Plus if you shine the flashlight beam at any of the monsters they don't ever notice it. They don't get alerted or anything.
If id software had allowed monsters to sometimes change their behaviour when they notice the light beam or general increase in illumination, the game play would change dramatically. If the monsters actually notice your flashlight and then prepared themselves to jump/attack you when you entered, the game would be a lot more scary eh?
The "duct tape and flashlight" people may start wondering whether to have their lights always on.
But no. ID stuck to boring trigger points and dumb AI. I can shine that stupid light everywhere, just so long as I don't step on a trigger point or shoot a monster.
Well if you're serious about it, treat her the way you'd treat a real nice lady and see how things go from there. e.g. don't treat her like a stripper. Treat her like you're courting her for a long term relationship.
This is assuming you won't be interested in having a long term relationship with someone who only has "stripper" for you (e.g. if she gets money, she kisses you etc etc).
If you treat her as a real nice lady - she'd figure you're getting serious, and if she is a real nice lady, she'd tell you whether she likes you or not (if she does you're in luck! If she actually doesn't, ouch but hey at least you did have at least one great moment on life's roller coaster - I doubt many slashdotters have been kissed by a Liz Hurley look-alike, or even "been kissed";) ).
Whereas if she doesn't really like you (and isn't nice enough to tell you quick), you'll still find out. Coz once she stops getting paid to act, she'll stop acting.
I suppose it's worth a shot, if you really can't think of anything else but her.
Fortunately you were moderated Funny and not Insightful/Informative. That way those very people have a better chance of spotting the joke. I've still seen one or two who don't manage to do that even when the moderators get it right...:)
I dunno about you, but decent windows administrators can actually secure Windows 2000 and XP systems.
While the default NTFS permissions for W2K are crap (everyone full control!), you can tighten it and it actually still works with most stuff.
Sure there are many badly written apps (many of the new ones are getting better), but you can often provide the necessary permissions to the relevant directories and registry keys. Just use regmon and filemon from Sysinternals.
Furthermore the most exploited vulnerabilities so far appear to be user stupidity and ignorance. It is obvious that many windows users are willing to type the correct password to unzip a password protected zipfile and run the actual worm executable.
None of the popular nonwindows O/Ses protect against this vulnerability except by virtue of being too unfamiliar/difficult for those stupid/ignorant users to use. If these very users start switching enmasse you'd have the same problems.
With the other vulnerabilities there really isn't a big difference between windows and Unix. Popular/common services running as root/SYSTEM being exploitable by buffer overruns? Check. Dumb users doing everyday stuff while logged in as root/Administrator? Check.
The OP said "Buffer Overruns are as old as C and UNIX has built mechanisism to cope with it that do not put the onus on the programmer,"
I was calling BS on that. What mechanisms does UNIX have that Windows doesn't? _both_ Windows XP SP2 and recent Linux kernels have mechanisms to take advantage of the AMD64 NX features.
Now if the OP said "OpenBSD has mechanisms to cope with that", then perhaps I'd agree. But the phrase "old as C and UNIX has..." was used. OpenBSD is an exception in the UNIX world.
As for your last point, I don't see how it backs up your argument. It sure doesn't highlight any differences of Unix and Windows.
Postnuke isn't that much better is it? Often has the same problems, just the postnuke team fix things faster.
A few years back the folk looking to run a website for my church were deciding which to use. And they were considering PHP Nuke. I took a look at the code and strongly recommended against it - it was a mess and unsafe design (I think I found and reported some probs with it to the author). I only remembered later that some years before, my Boss raved about PHPNuke and asked me to look at it, I found some security bugs in it. And in both cases the PHP Nuke's author's response was not positive.
So they suggested EzPublish as an alternative. And the internals of that definitely looked better - e.g. less likely to have bugs, and any bugs found would be likely to be easier to fix. So far the bugs found in the version we are using are the usual CSS stuff. None of the "admin/user account stuff" or brain dead sql injection which phpnuke seems to have.
In general I would have preferred they use some nonPHP software but since they were the ones going to be maintaining it, it's their baby.
Reason is the PHP programming culture is typically quite unsafe. Only in recent years have they come up with sane stuff like peardb. Once you start disabling all the popular (but unsafe/stupid) PHPisms (global track vars, cgi parameters automatically entering program name space, magic quotes), it stops resembling PHP. Might as well program in Perl/Python.
Simple: if everyone agrees to play by certain rules and you pretend to (but don't), you're cheating.
If everyone but you agrees to play by certain rules, and you still butt into the game, then you're an arsehole.
Simple as that. It's not "the game physics/programming/server allows me to so it's not cheating".
For example: if you get on a server where the players already on are playing "knife/melee only" AND they tell you so when you join. If you then go blow them to bits with a shotgun, you're just being a juvenile prick. If you don't want to play knife only, convince them to play the way you want. If the only way you can convince them is by being an arsehole, well then you really are one.
