No need to give the AI programmer more money if people still keep buying racing games with rubberband AI.
Most human gamers wouldn't want strong computer opponents. They may think and say that's what they want, but they won't be happy when they get them, because in many games out there the computer would be able to beat or even trash most human gamers consistently.
Imagine WoW if the enemies weren't so stupid and let players commit genocide on them week after week. Or those fighting games- you get max-comboed every time you make a single mistake, whether in positioning or action.
Might have to give the "2d view" person more;) , the AI programmer won't have to deal so much with "user facing" stuff, bosses/etc changing their minds on the colour/appearance of the cars on a daily basis. Unless the racing game is trackless or involves really complex stuff, you wouldn't need a very complex AI for _fun_ gameplay.
On a firewall server I used to run, I had an sshd server bound to 127.x.y.z:P. Then I set firewall rules to forward external access to external_IP:high_port to 127.x.y.z:P.
This way externals cannot access the ssh server if the firewall service is disabled or has no rules.
Yeah to me that's the best approach - use a different port. Simple and effective enough. You could resort to port knocking or similar (use some other method[1] to selectively allow access to the ssh server). But just running the ssh server on a different port allows you to avoid nearly all automated attempts, so when you actually see brute forcing on your ssh server, it's more likely to be a serious targeted attack (hence you can set up an automated response/alert without getting too many false positives).
[1] For example, if you already have to expose https to the world you could have a web app that triggers the opening of ssh access for the web client's current IP.
If that's the case then I agree with the judgement. I don't want to be taken to ABC if I was expecting XYZ. Especially if it was an ad.
I'm fine with Burger King having a Google ad that says "Burger King" when I search for McDonalds. But I am NOT fine if the ad says "McDonalds" and takes me to Burger King. That's just stupid and wrong. I do click on Google ads sometimes when they are relevant. If they start regularly putting deceptive ads, I'd make it a point to avoid them completely, or even block them.
The fact that Google needs a court case to tell this to them is another sign that Google is going down the drain. They hired too many MBAs?
To prevent that from happening even if air leaks in, there's supposed to be a coating on ALL the pebbles that needs to be good and intact. I don't call that significant redundancy, hence I don't consider the design that safe.
The OP is claiming the club player can beat computer players even though the club player is a rook down.
Nowadays, if you're a rook down against a chess program, it better be part of your long term cunning plan. If it isn't, it usually means you've got yourself into one of the chess program's _winning_ plans. You can't fool them so easily nowadays.
Back in the bad old days of war genocide and enslavement was a very popular method of ensuring that there was more for the victors despite any destruction of natural resources in the war efforts. And if there are no free survivors, there's very little chance of revenge attacks.
I'm not suggesting we go back to this method. Currently many countries have got to the stage where wars will cost them more than they'd gain - they would lose out in trade.
There's no reason to worry about mass copying as an music artist, unless people are NOT "pirating" your stuff at all, then as an artist you should seriously ask yourself why masses of people aren't getting your stuff even if it's "free". Unless you don't care at all, in which case piracy is not a problem.
If your stuff is popular on youtube, torrents, rapidshare, you'd do better than someone who only 50 people have heard and only 5 can remember. What you need to do is always make it easy for people to give you money.
there are precious few human societies in existence or in history that had not, at some point, engaged in warfare with other societies.
Yeah, and War has been part of humans for a very long time. My theory is that War is the real reason why humans evolved to run long distances. Not to stupidly spend hours chasing down lunch.
When you have two different species, one predator and one prey, it is not surprising when at least one species ends up with a high top speed. But when situation is members of the same species chasing each other, evolving to be faster starts to hit diminishing returns quite early.
In contrast, long distance running gives you a better chance of outrunning and surviving 100 other humans chasing you (you have no chance of outfighting them). Being able to run till nightfall works better than being able to sprint like a cheetah at 100kph for 20 seconds when everyone else can too.
War would have provided far stronger selection pressure for human distance running than merely being able to spend hours chasing down prey, especially since most humans are smart enough to catch/trap most prey species, and would probably be more inclined to do so- it's more time and energetically efficient.
65% poison vs 50% poison, not a big difference if you're past the harmful dose. But I still wouldn't say it's the same as sucrose (which is also harmful).
Apparently in the USA many poor and sick people sit in ER till they are sick enough to get treatment. Who pays for that and how? The poor certainly don't - they have no money.
I doubt that's a good way of providing healthcare to the poor. The not-as-poor should be well aware that it also costs them in longer queues, fewer ERs and possibly poorer care: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/18/health/18hospital.html
All the richer people in the USA who say they don't need healthcare reform and they shouldn't be forced to pay for the poor and sick are pretty stupid - they are very likely already paying for the poor and sick. It's just poorly done.
