I know that feeling. About 2 weeks ago I walked into my house and suddenly felt a disturbance in the force. By the time I took 5 steps into the house I was going over why my router was down, just because I could tell it's fan was gone. Not too shabby considering there were 3 computers in the room along with 2 monitors.
The average speed of talking is 125wpm, while the average speed of writing is 55wpm.
The thing that works very well for me, I can type around 140wpm (All Hail Mavis Beacon) so talking has become a mostly inefficient method of communication. However, I've found most of the time while speaking I say something stupid I wish I wouldn't have said -- while typing something out I can at least backspace it out. Amen for the backspace.
As for the case... Is Sony responsible for players actions? Heck no. Does this lady have any chance in suing Sony? Probably not. Is she wrong for trying? No. Are you cold and insensitive person? You sure do look like it. Perhaps you should send your resume to George Scotto at SOE. You'd make a good head GM. Yes, she is wrong for trying to sue. I have no qualms about blaming her for what happened to her son. I find her being a weak and otherwise pathetic individual. First off, her son's last 8 seisures were caused from playing EQ. Her son quit his job, so she was probably helping him out. At any point she could have stepped in and helped him.
The reason why this irritates me is that only now after her son is dead is she making a stand and it's for herself. She's selfish, so fuck her. If she didn't do what was necessary to help her son when he was alive, she doesn't deserve shit now that he's dead. Suicidal people rarely hide the signs from others. Very rarely do people ever say they "never saw it coming."
This lady and her lawyer are an absolute crock. This lady requested info from Sony they state they will not give out, so she ran to a lawyer. I hope she loses, has to pay Sony's legal fees, and as punishment for stupidity her attorney gets disbarred and she gets sterilized. She wasn't asking for a MOTD. She was asking for things against Sony's privacy policy and got pissed off when they said that all they could do is stick to the privacy policy.
The difference between people dying at the WTC and a kid with mental illness killing himself is very large. The victim at the WTC was either a hero, or a sad casualty of a psychotic war. The kid with mental illness should have been under watch, if anyone really cared about him. And yes, I am saying his mother did not really care about him. Love him, yeah sure. Care for? Hell no, if it was she would have made damn sure he wasn't playing EQ.
She's his mother, and as mine states, "Mommy is always right." I'd be interested to see who was paying for the EQ account as well. And the computer, and the electricity. And hell, his rent too. If his mom gave any money for any of the above she is the responsible one. She fed into his addiction. You don't buy a crack addict a monthly supply of crack, then get pissed off and raise hell when he ODs. But this wasn't caused by a video game, it was caused by mental illness and a weak individual.
They clearly have a responsibility here, in this case a moral one, to offer some form of condolence to this guys mother. They can at least let people in game know about the death and let the players choose if they want to do the write thing. Wrong. Sony doesn't have a responsibility to do jack shit except ignore this stupid parent. That's the bottom line. They have no moral, ethical, or legal obligation to even listen to her demands for information. The kid killed himself, it was suicide. Sony is not responsibile. Sony didn't say, "Hey kid, kill yourself." Why the hell should they care outside of the fact they lose the subscription money? It's not their beef. People die every day, everquest players die every day. Why should Sony do anything? They aren't a newspaper, they don't need an obituary column. If someone really cares, setup "EQ-Deaths.com" were people can submit news, and instruct their loved ones to post their death or whatever.
Here's what the mother needs to hear: You are a bad parent. You should have never had a child. If you weren't such a bad parent, you would have known to help your kid. That's your job. End of story, thank you, drive through and please sterilize yourself if you aren't already.
I hate bumper stickers, but I swear if I ever saw one with that on it I would have to have it. Is that your modification or did you read it somewhere else?
But, he was 21 so it's not child abuse. I think this guy should just be candidate for the Darwin Awards.
...talks briefly about the differences between AI used in the game industry and the AI being researched in academic institutions.