There could be implicit or unwritten rules - e.g. if you install a custom video driver that lets you see through walls AND the _default_ way people want to play is "no see through walls" then you're cheating.
There are so many ways of cheating that writing down the explicit rules against various cheats would make for a very thick and unwieldy rule book.
That said players themselves may quietly agree that certain nonexplicit rules can be broken/bent occasionally - after all playing a multiplayer game is a "people" thing. You are playing the game _with_ other people. If you want to be an arsehole/cheat you may find yourself playing alone.
Perhaps Hell is you playing alone for eternity - all the powers and toys you want but nobody around to play with you.
Uh when opportunity knocks don't complain about the noise.
Since he actually believes the Phantom console is for real (despite hardly any evidence), maybe we should just try to sell him stuff instead? A bridge or two?
Actually I think I'll try to sell him a coupon for Duke Nukem Forever (that famous video game).
So? I believe the idea is to narrow down to a potential pool of candiates (and stuff like this does narrow things down), get more info from those and then only invite a few promising ones for the interview. And then only hire the ones thought suitable.
I'd think that would be a typical process, but I'm not an HR resource person. Certainly better than getting a large number of mostly unsuitable candidates.
I don't blame them, esp if Slashdotters are good examples of the typical IT candidate. They probably want to hire those who actually _bother_ to solve the problem (or those who solve it almost by reflex - no need for extra effort). Not those that can but "don't feel like it", or it's "not their thing".
Or are too busy reading Slashdot to solve the prob;).
Re:Stupid site not worthy of slashdot
on
Mock World Vote
·
· Score: 1
But it's ok. Most voters are stupid/ignorant.
As long as the smart ones walk away with disgust (and don't stuff/trash the votes) the results will be fairly accurate.
You'd be surprised how many people would never consider trying something different.
"Only if the same blocks are being updated by multiple processes"
This is an unsafe assumption.
It is best to lock out access to the entire file, unless there is a feature for processes to read the previous snapshot for read-only transactions. Read-for-update transactions will still have to be locked out.
You'd have to have locks if something else is updating the same files.
If you have locks there could be deadlocks.
Also if during part of the installation process you have to stop/start a running service, you can't really undo that as cleanly.
So it's not that easy to do.
You can try it out with VMware if you want examples of why it isn't always that simple to undo stuff. Do a snapshot, install something, click revert. Since there'll always be an inbetween period, if stuff in that inbetween period interacts with any nonrevertable stuff (external services etc), things are not fully revertable.
Abusing animals to kill them would render the animals unfit for sale in some countries - some religions require a particular slaughtering method.
Here chicken (and other animals) is often eaten with minimal processing - not deboned, still recognizable as a chicken, so such abuse would often cause noticeable and unsightly bruising or even broken bones, reducing the value. Customers don't appreciate splintered/crushed bones. And if the chicken was not slaughtered correctly (at certified slaughterhouses) it would not be halal and thus unfit for 60+% of the market if not more.
Making it common to treat food like fuel is a bad idea. It makes it easier for many evils to occur.
There are many people who are allergic to certain foods, not because of the food itself, but because of what they feed the animals (or plants for that matter).
BTW I'm surprised how many people are dangerously allergic to peanuts in the US (e.g. potentially fatal). Doesn't seem to be as big a problem here. Or in <a href="http://www.diynet.com/diy/lh_general_info/ar ticle/0,2041,DIY_14040_2275609,00.html">China</a&g t; for that matter. Is it the pesticides/chemicals used? Or as the article says- the method of preparation?
Slashdot Mirror
I doubt human lungs are the standard for efficient oxygen extraction.
Some fish seem to be quite efficient. While they're not air breathers, that's not that much oxygen in water normally right?
Seems some species of tuna extract 50% of the oxygen from the water flowing past their gills. Tuna are amazing fishes.
How do they do it? Can we do better?
There's practically zero AI in DOOM3.
Plus if you shine the flashlight beam at any of the monsters they don't ever notice it. They don't get alerted or anything.
If id software had allowed monsters to sometimes change their behaviour when they notice the light beam or general increase in illumination, the game play would change dramatically. If the monsters actually notice your flashlight and then prepared themselves to jump/attack you when you entered, the game would be a lot more scary eh?
The "duct tape and flashlight" people may start wondering whether to have their lights always on.
But no. ID stuck to boring trigger points and dumb AI. I can shine that stupid light everywhere, just so long as I don't step on a trigger point or shoot a monster.
I believe that the "medium settings" don't have dynamic lighting for weapons.
Look at your doom3 config. Change a few settings and you will get some light when you shoot.
I'll leave it as an exercise for you which settings to change. Make a backup of the config first.
