they let users deal with it. Instead of spending the extra time to go back and fix an obviously half-baked idea. Yes engineering large systems like the dominant OS, Office suite, and development platforms can be difficult.
But making your products both hard to use and unavoidable is what breeds so much hate from its forced user base.
Visual Studio ============= If you exclude a file from build in ASP.NET, it actually renames the file. Despite all of the project files and extra junk it creates, it can't mark a file as 'do not build'. I realize this is a deficiency in ASP.NET and Visual Studio is just working around the problem, but why would VS have to work around something made by the same company? It's a quick hack, and developers can appreciate it, but you're changing the filesystem to suit your application. Particularly annoying when using some version of source control, otherwise probably not a big deal.
Internet Explorer ================= Ignores cache settings on AJAX (Microsoft.XMLHTTP). If you're making an AJAX call, aren't you specifically looking for the latest data? I think this was an optimization to make it look like it worked faster (either IE as a client or IIS as a server). But it's the opposite of what should happen - developers should decide when to refresh and when to not refresh, either by setting a flag or by only making the call when necessary. As it is I have searched for tips and still have to manually delete temporary internet files to see an update. The recommended solution is to add a random string to the end like "&r=" + randomnumber() or "&date=" + Now(). this bypasses smart caching solutions, like the ASP.NET output cache, which requires re-creating the page output even when the server knows the file hasn't changed. Setting request headers does not work, since AJAX decides whether to load from cache before putting the request together.
Largely ignores web standards, team was disbanded and work suspended for 5 years while countless developers banged their heads against the wall trying to implement standard code while the dominant browser required IE-specific hacks, often taking advantage of bugs in IE's parsing to hide valid CSS from IE, or allow only IE to see it.
Windows ======= Priority should be on what users want to do. Starting the "Run" dialog by putting a request in a worker queue using threa
What is the problem? You don't need a record company. Or another way, if you can do what the record company does, you can make that money for yourself. The company does a lot of work, and has a lot of promotional ties and connections. You can do the actual recording yourself and still get a great benefit with a record company. If you sign over your rights to someone who has a way into the industry, and use those ties to further yourself, the company deserves a percentage of whatever fortune and fame it makes for you.
Record companies know there are plenty of great acts out there for every one that gets signed, which is why they can make the contract terms so rough. If you don't sign, someone else will. Same supply and demand problem, everyone wants to be famous, but the market cant support them all. I know, people will spend more overall if the music is good overall, but sometimes you have to decide if you're going to this concert or that concert. Too many of those choices mean a tour is closing somewhere.
I used to be very much on the side of artists who think they get a raw deal from recording contracts. I say, if you don't like it go on your own. If you can't make it on your own, the record company deserves payment for whatever work it did on your behalf. Even if you end up in the red on the deal. It's no different from me going into business, getting loans, then failing and having to repay the loans. I'm in the red because I thought I could make it, and now that band is in the red as well for the same reason.
If you want to be a musician and get paid for making music, no problem. If you want to try your luck with a big company and win the fame lottery, no one should feel sorry for you when you lose out. In short, if you need the help, you pay the price.
Depending on Bilski, computer software and mathematics can be covered by both copyright and patent, so you're actually better off than most. Blame society for pointing the gravy train at entertainment instead of research and foundations that make entertainment possible. Or blame yourself for choosing the wrong career.
Writers just get royalties. Musicians have a "day job" touring, and also have record sales which are the royalties. Some artists get a set price per work, which may represent the number of hours work combined with how impressed the artist is with himself, but no royalties or day job. And don't get me started on patrons.
Salary, hourly, overtime or no, benefits or no... Everyone gets paid a little differently.
Greed is destructive, I think you mean capitalism is good when used properly. When used improperly, it's greed. Greed leads to things like killing the goose that laid the golden egg. If you understand how the goose works and let it work for you, that's using resources properly.