This is easy, one is a highly optimized tool for maximum destruction and domination that can be calibrated according to the environment it is placed in, and the other is just part of a video game.
They have some pretty hefty advancements with lenses -- the thickness is not really a huge concern anymore. I saw a comparison at my last eye doctor, "This was your lens 20 years ago" and he held up a piece of plastic about 1/2" thick. My glasses now are thinner than when I first got them (at about 20/80 or so years and years ago, and I am now at 20/475 uncorrected, 20/40 corrected)
Without my glasses I can't see anything, I'm totally useless but they have some pretty good things going on for people with really bad eye site. I'd check around to a bunch of different optomotrists (If you are in the bay area, I can recommend one in Mountain View) -- I have a relatively rare eye condition, and it took a long time to just find an eye doctor who knew what it was.
Re:The Mythical Newline Virus
on
Spy v. Spy
·
· Score: 1
Sorry how was I rude first? You are pathetic, and I am not claiming any new definition.
But adding any part of code into a binary to infect that binary would constitute embedding code into an object file. That's the bottom line. You are still wrong, and your vague and wrong definition of reproduction still stands.
Anyway, I'm done talking with you, because you seem highly delusional and can't seem to follow a conversation and actually understand what is said. I re-read the thread, to try to find out where I was being "rude" as you claimed, and I failed to find anywhere before you decided to be a prick. So, have fun with your delusions. I hope you don't work in the profession, you remind me of a VP that was convinced that a hashing algorithm was meant to make collisions and would not be told otherwise even when shown a definition of hashing algorithms.
There have been much posts about people getting bnetd to work with war3beta though. The letter got shipped to bnetd.org shortly after the first posting of the war3beta running smoothly from a crack while on bnetd.
Blizzard doesn't like that much, and I am pretty sure that this is just Vivendi's doing. Blizzard is probably just wanting to write a damned game.
There are actually some really good voice recognition systems out there. I was calling an IVR that had a menu like, "Say One for X, Two for Y" and it recognized it quite well.
I was really impressed when it asked for a number (can't remember what it was for, whether a callback # or something) and it played back my number right after I said it. It has come a really long way, but for it to be perfect for the end user it will take a while, but I have faith it will be here sooner than expected in the "perfect" sense.
Wow, that is pretty funny. I remember reading that book after *years* of it sitting around. Some relative gave it to me (along with actual baby books). One day I finally ended up reading it and actually liked it based on the stuff you mentioned.
Damn, I never knew half.com existed. I have to say thank you. If it's half as good as it seems, I'll still be exceptionally pleased.
Thanks for the link.
Re:Looks like you need another LART
on
Spy v. Spy
·
· Score: 1
In fact it does, and even the jargon file (which is hardly a "ruling" authority on this - instead you should see some of the early work by AI people who first conceived of the possibility of a computer virus) makes this clear, and indeed even your own rephrasing of the jargon file entry also makes this clear. Think about it. Considering your definition is wrong, and only backed by you (And no, that code you provided does *not* back you up.) Feel free to try to back yourself up, the difference between yourself and I is that I back up my claims, when I make them. You make vague references then insult. It stands, you are a fuckwit.
Let me guess, you have a hard time making friends because you're a know-it-all, condescending amateur Freud who likes to get confrontational and tell everyone you meet what "their problem" is? Wrong. But that's ok. I have an easy time making friends, the only people who generally don't like me are the "know-it-all, condescending, amateur Freud" types. I'm sensing a pattern here.
And thus reproduces itself, just as I said.
Yes, but a virus does not need to reproduce itself. I think you would find it exceedingly difficult to find a definition saying that. However, it does need to imbed a portion of itself. If the virus you cited only embedded half of itself, it would fail your definition. Hence, you are wrong.