Is id software a member of the BSA?
I know some shops who don't deal with BSA software. They stick to "distributing" other software. That keeps their overheads down.
Maybe the extortionist should buy shares in insurance company for insurance ;).
Insurance companies here are a scam.
And who should you trust here?
Well if you're serious about it, treat her the way you'd treat a real nice lady and see how things go from there. e.g. don't treat her like a stripper. Treat her like you're courting her for a long term relationship.
;) ).
This is assuming you won't be interested in having a long term relationship with someone who only has "stripper" for you (e.g. if she gets money, she kisses you etc etc).
If you treat her as a real nice lady - she'd figure you're getting serious, and if she is a real nice lady, she'd tell you whether she likes you or not (if she does you're in luck! If she actually doesn't, ouch but hey at least you did have at least one great moment on life's roller coaster - I doubt many slashdotters have been kissed by a Liz Hurley look-alike, or even "been kissed"
Whereas if she doesn't really like you (and isn't nice enough to tell you quick), you'll still find out. Coz once she stops getting paid to act, she'll stop acting.
I suppose it's worth a shot, if you really can't think of anything else but her.
Unfortunately, too many people here might not.
:)
Fortunately you were moderated Funny and not Insightful/Informative. That way those very people have a better chance of spotting the joke. I've still seen one or two who don't manage to do that even when the moderators get it right...
Sounds stupid to me. Why can't they just find both parties guilty of an offense each?
The defendant for committing the crime.
The prosecutors/relevant parties for obtaining evidence illegally.
The argument that it encourages the prosecuting parties to obtain evidence illegally is stupid- you can adjust the penalties.
If a cop is willing enough to go to jail just to get the crook in jail, fine by me.
I dunno about you, but decent windows administrators can actually secure Windows 2000 and XP systems.
While the default NTFS permissions for W2K are crap (everyone full control!), you can tighten it and it actually still works with most stuff.
Sure there are many badly written apps (many of the new ones are getting better), but you can often provide the necessary permissions to the relevant directories and registry keys. Just use regmon and filemon from Sysinternals.
Furthermore the most exploited vulnerabilities so far appear to be user stupidity and ignorance. It is obvious that many windows users are willing to type the correct password to unzip a password protected zipfile and run the actual worm executable.
None of the popular nonwindows O/Ses protect against this vulnerability except by virtue of being too unfamiliar/difficult for those stupid/ignorant users to use. If these very users start switching enmasse you'd have the same problems.
With the other vulnerabilities there really isn't a big difference between windows and Unix.
Popular/common services running as root/SYSTEM being exploitable by buffer overruns? Check. Dumb users doing everyday stuff while logged in as root/Administrator? Check.
The OP said "Buffer Overruns are as old as C and UNIX has built mechanisism to cope with it that do not put the onus on the programmer,"
I was calling BS on that. What mechanisms does UNIX have that Windows doesn't? _both_ Windows XP SP2 and recent Linux kernels have mechanisms to take advantage of the AMD64 NX features.
Now if the OP said "OpenBSD has mechanisms to cope with that", then perhaps I'd agree. But the phrase "old as C and UNIX has..." was used. OpenBSD is an exception in the UNIX world.
As for your last point, I don't see how it backs up your argument. It sure doesn't highlight any differences of Unix and Windows.
Postnuke isn't that much better is it? Often has the same problems, just the postnuke team fix things faster.
A few years back the folk looking to run a website for my church were deciding which to use. And they were considering PHP Nuke. I took a look at the code and strongly recommended against it - it was a mess and unsafe design (I think I found and reported some probs with it to the author). I only remembered later that some years before, my Boss raved about PHPNuke and asked me to look at it, I found some security bugs in it. And in both cases the PHP Nuke's author's response was not positive.
So they suggested EzPublish as an alternative. And the internals of that definitely looked better - e.g. less likely to have bugs, and any bugs found would be likely to be easier to fix. So far the bugs found in the version we are using are the usual CSS stuff. None of the "admin/user account stuff" or brain dead sql injection which phpnuke seems to have.
In general I would have preferred they use some nonPHP software but since they were the ones going to be maintaining it, it's their baby.
Reason is the PHP programming culture is typically quite unsafe. Only in recent years have they come up with sane stuff like peardb. Once you start disabling all the popular (but unsafe/stupid) PHPisms (global track vars, cgi parameters automatically entering program name space, magic quotes), it stops resembling PHP. Might as well program in Perl/Python.
Uh what are you talking about?
Windows XP has users, groups and privileges, and not every program has the run of the system.
And UNIX is just as vulnerable to buffer overflows as Windows XP. They both are programmed in languages that are prone to such problems.
"and my system is so terribly slow that it's unbelievable."
What are your system specs?
How much RAM have you got in your system?