Greed in the world of big pharma means stifling diabetes cures because insulin is such a cash cow. Treating symptoms with long courses of drugs instead of solving the problem. Greed is setting up a financial house of cards, and not caring what happens to the markets after you cash out.
When you're talking about greed, you may have meant lenders who decided to loan out money, getting a good return on investment while helping people who need loans. This is normal capitalism. Lending people more than they can afford to pay back and enjoying your bonus while they get evicted, that's greed, and it helps no one.
Good idea, but it's not enough. You have to let people switch between modes at some point, so they don't have to re-start in order to get the hints. Or if they get better quickly they can turn up the heat. But there has to be some incentive to use normal or hard, otherwise they can get the experience of playing through it without actually getting the feeling and atmosphere the game dev was trying to create.
I'm guessing you're a console gamer, where these are common tricks, and maybe these details were assumed, but they aren't all that common in the portable games. Or haven't been.
I think that was a real question. MS created the problem, and implemented things like a hard-coded half-open connection limit and UAC to work around the problem. I think there is some responsibility there, as not every parent knows enough about technology to do responsible things like review their history and cookies, let alone properly configure a user account.
It would be a simple step forward to say yes, we caused this, and we will show you how to use our product responsibly. Alcohol companies do it with their Drink responsibly campaigns, tobacco companies with their... whatever it is they are doing with cancer lawsuit required attempts to keep kids from smoking. Gun owners and auto drivers need a license... I think we've shown that a spambot can grow to a damaging botnet, and MS should bear some responsibility to that, given their concessions above, and their $250,000 reward for cornficker culprits. to me, they're basically saying "Oops, sorry, but we're trying."
Most programmers get paid to come in every day, that's their "live show" where they earn money working. Only a few can make a single product and resell it to a million people. In that case your "work" is the effort in selling and promoting the product, the business side of it. No sense paying a programmer to hang around if he's not doing maintenance and updates.
Programming jobs which provide post-release royalties are uncommon at best, where I write an application and get 1.5% of each sale ever after or some such agreement. Either you get paid to deliver or you get paid to work towards delivering, and then it's over.
And in reply to no one in particular: The book model is tough - someone puts forth the initial investment writing and then should be allowed to recoup that investment, and they do that by working to print copies. But publishers can give an advance and then print the book for the author, making it a work for hire, but with the added bonus of royalties (against which the advance has to be balanced). Most authors can't make money writing live or with speaking engagements or talk shows, so this model works. The recording model is similar, except you can earn money for performing live, presenting the way you created it before it was perfected for recording.
So how can we be fair to all of these creative people? I can write a song that cannot realistically be performed live due to complexity (System of a Down does this in my mind), so should I not be paid for what I created when people enjoy it?
I think the idea of the one hit wonder earning money for the rest of their lives may be something we have to accept as a side effect of removing the patronage system. It would be nice to have it, and we could try to bring in back, but we can't force people into working like that. Musicians create two products - the recording, like the book that the author creates, and the performance is separate, similar to paying a burger flipper for doing work or a programmer working for salary, and the current system divides those to be dealt with separately.
If normal digital projection is 4,096 x 2,160 pixels and this projects at 2,048 x 1,080, I would guess this is a typical anaglyph method using half the pixels for each eye. In other words, normal digital projection.
It could be that they are using two different projectors using polarized light, and that this system uses lower resolution to lower costs. But I would expect a polarized solution to simply use two standard projectors at 4K. Of course the reporter apparently doesn't care which method is being used. It could very well be something gimmicky a crappy like Intel's Intru3D used for the superbowl, or similar technologies which use two colored lenses but try very hard to say "but we're not anaglyph".
BTW my TV is not properly color-adjusted, so the 3D super bowl stuff actually looked like hell to me. I assume a cinema would bother to fix this for a 2-hour feature running continuously, whereas I don't give a crap for a 15 minute commercial.
There's another one that uses yellow and some other color, might be an offshoot of Intel but using a slightly different second color for the other eye.