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. Period. I do not need to defend myself against you, as I have backed my claim up with a publicly available, peer-reviewed, definition that satisfies what I originally said. You have quoted source, that satisfies your definition, and the definition provided by the jargon-files, and said the definition must conform. Reproduce does not mean: take a portion of myself and place it in object Y. Find a definition that satisfies that requirement. A virus can be a virus that puts a newline at the end of an object file. As long as a newline (\012) is part of the code of the virus. That is hardly reproduction but satisfies the definition.
Your logic is confused, as apparent by your lack of understanding into being wrong. Why is it so hard for you to admit that you are wrong? I used to be that way for a while, maybe that's why people like you think I'm being condescending and patronizing when I just say you are wrong. The difference is I'm frank and curt, if I make a claim I back it up with proof. If you can't handle that, it is not my problem.
Oh, and also, asking "early pioneers" of AI who conceived of a computer virus about a computer virus is like asking Gallileo the equation for escape velocity.
Re:Looks like you need another LART
on
Spy v. Spy
·
· Score: 2
/me winces in sympathy as the clue-by-four goes up the side of your head, again. In the most polite way I can say this, you are a fuckwit. I wish I could remove your ability to use the expression clue-by-four, as you should have read the ruling definition of virus and found you were wrong. It does not need to "reproduce". Instead you got patronizing and insulting. Let me guess? You have a hard time making friends because people think you are condesending? Let me give you some advice, don't insult people who can back a claim. Don't insult people when it isn't warranted, period, for that matter. It makes you look like, well, a fuckwit.
Now to attempt to enlighten you with disregard of your stubborn ability to ignore that while Tiny-F does satisfy Jargon's definition, your manipulation of the english language does not: Your difficulty, perhaps, has to do with realizing that what the jargon file here refers to as "infection" is in fact the same process that I referred to as "reproduction"? No, the infection is referred to as 'embedding' - a process very different than reproduction. Repeat after me, reproduction != embed. In the sense of reproduction you were talking about originally, is one of self-duplication. A virus does not need to do this. It can simply infect X bytes of it's Y byte size, where X = Y and it's not reproducing, just infecting an object file. If you want to continue to say that they must reproduce, feel free. You are still wrong. Reproduction would be something different. While a virus can reproduce, it does not have to to satisfy the definition.
A good question here, do you even know assembly (x86, as is relevent) or are you just pasting other peoples work in your journal to try to prove a point without understanding what you are pasting? If so, what's the function for this on x86: push ax, 3 int 11h
Here's how that's a virus though, to save yourself some time. It embeds a portion of itself (100% is still a portion) into an object file. That's it, nothing more. No more to argue, no more to see.
Re:You obviously don't understand your terminology
on
Spy v. Spy
·
· Score: 2
Uhm, no, it is you who does not understand terminology. But thank you for attempting to correct me, it really is quite fun.
WTF are you talking about? It reproduces and spreads itself? Where on earth did you get that from?
That would be a worm, not a virus. It actually does satisfy some definitions of a virus. "Software the prohibits the normal function of applications and the computer". This most definitely does prohibit normal function of an application, obviously one that you are intending to run and operate.
Sorry, I suppose I should have been a lot more specific.
The IRA war is known as the start of modern terrorism. Figured most people would know that association, but then I suppose I forget most people don't know what Sinn Féin is.
Silicon Valley is alive and well, just like everywhere else in America. There was never any problems with things being dead. However, it still is hard to get a job and a lot of people are unemployed. I moved out of the bay area last year after being laid off to avoid a constant game of leaping from job to job just to get laid off when the company went under.
I feel bad for my friends who stayed down there, who are competing with about 250 other candidates for any programming job that opens up, because most of the jobs gets picked by favoritism of people who have an in at the company. Some of my friends just moved to the bay area for a job, and don't know many people yet to get that luxory. Before reporting booms, lets try to look at some realities, ok?
Go read Hyperspace and Beyond Einstein by Michio Kaku. It will probably change a lot of your perceptions of String Theory. And yes, it is a very real and viable theory.
Slashdot Mirror
Hell, I'm already getting sued, I'll add on to it.