Despite what the "religious fanatics" believe, how secure a program is is not whether it is open source or closed source.
It is more dependent on the programmer AND the person configuring it. Look at PHPNuke. Look at djbdns.
Thinking that many eyes can spot security problems is like thinking that a million monkeys can type out Shakespeare.
You need skills and experience, eyes are just a useful option.
Simple: if everyone agrees to play by certain rules and you pretend to (but don't), you're cheating.
If everyone but you agrees to play by certain rules, and you still butt into the game, then you're an arsehole.
Simple as that. It's not "the game physics/programming/server allows me to so it's not cheating".
For example: if you get on a server where the players already on are playing "knife/melee only" AND they tell you so when you join. If you then go blow them to bits with a shotgun, you're just being a juvenile prick. If you don't want to play knife only, convince them to play the way you want. If the only way you can convince them is by being an arsehole, well then you really are one.
There could be implicit or unwritten rules - e.g. if you install a custom video driver that lets you see through walls AND the _default_ way people want to play is "no see through walls" then you're cheating.
There are so many ways of cheating that writing down the explicit rules against various cheats would make for a very thick and unwieldy rule book.
That said players themselves may quietly agree that certain nonexplicit rules can be broken/bent occasionally - after all playing a multiplayer game is a "people" thing. You are playing the game _with_ other people. If you want to be an arsehole/cheat you may find yourself playing alone.
Perhaps Hell is you playing alone for eternity - all the powers and toys you want but nobody around to play with you.
"I think Phantom real enough and the intentions are there,"
;).
I hear you brother.
BTW could I interest you in a USD34.99 coupon for Duke Nukem Forever? It's a once in a lifetime deal.
j'king
Uh when opportunity knocks don't complain about the noise.
Since he actually believes the Phantom console is for real (despite hardly any evidence), maybe we should just try to sell him stuff instead? A bridge or two?
Actually I think I'll try to sell him a coupon for Duke Nukem Forever (that famous video game).
Uh. Don't tell me she's one of those drawing six figures _profit_ from her personal (intimate?)webcam site? ;).
So? I believe the idea is to narrow down to a potential pool of candiates (and stuff like this does narrow things down), get more info from those and then only invite a few promising ones for the interview. And then only hire the ones thought suitable.
;).
I'd think that would be a typical process, but I'm not an HR resource person. Certainly better than getting a large number of mostly unsuitable candidates.
I don't blame them, esp if Slashdotters are good examples of the typical IT candidate. They probably want to hire those who actually _bother_ to solve the problem (or those who solve it almost by reflex - no need for extra effort). Not those that can but "don't feel like it", or it's "not their thing".
Or are too busy reading Slashdot to solve the prob
But it's ok. Most voters are stupid/ignorant.
As long as the smart ones walk away with disgust (and don't stuff/trash the votes) the results will be fairly accurate.
You'd be surprised how many people would never consider trying something different.
I think he was right by evidence of his statement alone. ;).
"Only if the same blocks are being updated by multiple processes"
This is an unsafe assumption.
It is best to lock out access to the entire file, unless there is a feature for processes to read the previous snapshot for read-only transactions. Read-for-update transactions will still have to be locked out.
Maybe google doesn't want or need that many people.
So they might as well pick those who can do both (and more).
You'd have to have locks if something else is updating the same files.
If you have locks there could be deadlocks.
Also if during part of the installation process you have to stop/start a running service, you can't really undo that as cleanly.
So it's not that easy to do.
You can try it out with VMware if you want examples of why it isn't always that simple to undo stuff. Do a snapshot, install something, click revert. Since there'll always be an inbetween period, if stuff in that inbetween period interacts with any nonrevertable stuff (external services etc), things are not fully revertable.
But yeah, it could make many things easier.
Abusing animals to kill them would render the animals unfit for sale in some countries - some religions require a particular slaughtering method.
r ticle/0,2041,DIY_14040_2275609,00.html">China</a&g t; for that matter. Is it the pesticides/chemicals used? Or as the article says- the method of preparation?
Here chicken (and other animals) is often eaten with minimal processing - not deboned, still recognizable as a chicken, so such abuse would often cause noticeable and unsightly bruising or even broken bones, reducing the value. Customers don't appreciate splintered/crushed bones. And if the chicken was not slaughtered correctly (at certified slaughterhouses) it would not be halal and thus unfit for 60+% of the market if not more.
Making it common to treat food like fuel is a bad idea. It makes it easier for many evils to occur.
There are many people who are allergic to certain foods, not because of the food itself, but because of what they feed the animals (or plants for that matter).
BTW I'm surprised how many people are dangerously allergic to peanuts in the US (e.g. potentially fatal). Doesn't seem to be as big a problem here. Or in <a href="http://www.diynet.com/diy/lh_general_info/a