There are plugins and other tools for IDA Pro, and I've seen a video of someone pinpointing a fix in under 3 minutes. Running that code it in a debugger with real world data, you can often make an exploit in a few hours tops.
It's actually a lot easier to RE the patch and use it against corporate systems which have to evaluate and test the patch, leaving a big vulnerability gap. I would say the MS patching cycle pretty much tells the hackers everything they need to know for a successful breach. Point that out when they tell you open source is more secure. If you can read the patch, you can determine how much testing is required and often open-source systems can be evaluated an put on the push list quickly but that's based on individual experience. You never know what to test with MS patches.
It's harder to read source code and find things to attack - I find it easier to send a fuzzing tool after a proprietary, binary package than reading through thousands of lines of source code.
Slashdot Mirror
This is why we need additional mod options. I have points, but there's no option for "Interesting, if it's true" or "thanks for the info, but since there's no way to validate, caveat reader."
It's really easy to get bullshit modded up because of the number of people who say "I didn't know that, thanks". How many of the +4 so far are "+1 because it's true" vs. "It's news to me"?
You're not going to get multiple tiny commits. You're going to get this from every single bill:
Rev1: Senator Whatshisname. New bill proposal. (contents copied verbatim from lobbyist e-mail request, but this won't be specified anywhere)
Rev2: Senate Committee chair. Updates from committee meeting. (massive replacement of the text, no names specified)
Rev3: Senate Committee chair. Merged with House bill upon committee recommendation. (more replacement, no names specified)
And simultaneously:
Rev1: House Whatshisname. House version of new bill proposal. (contents copied verbatim from different lobbyist e-mail request, but this won't be specified anywhere)
Rev2: House Committee chair. Updates from committee meeting. (massive replacement of the text, no names specified)
Rev3: House Committee chair. Deleted bill, updates moved to Senate version.
Not enough - if you click the file, and you have the Explorer status bar showing, it will call the PDF shell extension to fill the status bar details.
so you probably need to do something with this as well:
HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\.pdf\ShellEx
Why wouldn't you say Joe Weber discovered this, instead of some random physicist? Is his name Joe Weber or is that just what people called him?
I don't know anyone else named Joe Weber so you would not have to say Joe Weber the physicist to clarify either, although I appreciate the additional information. I would have said maybe a dog called Joe or a robot called Joe, but it sounds awkward and a bit insulting talking about people.
Me, I'm a poster called b4dc0d3r - you don't know if this is a person or machine or bitrot. Joe Weber on the other hand, identifies the person, instead of the watery fleshbag it walks around in. Sure he's dead now, but he apparently didn't get the respect he deserved while alive so let's try now that he's wormfood.
Must be having my manperiod, thanks for reading, burn my karma if you wish, carry on.
I was going to buy a Kindle with my tax refund, which I just got. But if they sell me something that is selectively nonfunctional, there's no way. My only other choice seems to be Sony, and I'll be damned if I support them more than I have (just bought a PS2, so it will take a while before I stop feeling bad about that).
Amazon lost.
IE is the default browser, so MSN is the default search engine. Even though people go to Google automatically these days, I wouldn't be surprised if their new browser is just a cover story. If they work a deal with OEMs, they could have the default browser be Chrome, with the default search engine being Google. Or even if the OEM wants Firefox, Google could still be the default search engine via their past investments and agreements with Mozilla.
Getting IE off windows, or at least not as prominently featured, is probably seen as a key strategy in the fight for search/ad market.
She squished its head...
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/935865
They have the code to do this securely... but can't implement it because users want the features which allow security holes. Disable macros and probably internet connections too, convert the file, then open it. Look at all the "issues", which are essentially MS saying these are dangerous (but still in the design).
And once again mono prevalence increases due to viruses. Just like the good old days!
That's what they want you to do. You leave without fulfilling your notice, so then they write bad things - self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts and they win. Get your concerns in writing with HR, find out what they can legally say about you in your area, and then do exactly what you said you would do.