PetsWarehouse.com ATE MY BALLS!
I know that feeling. About 2 weeks ago I walked into my house and suddenly felt a disturbance in the force. By the time I took 5 steps into the house I was going over why my router was down, just because I could tell it's fan was gone. Not too shabby considering there were 3 computers in the room along with 2 monitors.
According to mavis beacon teaches typing I can hit a peak of 144 words per minute and a sustained 130-137 wpm, with an accuracy of about 95%+
This is on a MS Natural ergo keyboard, on non-split keyboards I type substantially slower (and for some strange reason, also with much less accuracy.)
You just got added to my friends list for that comment alone.
The average speed of talking is 125wpm, while the average speed of writing is 55wpm.
The thing that works very well for me, I can type around 140wpm (All Hail Mavis Beacon) so talking has become a mostly inefficient method of communication. However, I've found most of the time while speaking I say something stupid I wish I wouldn't have said -- while typing something out I can at least backspace it out. Amen for the backspace.
As for the case... Is Sony responsible for players actions? Heck no. Does this lady have any chance in suing Sony? Probably not. Is she wrong for trying? No. Are you cold and insensitive person? You sure do look like it. Perhaps you should send your resume to George Scotto at SOE. You'd make a good head GM.
Yes, she is wrong for trying to sue. I have no qualms about blaming her for what happened to her son. I find her being a weak and otherwise pathetic individual. First off, her son's last 8 seisures were caused from playing EQ. Her son quit his job, so she was probably helping him out. At any point she could have stepped in and helped him.
The reason why this irritates me is that only now after her son is dead is she making a stand and it's for herself. She's selfish, so fuck her. If she didn't do what was necessary to help her son when he was alive, she doesn't deserve shit now that he's dead. Suicidal people rarely hide the signs from others. Very rarely do people ever say they "never saw it coming."
This lady and her lawyer are an absolute crock. This lady requested info from Sony they state they will not give out, so she ran to a lawyer. I hope she loses, has to pay Sony's legal fees, and as punishment for stupidity her attorney gets disbarred and she gets sterilized. She wasn't asking for a MOTD. She was asking for things against Sony's privacy policy and got pissed off when they said that all they could do is stick to the privacy policy.
The difference between people dying at the WTC and a kid with mental illness killing himself is very large. The victim at the WTC was either a hero, or a sad casualty of a psychotic war. The kid with mental illness should have been under watch, if anyone really cared about him. And yes, I am saying his mother did not really care about him. Love him, yeah sure. Care for? Hell no, if it was she would have made damn sure he wasn't playing EQ.
She's his mother, and as mine states, "Mommy is always right." I'd be interested to see who was paying for the EQ account as well. And the computer, and the electricity. And hell, his rent too. If his mom gave any money for any of the above she is the responsible one. She fed into his addiction. You don't buy a crack addict a monthly supply of crack, then get pissed off and raise hell when he ODs. But this wasn't caused by a video game, it was caused by mental illness and a weak individual.
They clearly have a responsibility here, in this case a moral one, to offer some form of condolence to this guys mother. They can at least let people in game know about the death and let the players choose if they want to do the write thing.
Wrong. Sony doesn't have a responsibility to do jack shit except ignore this stupid parent. That's the bottom line. They have no moral, ethical, or legal obligation to even listen to her demands for information. The kid killed himself, it was suicide. Sony is not responsibile. Sony didn't say, "Hey kid, kill yourself." Why the hell should they care outside of the fact they lose the subscription money? It's not their beef. People die every day, everquest players die every day. Why should Sony do anything? They aren't a newspaper, they don't need an obituary column. If someone really cares, setup "EQ-Deaths.com" were people can submit news, and instruct their loved ones to post their death or whatever.
Here's what the mother needs to hear: You are a bad parent. You should have never had a child. If you weren't such a bad parent, you would have known to help your kid. That's your job. End of story, thank you, drive through and please sterilize yourself if you aren't already.
