On the other hand, Inkscape is a great program with a decent UI, but I can't wholeheartedly recommend it as an Illustrator replacement to Windows users because it doesn't look or act like what they're used to.
I picked up Illustrator and Inkscape at roughly the same time, and found Inkscape's UI superior. I wish Inkscape had a companion raster program that had the same interface. I would never use anything else.
For a professional, it lacks certain advanced functions, but none I need or want.
What's your point? If a Biologist has no understanding of code, they have no business running a simulation of an ecological system. If a physicist has no understanding of code, they have no business writing software to simulate atomic processes. If a Geneticist has no understanding of code, they have no business writing software that does pattern matching across genes.
Those who don't want to write software to aid in their research may continue not to do so (and continue to lose relevance.) But if they're going to use software, they have to use best practices. To do otherwise likewise makes their work quickly fading in relevance.
Back in college, I did some computer vision research. Most people provided open source code for anyone to use. However, aside from the code being of questionable quality, it was mostly written in Matlab with C handlers for optimization.
In order to properly test all of the software out there you would need:
1. A license for every version of Matlab. 2. Windows 3. Linux 4. Octave
I had our school's Matlab, but none of the code we found was written on that version. Some was Linux, some Windows, (the machine I had was a Windows box with Matlab) consequently we had to play with Cygwin...
I mean, basically, you need to distribute a straight-up VM if you want your results to be reproducible. (which naturally rules out Windows or Matlab or anything else proprietary being at the core.)
Re:Subject to change without notice.
on
Verizon Blocking 4chan
·
· Score: 5, Informative
They could have easily used spanner.google.com, or loadshift.google.com, or balancer.google.com, or something else that isn't so suspicious.
In theory. In practice I wouldn't be surprised if you're wrong. One thing off the top of my head (which would be deceptive) is they might be trying to treat areas that whitelist Google differently from normal sites. Especially as regards pagerank.
But on the non-deceptive side, there are any number of situations where someone's poor configuration involving.google.com domains makes it necessary to use a different domain. And though obviously this makes the most sense where someone is blocking Google, it could also show up when someone has done something well-intentioned that's breaking something for Google.
Though if it's not something deceptive, I would've expected to see a blog post about it from Google, since an architecture issue like that would be interesting to the world.
You just make it so that the bot only bets when it knows it can win. Furthermore, you make it bet conservatively, so sometimes it lets you win. This "bluff" makes no sense when the bot has perfect information.
Obviously you don't want the bot to win 100% of the time, but making it win at a much higher than average rate is child's play. And the point is you won't be able to distinguish between a bot and a good player if there was a person doing some orchestration.
One person could conceivably handle dozens of bots simultaneously, providing clearly human smack-talk so that everyone thinks the bot is just another guy.
As for the actual game, if the bot has perfect information, playing it is trivial. I don't know why you think you'd need a real person.
I mean generally, yes, we don't need judges wasting their time with this shit, but this is no time to be legalizing what is essentially a formalized 419 scheme.
If it's online, you're basically guaranteed to lose, because the house can rig the game so easily it's not even funny. In a real casino they at least have to maintain the appearance that you have a chance of winning something.
Just for the hell of it, I opened up a terminal and typed `sudo apt-get install gbrainy.`
If the program represented a significant change in space, it would have asked me if I wanted to.
Need to get 363kB of archives.
There are single fonts in OpenOffice that take up more space than that. Ubuntu installs it for me without even checking to see if it's okay, because installing it takes less time.
I do think it would be a good idea to include Abiword, but I really don't care about OpenOffice. Both MS Office and OpenOffice need to die. They're huge resource hogs, and most of their resources are devoted to finding new ways to make my documents display differently every time someone opens them.
And then you have to physically trek to the box to make a new key. Which will often be impractical, thus bringing us back to "being tired and cranky about having to get work done and so ignoring a KEY CHANGE warning"
>A system like this should have strong logins, should require that the request be documented fully, and should produce statistical information so there can be strong oversight
You cannot make a system strong enough to protect this attractive of a data store. That's how China accessed Gmail accounts, and that was fucking Google. If it can happen at Google, it can happen anywhere.
1. Look at what tax-preparation websites the user has visited. 2. You can easily determine where all of the two or three American tax agencies store tax info. Look there. You'll net probably 50% of your targets.
As long as you're rooting around, might as well scan for any files named/password.*/, and send them back to control, along with a list of all sites with cookies.
Bull. I've used Sharepoint and Outlook Web in Firefox, on Windows and Linux, and nowhere is it comparable to Google's competitors. Google simply provides better software, and they do it free of charge.
This is a server processor. They did it for advanced encryption. The only way this would make more powerful DRM is if there were some sort of key embedded in the CPU (and this is not that.)
This is for encryption, which unlike DRM is actually more than security theatre (when used properly.)
If we get up to 24 cores for consumer hardware I'd wager we can ditch the GPU altogether, which would make cross-platform stuff a lot simpler.
Custom-built GPU decoders/encoders make things really flaky and hard to run in a variety of environments.
6 doesn't sound like quite enough, but from my experience with 4 I don't think the mythical average user would notice the difference between 10 full-powered cores and 1 plus a GPU. Now this may not be cost effective, but if they can eventually offer 10-core CPUs for the price of our current CPUs, it would probably be well worth getting rid of the platform incompatibilities foisted upon us by Microsoft, Nvidia, and ATI.
Slashdot Mirror
The 95% of users that don't care still need them on their computers, for when the other 5% come calling to fix a problem.
And it wouldn't hurt the users that don't care to take a little responsibility for maintenance.