If one of your references is the one making threats, however, you're kinda screwed because you essentially gave permission to go beyond the basic information. In that case, follow other advice here.
Your statement assumes that all drivers are 100% compatible.
Knowingly and without permission
provides or assists in providing
a means of accessing a computer, computer system, or computer network
in violation of this section.
The section lists the rules, but he has to knowingly provide access, In other words, he has to do it intentionally.
More importantly, the rules are No Hacking data, phreaking, DOS, release virus, general black hattery... Or providing the tools to do it. No one would say a modem is a hacking tool would they? More so than a gigabit network?
http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/502.html
Figured. You sound British.
AFK is used more for chat-based systems, like IRC and other multiplayer games where communication is as or more important than the action.
IRL seems to be used more with messaging type software (even if it's used for chatting), such as Messenger or Jabber or maybe AIM.
Another way is purpose-based chat uses AFK, and passing the time chat or whatever those "chat rooms" I keep hearing about where people try to hook up with cops would use IRL. This observation is 10 years old, though, so I don't know if the kids have invented telepathy or something like it yet.
Easier way is: people were confused by the HDTV switch despite 6 months of increasingly heavy advertising. Do we expect them to be able to understand and implement this? Granted, people who have wireless networking are probably a self-selected group of higher average intelligence, but most just plug it in and accept the defaults. I don't see how they would implement this requirement without out-of-the-box hardware support, which means buying all new routers, which means more bailout.
Do they all have the same version of Word? If so, it's easier to make a document you can send. People like having something they can print or whatever else without having to log into some site and navigate to. Otherwise put everything into a wiki, with screenshots instead of random file types like visio or whatever that people won't have.
For each bit, have someone document it, then have someone else use it as-is, and offer feedback. continue until you're comfortable, then require people to use the documentation. If they have questions, point them back to the docs. Have a feedback system so they can ask for clarifications or alert you to changes.
Torrents, web browser, reads my old NTFS files, runs QEmu and VMWare if I get to that point, I'm making the switch.
I spent years reversing applications that ran on windows, learned about Windows API so I could make it do what I wanted, x86 assembly so I could debug windows (as well as shareware that was free for linux, paid for windows), documented IE6 bugs and Explorer quirks, figured out where the usesless registry keys are, and finally how to replace system files when they come with arbitrary limits (half-open connections) because of all the holes for the malware I spent years learning about so I could take it off friends', family's, and customers' computers.
I know a hell of a lot about Microsoft's shitty platform, and the only reason I know about it is because Microsoft kept pissing me off. Over and over. I'm making a list of why windows sucks. I'll paste it in here, after my VPN's computer g-mails it to my non-VPN'ed computer because I can't find my flash drive and VPN skips the router. My point is, if I had spent that time being able to accomplish something instead of being driven to fix as much of the turdpile as I could, if I'd had something that "Just works", I'd have turned out a different person. For good or for bad, the fact that Microsoft turned out year after year of mediocre dogshit affected my personality and life experience in ways I'll never truly understand.
I haven't re-read this, there might be some rough edges.
Why Microsoft sucks.
Bottom line, solutions are "good enough" and they let users deal with
it. Instead of spending the extra time to go back and fix an
obviously half-baked idea. Yes engineering large systems like the
dominant OS, Office suite, and development platforms can be difficult.
But making your products both hard to use and unavoidable is what
breeds so much hate from its forced user base.
Visual Studio
=============
If you exclude a file from build in ASP.NET, it actually renames the
file. Despite all of the project files and extra junk it creates, it
can't mark a file as 'do not build'. I realize this is a deficiency
in ASP.NET and Visual Studio is just working around the problem, but
why would VS have to work around something made by the same company?
It's a quick hack, and developers can appreciate it, but you're
changing the filesystem to suit your application. Particularly
annoying when using some version of source control, otherwise probably
not a big deal.