Games don't kill kids. Bad parents do.
I hate bumper stickers, but I swear if I ever saw one with that on it I would have to have it. Is that your modification or did you read it somewhere else?
But, he was 21 so it's not child abuse. I think this guy should just be candidate for the Darwin Awards.
...talks briefly about the differences between AI used in the game industry and the AI being researched in academic institutions.
This is easy, one is a highly optimized tool for maximum destruction and domination that can be calibrated according to the environment it is placed in, and the other is just part of a video game.
They have some pretty hefty advancements with lenses -- the thickness is not really a huge concern anymore. I saw a comparison at my last eye doctor, "This was your lens 20 years ago" and he held up a piece of plastic about 1/2" thick. My glasses now are thinner than when I first got them (at about 20/80 or so years and years ago, and I am now at 20/475 uncorrected, 20/40 corrected)
Without my glasses I can't see anything, I'm totally useless but they have some pretty good things going on for people with really bad eye site. I'd check around to a bunch of different optomotrists (If you are in the bay area, I can recommend one in Mountain View) -- I have a relatively rare eye condition, and it took a long time to just find an eye doctor who knew what it was.
Sorry how was I rude first? You are pathetic, and I am not claiming any new definition.
But adding any part of code into a binary to infect that binary would constitute embedding code into an object file. That's the bottom line. You are still wrong, and your vague and wrong definition of reproduction still stands.
Anyway, I'm done talking with you, because you seem highly delusional and can't seem to follow a conversation and actually understand what is said. I re-read the thread, to try to find out where I was being "rude" as you claimed, and I failed to find anywhere before you decided to be a prick. So, have fun with your delusions. I hope you don't work in the profession, you remind me of a VP that was convinced that a hashing algorithm was meant to make collisions and would not be told otherwise even when shown a definition of hashing algorithms.
Have fun being blind.
There have been much posts about people getting bnetd to work with war3beta though. The letter got shipped to bnetd.org shortly after the first posting of the war3beta running smoothly from a crack while on bnetd.
Blizzard doesn't like that much, and I am pretty sure that this is just Vivendi's doing. Blizzard is probably just wanting to write a damned game.
There are actually some really good voice recognition systems out there. I was calling an IVR that had a menu like, "Say One for X, Two for Y" and it recognized it quite well.
I was really impressed when it asked for a number (can't remember what it was for, whether a callback # or something) and it played back my number right after I said it. It has come a really long way, but for it to be perfect for the end user it will take a while, but I have faith it will be here sooner than expected in the "perfect" sense.
Wow, that is pretty funny. I remember reading that book after *years* of it sitting around. Some relative gave it to me (along with actual baby books). One day I finally ended up reading it and actually liked it based on the stuff you mentioned.
Damn, I never knew half.com existed. I have to say thank you. If it's half as good as it seems, I'll still be exceptionally pleased.
Thanks for the link.
In fact it does, and even the jargon file (which is hardly a "ruling" authority on this - instead you should see some of the early work by AI people who first conceived of the possibility of a computer virus) makes this clear, and indeed even your own rephrasing of the jargon file entry also makes this clear. Think about it.
Considering your definition is wrong, and only backed by you (And no, that code you provided does *not* back you up.) Feel free to try to back yourself up, the difference between yourself and I is that I back up my claims, when I make them. You make vague references then insult. It stands, you are a fuckwit.
Let me guess, you have a hard time making friends because you're a know-it-all, condescending amateur Freud who likes to get confrontational and tell everyone you meet what "their problem" is?
Wrong. But that's ok. I have an easy time making friends, the only people who generally don't like me are the "know-it-all, condescending, amateur Freud" types. I'm sensing a pattern here.
And thus reproduces itself, just as I said.
Yes, but a virus does not need to reproduce itself. I think you would find it exceedingly difficult to find a definition saying that. However, it does need to imbed a portion of itself. If the virus you cited only embedded half of itself, it would fail your definition. Hence, you are wrong.