I picked up Illustrator and Inkscape at roughly the same time, and found Inkscape's UI superior. I wish Inkscape had a companion raster program that had the same interface. I would never use anything else.
For a professional, it lacks certain advanced functions, but none I need or want.
What's your point? If a Biologist has no understanding of code, they have no business running a simulation of an ecological system. If a physicist has no understanding of code, they have no business writing software to simulate atomic processes. If a Geneticist has no understanding of code, they have no business writing software that does pattern matching across genes.
Those who don't want to write software to aid in their research may continue not to do so (and continue to lose relevance.) But if they're going to use software, they have to use best practices. To do otherwise likewise makes their work quickly fading in relevance.
Back in college, I did some computer vision research. Most people provided open source code for anyone to use. However, aside from the code being of questionable quality, it was mostly written in Matlab with C handlers for optimization.
In order to properly test all of the software out there you would need:
1. A license for every version of Matlab.
2. Windows
3. Linux
4. Octave
I had our school's Matlab, but none of the code we found was written on that version. Some was Linux, some Windows, (the machine I had was a Windows box with Matlab) consequently we had to play with Cygwin...
I mean, basically, you need to distribute a straight-up VM if you want your results to be reproducible. (which naturally rules out Windows or Matlab or anything else proprietary being at the core.)
Which in no way protects them from a lawsuit.
In theory. In practice I wouldn't be surprised if you're wrong. One thing off the top of my head (which would be deceptive) is they might be trying to treat areas that whitelist Google differently from normal sites. Especially as regards pagerank.
But on the non-deceptive side, there are any number of situations where someone's poor configuration involving .google.com domains makes it necessary to use a different domain. And though obviously this makes the most sense where someone is blocking Google, it could also show up when someone has done something well-intentioned that's breaking something for Google.
Though if it's not something deceptive, I would've expected to see a blog post about it from Google, since an architecture issue like that would be interesting to the world.
You just make it so that the bot only bets when it knows it can win. Furthermore, you make it bet conservatively, so sometimes it lets you win. This "bluff" makes no sense when the bot has perfect information.
Obviously you don't want the bot to win 100% of the time, but making it win at a much higher than average rate is child's play. And the point is you won't be able to distinguish between a bot and a good player if there was a person doing some orchestration.
One person could conceivably handle dozens of bots simultaneously, providing clearly human smack-talk so that everyone thinks the bot is just another guy.
As for the actual game, if the bot has perfect information, playing it is trivial. I don't know why you think you'd need a real person.
You realize that it's just infrastructure, right? You might as well block images.google.com for all the good it will do you. It's just a domain name.
I mean generally, yes, we don't need judges wasting their time with this shit, but this is no time to be legalizing what is essentially a formalized 419 scheme.
If it's online, you're basically guaranteed to lose, because the house can rig the game so easily it's not even funny. In a real casino they at least have to maintain the appearance that you have a chance of winning something.
Four years is around the time it took for the 5th and 6th generations to lose steam. Difference is next-gen no longer impresses anyone.
People just want smaller, quieter, lower power.
Just for the hell of it, I opened up a terminal and typed `sudo apt-get install gbrainy.`
If the program represented a significant change in space, it would have asked me if I wanted to.
There are single fonts in OpenOffice that take up more space than that. Ubuntu installs it for me without even checking to see if it's okay, because installing it takes less time.
I do think it would be a good idea to include Abiword, but I really don't care about OpenOffice. Both MS Office and OpenOffice need to die. They're huge resource hogs, and most of their resources are devoted to finding new ways to make my documents display differently every time someone opens them.
Don't worry. The components in question are all made in China. You can't avoid buying something with a probable Chinese backdoor.
Exception is NPR. But that's a bit of a different kind of old-school crowdsourcing.
And then you have to physically trek to the box to make a new key. Which will often be impractical, thus bringing us back to "being tired and cranky about having to get work done and so ignoring a KEY CHANGE warning"
Hell. We're all going to hell.
>A system like this should have strong logins, should require that the request be documented fully, and should produce statistical information so there can be strong oversight
You cannot make a system strong enough to protect this attractive of a data store. That's how China accessed Gmail accounts, and that was fucking Google. If it can happen at Google, it can happen anywhere.
Nobody ships with all of the W3C published recommendations. That's just stupid. You can't hit a moving target like that.
1. Look at what tax-preparation websites the user has visited.
2. You can easily determine where all of the two or three American tax agencies store tax info. Look there. You'll net probably 50% of your targets.
As long as you're rooting around, might as well scan for any files named /password.*/, and send them back to control, along with a list of all sites with cookies.
You just use Perl. It's trivial. And as an added bonus, obfuscation is a first-class language feature.
Please explain. I'm not sure where that goes. It's very unclear.
Bull. I've used Sharepoint and Outlook Web in Firefox, on Windows and Linux, and nowhere is it comparable to Google's competitors. Google simply provides better software, and they do it free of charge.
This is a server processor. They did it for advanced encryption. The only way this would make more powerful DRM is if there were some sort of key embedded in the CPU (and this is not that.)
This is for encryption, which unlike DRM is actually more than security theatre (when used properly.)
If we get up to 24 cores for consumer hardware I'd wager we can ditch the GPU altogether, which would make cross-platform stuff a lot simpler.
Custom-built GPU decoders/encoders make things really flaky and hard to run in a variety of environments.
6 doesn't sound like quite enough, but from my experience with 4 I don't think the mythical average user would notice the difference between 10 full-powered cores and 1 plus a GPU. Now this may not be cost effective, but if they can eventually offer 10-core CPUs for the price of our current CPUs, it would probably be well worth getting rid of the platform incompatibilities foisted upon us by Microsoft, Nvidia, and ATI.