Internet Explorer
=================
Ignores cache settings on AJAX (Microsoft.XMLHTTP). If you're making
an AJAX call, aren't you specifically looking for the latest data? I
think this was an optimization to make it look like it worked faster
(either IE as a client or IIS as a server). But it's the opposite of
what should happen - developers should decide when to refresh and when
to not refresh, either by setting a flag or by only making the call
when necessary. As it is I have searched for tips and still have to
manually delete temporary internet files to see an update. The
recommended solution is to add a random string to the end like "&r=" +
randomnumber() or "&date=" + Now(). this bypasses smart caching
solutions, like the ASP.NET output cache, which requires re-creating
the page output even when the server knows the file hasn't changed.
Setting request headers does not work, since AJAX decides whether to
load from cache before putting the request together.
Largely ignores web standards, team was disbanded and work suspended
for 5 years while countless developers banged their heads against the
wall trying to implement standard code while the dominant browser
required IE-specific hacks, often taking advantage of bugs in IE's
parsing to hide valid CSS from IE, or allow only IE to see it.
Windows
=======
Priority should be on what users want to do. Starting the "Run"
dialog by putting a request in a worker queue using threa
What is the problem? You don't need a record company. Or another way, if you can do what the record company does, you can make that money for yourself. The company does a lot of work, and has a lot of promotional ties and connections. You can do the actual recording yourself and still get a great benefit with a record company. If you sign over your rights to someone who has a way into the industry, and use those ties to further yourself, the company deserves a percentage of whatever fortune and fame it makes for you.
Record companies know there are plenty of great acts out there for every one that gets signed, which is why they can make the contract terms so rough. If you don't sign, someone else will. Same supply and demand problem, everyone wants to be famous, but the market cant support them all. I know, people will spend more overall if the music is good overall, but sometimes you have to decide if you're going to this concert or that concert. Too many of those choices mean a tour is closing somewhere.
I used to be very much on the side of artists who think they get a raw deal from recording contracts. I say, if you don't like it go on your own. If you can't make it on your own, the record company deserves payment for whatever work it did on your behalf. Even if you end up in the red on the deal. It's no different from me going into business, getting loans, then failing and having to repay the loans. I'm in the red because I thought I could make it, and now that band is in the red as well for the same reason.
If you want to be a musician and get paid for making music, no problem. If you want to try your luck with a big company and win the fame lottery, no one should feel sorry for you when you lose out. In short, if you need the help, you pay the price.
Depending on Bilski, computer software and mathematics can be covered by both copyright and patent, so you're actually better off than most. Blame society for pointing the gravy train at entertainment instead of research and foundations that make entertainment possible. Or blame yourself for choosing the wrong career.
Writers just get royalties. Musicians have a "day job" touring, and also have record sales which are the royalties. Some artists get a set price per work, which may represent the number of hours work combined with how impressed the artist is with himself, but no royalties or day job. And don't get me started on patrons.
Salary, hourly, overtime or no, benefits or no... Everyone gets paid a little differently.
Greed is destructive, I think you mean capitalism is good when used properly. When used improperly, it's greed. Greed leads to things like killing the goose that laid the golden egg. If you understand how the goose works and let it work for you, that's using resources properly.
Greed in the world of big pharma means stifling diabetes cures because insulin is such a cash cow. Treating symptoms with long courses of drugs instead of solving the problem. Greed is setting up a financial house of cards, and not caring what happens to the markets after you cash out.
When you're talking about greed, you may have meant lenders who decided to loan out money, getting a good return on investment while helping people who need loans. This is normal capitalism. Lending people more than they can afford to pay back and enjoying your bonus while they get evicted, that's greed, and it helps no one.
Good idea, but it's not enough. You have to let people switch between modes at some point, so they don't have to re-start in order to get the hints. Or if they get better quickly they can turn up the heat. But there has to be some incentive to use normal or hard, otherwise they can get the experience of playing through it without actually getting the feeling and atmosphere the game dev was trying to create.
I'm guessing you're a console gamer, where these are common tricks, and maybe these details were assumed, but they aren't all that common in the portable games. Or haven't been.