Results showed that the total sugar content of the beverages ranged from 85 to 128% of what was listed on the food label. The mean fructose content in the HFCS used was 59% (range 47-65%) and several major brands appear to be produced with HFCS that is 65% fructose. Finally, the sugar profile analyses detected forms of sugar that were inconsistent with what was listed on the food labels. This analysis revealed significant deviations in sugar amount and composition relative to disclosures from producers. In addition, the tendency for use of HFCS that is higher in fructose could be contributing to higher fructose consumption than would otherwise be assumed.
But if the systems were designed to be secure would "normal" people be better off in practice?
Don't get me wrong, I'd be happy if things really became more secure. But as long as Banks, regulators etc keep calling "identity theft", "identity theft" and not bank fraud, what do you think will actually happen?
Paranoid slashdotters might be able to keep good control over some fancy "foolproof" transaction system. But do you think most people would? They can't even secure their computers and phones.
So cynical me thinks at worst all the fancy tech would do is give the Banks a reason to pass more of the losses to their customers. At best it just makes the people supplying the tech rich, while not improving things much.
Right now, if stuff happens, a customer can go to the issuer/court and say "I didn't make that transaction" and the issuer/jury/judge would be more inclined to believe him. With fancy "foolproof" tech, when stuff happens and a hacker gets or guesses passwords or manages to pwn the system via other means, the customer might find it harder to convince the court that he didn't make their transaction - because the "expert witness" says it's "100% secure".
The goals and motives behind people creating SSH and SSL/TLS were better, so you did get something better than telnet. And even then has https really been that effective in stopping that many people from getting phished/pwned?
So many easy ways of directly stealing your money. Think the Corporations will make things more secure? I bet they'd only lock down your transactions while still allowing their friends and customers to steal your money easily.
Would you be able to get the police involved, since it's theft and the Bank is actively aiding thieves? Not saying that you should (or shouldn't).
So when some guy on the street steals your money he's committed a crime, but if some company steals money from thousands of people they're just a good customer of the Bank?
Slashdot Mirror
No need to give the AI programmer more money if people still keep buying racing games with rubberband AI.
Most human gamers wouldn't want strong computer opponents. They may think and say that's what they want, but they won't be happy when they get them, because in many games out there the computer would be able to beat or even trash most human gamers consistently.
Imagine WoW if the enemies weren't so stupid and let players commit genocide on them week after week. Or those fighting games- you get max-comboed every time you make a single mistake, whether in positioning or action.
Might have to give the "2d view" person more ;) , the AI programmer won't have to deal so much with "user facing" stuff, bosses/etc changing their minds on the colour/appearance of the cars on a daily basis. Unless the racing game is trackless or involves really complex stuff, you wouldn't need a very complex AI for _fun_ gameplay.
On a firewall server I used to run, I had an sshd server bound to 127.x.y.z:P. Then I set firewall rules to forward external access to external_IP:high_port to 127.x.y.z:P.
This way externals cannot access the ssh server if the firewall service is disabled or has no rules.
Yeah to me that's the best approach - use a different port. Simple and effective enough. You could resort to port knocking or similar (use some other method[1] to selectively allow access to the ssh server). But just running the ssh server on a different port allows you to avoid nearly all automated attempts, so when you actually see brute forcing on your ssh server, it's more likely to be a serious targeted attack (hence you can set up an automated response/alert without getting too many false positives).
[1] For example, if you already have to expose https to the world you could have a web app that triggers the opening of ssh access for the web client's current IP.
If that's the case then I agree with the judgement. I don't want to be taken to ABC if I was expecting XYZ. Especially if it was an ad.
I'm fine with Burger King having a Google ad that says "Burger King" when I search for McDonalds. But I am NOT fine if the ad says "McDonalds" and takes me to Burger King. That's just stupid and wrong. I do click on Google ads sometimes when they are relevant. If they start regularly putting deceptive ads, I'd make it a point to avoid them completely, or even block them.
The fact that Google needs a court case to tell this to them is another sign that Google is going down the drain. They hired too many MBAs?
To prevent that from happening even if air leaks in, there's supposed to be a coating on ALL the pebbles that needs to be good and intact. I don't call that significant redundancy, hence I don't consider the design that safe.
I wonder if it's possible to plug it while at work.
If that's true then they should be hauled up for fraud.
It's blatant _malicious_ deception. Any nonidiot would know how such editing would sound.
No lawyers or anything. Just a conversation.
Was the "Ultima Ratio Regum" involved or hinted at?
If things get worse the 30 second ads might end up being more informative than Slashdot ;).
And the other handset is for her to say "I told you so".
The OP is claiming the club player can beat computer players even though the club player is a rook down.
Nowadays, if you're a rook down against a chess program, it better be part of your long term cunning plan. If it isn't, it usually means you've got yourself into one of the chess program's _winning_ plans. You can't fool them so easily nowadays.
It does not. Read the last line again.
Back in the bad old days of war genocide and enslavement was a very popular method of ensuring that there was more for the victors despite any destruction of natural resources in the war efforts. And if there are no free survivors, there's very little chance of revenge attacks.
I'm not suggesting we go back to this method. Currently many countries have got to the stage where wars will cost them more than they'd gain - they would lose out in trade.
This is called "The Broken Window Fallacy",
Actually there's a difference since War may involve killing lots of people.
If the number of people goes down but the amount of assets and resources don't go down as much, it means the survivors/victors have more.
I know. And it's not 65:35.
I think Apple did very well at $0.99.
There's no reason to worry about mass copying as an music artist, unless people are NOT "pirating" your stuff at all, then as an artist you should seriously ask yourself why masses of people aren't getting your stuff even if it's "free". Unless you don't care at all, in which case piracy is not a problem.
If your stuff is popular on youtube, torrents, rapidshare, you'd do better than someone who only 50 people have heard and only 5 can remember. What you need to do is always make it easy for people to give you money.
Seven minutes in heaven sounds more interesting: http://xkcd.com/1002/
When was that? Computers are very strong chess players nowadays.
there are precious few human societies in existence or in history that had not, at some point, engaged in warfare with other societies.
Yeah, and War has been part of humans for a very long time. My theory is that War is the real reason why humans evolved to run long distances. Not to stupidly spend hours chasing down lunch.
When you have two different species, one predator and one prey, it is not surprising when at least one species ends up with a high top speed. But when situation is members of the same species chasing each other, evolving to be faster starts to hit diminishing returns quite early.
In contrast, long distance running gives you a better chance of outrunning and surviving 100 other humans chasing you (you have no chance of outfighting them). Being able to run till nightfall works better than being able to sprint like a cheetah at 100kph for 20 seconds when everyone else can too.
War would have provided far stronger selection pressure for human distance running than merely being able to spend hours chasing down prey, especially since most humans are smart enough to catch/trap most prey species, and would probably be more inclined to do so- it's more time and energetically efficient.
65% poison vs 50% poison, not a big difference if you're past the harmful dose. But I still wouldn't say it's the same as sucrose (which is also harmful).
we do pay for our healthcare, through taxes.
Apparently in the USA many poor and sick people sit in ER till they are sick enough to get treatment. Who pays for that and how? The poor certainly don't - they have no money.
I doubt that's a good way of providing healthcare to the poor. The not-as-poor should be well aware that it also costs them in longer queues, fewer ERs and possibly poorer care: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/18/health/18hospital.html
All the richer people in the USA who say they don't need healthcare reform and they shouldn't be forced to pay for the poor and sick are pretty stupid - they are very likely already paying for the poor and sick. It's just poorly done.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20948525
Results showed that the total sugar content of the beverages ranged from 85 to 128% of what was listed on the food label. The mean fructose content in the HFCS used was 59% (range 47-65%) and several major brands appear to be produced with HFCS that is 65% fructose. Finally, the sugar profile analyses detected forms of sugar that were inconsistent with what was listed on the food labels. This analysis revealed significant deviations in sugar amount and composition relative to disclosures from producers. In addition, the tendency for use of HFCS that is higher in fructose could be contributing to higher fructose consumption than would otherwise be assumed.
But if the systems were designed to be secure would "normal" people be better off in practice?
Don't get me wrong, I'd be happy if things really became more secure. But as long as Banks, regulators etc keep calling "identity theft", "identity theft" and not bank fraud, what do you think will actually happen?
Paranoid slashdotters might be able to keep good control over some fancy "foolproof" transaction system. But do you think most people would? They can't even secure their computers and phones.
So cynical me thinks at worst all the fancy tech would do is give the Banks a reason to pass more of the losses to their customers. At best it just makes the people supplying the tech rich, while not improving things much.
Right now, if stuff happens, a customer can go to the issuer/court and say "I didn't make that transaction" and the issuer/jury/judge would be more inclined to believe him. With fancy "foolproof" tech, when stuff happens and a hacker gets or guesses passwords or manages to pwn the system via other means, the customer might find it harder to convince the court that he didn't make their transaction - because the "expert witness" says it's "100% secure".
The goals and motives behind people creating SSH and SSL/TLS were better, so you did get something better than telnet. And even then has https really been that effective in stopping that many people from getting phished/pwned?
Yes there are hackers going around stealing money, but when Banks are helping their friends and customers _directly_ steal money and get away with it I don't really think hackers are the biggest problem we should worry about. See:
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2761105&threshold=0&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=39549881
http://www.csoonline.com/article/603461/ach-fraud-why-criminals-love-this-con
And also
http://www.fcc.gov/guides/cramming-unauthorized-misleading-or-deceptive-charges-placed-your-telephone-bill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cramming_(fraud)
So many easy ways of directly stealing your money. Think the Corporations will make things more secure? I bet they'd only lock down your transactions while still allowing their friends and customers to steal your money easily.
It's a bit like credit except you're actually spending your own money.
Rich people on the other hand use "leverage".
Would you be able to get the police involved, since it's theft and the Bank is actively aiding thieves? Not saying that you should (or shouldn't).
So when some guy on the street steals your money he's committed a crime, but if some company steals money from thousands of people they're just a good customer of the Bank?