I think that was a real question. MS created the problem, and implemented things like a hard-coded half-open connection limit and UAC to work around the problem. I think there is some responsibility there, as not every parent knows enough about technology to do responsible things like review their history and cookies, let alone properly configure a user account.
It would be a simple step forward to say yes, we caused this, and we will show you how to use our product responsibly. Alcohol companies do it with their Drink responsibly campaigns, tobacco companies with their... whatever it is they are doing with cancer lawsuit required attempts to keep kids from smoking. Gun owners and auto drivers need a license... I think we've shown that a spambot can grow to a damaging botnet, and MS should bear some responsibility to that, given their concessions above, and their $250,000 reward for cornficker culprits. to me, they're basically saying "Oops, sorry, but we're trying."
Most programmers get paid to come in every day, that's their "live show" where they earn money working. Only a few can make a single product and resell it to a million people. In that case your "work" is the effort in selling and promoting the product, the business side of it. No sense paying a programmer to hang around if he's not doing maintenance and updates.
Programming jobs which provide post-release royalties are uncommon at best, where I write an application and get 1.5% of each sale ever after or some such agreement. Either you get paid to deliver or you get paid to work towards delivering, and then it's over.
And in reply to no one in particular:
The book model is tough - someone puts forth the initial investment writing and then should be allowed to recoup that investment, and they do that by working to print copies. But publishers can give an advance and then print the book for the author, making it a work for hire, but with the added bonus of royalties (against which the advance has to be balanced). Most authors can't make money writing live or with speaking engagements or talk shows, so this model works. The recording model is similar, except you can earn money for performing live, presenting the way you created it before it was perfected for recording.
So how can we be fair to all of these creative people? I can write a song that cannot realistically be performed live due to complexity (System of a Down does this in my mind), so should I not be paid for what I created when people enjoy it?
I think the idea of the one hit wonder earning money for the rest of their lives may be something we have to accept as a side effect of removing the patronage system. It would be nice to have it, and we could try to bring in back, but we can't force people into working like that. Musicians create two products - the recording, like the book that the author creates, and the performance is separate, similar to paying a burger flipper for doing work or a programmer working for salary, and the current system divides those to be dealt with separately.
The simple answer is, it's complicated.
If normal digital projection is 4,096 x 2,160 pixels and this projects at 2,048 x 1,080, I would guess this is a typical anaglyph method using half the pixels for each eye. In other words, normal digital projection.
It could be that they are using two different projectors using polarized light, and that this system uses lower resolution to lower costs. But I would expect a polarized solution to simply use two standard projectors at 4K. Of course the reporter apparently doesn't care which method is being used. It could very well be something gimmicky a crappy like Intel's Intru3D used for the superbowl, or similar technologies which use two colored lenses but try very hard to say "but we're not anaglyph".
BTW my TV is not properly color-adjusted, so the 3D super bowl stuff actually looked like hell to me. I assume a cinema would bother to fix this for a 2-hour feature running continuously, whereas I don't give a crap for a 15 minute commercial.
http://scoop.intel.com/2009/02/did-you-catch-the-3d-super-bowl-commercials.php
There's another one that uses yellow and some other color, might be an offshoot of Intel but using a slightly different second color for the other eye.
There are plugins and other tools for IDA Pro, and I've seen a video of someone pinpointing a fix in under 3 minutes. Running that code it in a debugger with real world data, you can often make an exploit in a few hours tops.
It's actually a lot easier to RE the patch and use it against corporate systems which have to evaluate and test the patch, leaving a big vulnerability gap. I would say the MS patching cycle pretty much tells the hackers everything they need to know for a successful breach. Point that out when they tell you open source is more secure. If you can read the patch, you can determine how much testing is required and often open-source systems can be evaluated an put on the push list quickly but that's based on individual experience. You never know what to test with MS patches.
It's harder to read source code and find things to attack - I find it easier to send a fuzzing tool after a proprietary, binary package than reading through thousands of lines of source code.