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. Period. I do not need to defend myself against you, as I have backed my claim up with a publicly available, peer-reviewed, definition that satisfies what I originally said. You have quoted source, that satisfies your definition, and the definition provided by the jargon-files, and said the definition must conform. Reproduce does not mean: take a portion of myself and place it in object Y. Find a definition that satisfies that requirement. A virus can be a virus that puts a newline at the end of an object file. As long as a newline (\012) is part of the code of the virus. That is hardly reproduction but satisfies the definition.
Your logic is confused, as apparent by your lack of understanding into being wrong. Why is it so hard for you to admit that you are wrong? I used to be that way for a while, maybe that's why people like you think I'm being condescending and patronizing when I just say you are wrong. The difference is I'm frank and curt, if I make a claim I back it up with proof. If you can't handle that, it is not my problem.
Oh, and also, asking "early pioneers" of AI who conceived of a computer virus about a computer virus is like asking Gallileo the equation for escape velocity.
/me winces in sympathy as the clue-by-four goes up the side of your head, again.
In the most polite way I can say this, you are a fuckwit. I wish I could remove your ability to use the expression clue-by-four, as you should have read the ruling definition of virus and found you were wrong. It does not need to "reproduce". Instead you got patronizing and insulting. Let me guess? You have a hard time making friends because people think you are condesending? Let me give you some advice, don't insult people who can back a claim. Don't insult people when it isn't warranted, period, for that matter. It makes you look like, well, a fuckwit.
Now to attempt to enlighten you with disregard of your stubborn ability to ignore that while Tiny-F does satisfy Jargon's definition, your manipulation of the english language does not:
Your difficulty, perhaps, has to do with realizing that what the jargon file here refers to as "infection" is in fact the same process that I referred to as "reproduction"?
No, the infection is referred to as 'embedding' - a process very different than reproduction. Repeat after me, reproduction != embed. In the sense of reproduction you were talking about originally, is one of self-duplication. A virus does not need to do this. It can simply infect X bytes of it's Y byte size, where X = Y and it's not reproducing, just infecting an object file. If you want to continue to say that they must reproduce, feel free. You are still wrong. Reproduction would be something different. While a virus can reproduce, it does not have to to satisfy the definition.
A good question here, do you even know assembly (x86, as is relevent) or are you just pasting other peoples work in your journal to try to prove a point without understanding what you are pasting? If so, what's the function for this on x86:
push ax, 3
int 11h
Here's how that's a virus though, to save yourself some time. It embeds a portion of itself (100% is still a portion) into an object file. That's it, nothing more. No more to argue, no more to see.
Uhm, no, it is you who does not understand terminology. But thank you for attempting to correct me, it really is quite fun.
Virus Definition
Worm definition
A virus has absolutely no requirement to reproduce itself, only embed. If a virus is embedded in an application, it is a Trojan Horse virus.
Do me a favor, from now on, even if you think you are absolutely 100% right do a quick check against the jargon files before arguing definitions, k?
WTF are you talking about? It reproduces and spreads itself? Where on earth did you get that from?
That would be a worm, not a virus. It actually does satisfy some definitions of a virus. "Software the prohibits the normal function of applications and the computer". This most definitely does prohibit normal function of an application, obviously one that you are intending to run and operate.
So, he is right, it's very similar to a virus.
Just to play devils advocate, I know of a girl (Extremely hot, like been-in-cosmo-hot) who absolutely loves games like GTA, Tekken, and Quake.
She's rare, but that market is out there (Just look at Ms. Case)
Cool thing about the girl mentioned above, The Gimp caught her interest at a starbucks here and we started talking. UNIX can help you meet girls.
Sorry, I suppose I should have been a lot more specific.
The IRA war is known as the start of modern terrorism. Figured most people would know that association, but then I suppose I forget most people don't know what Sinn Féin is.
Amen, you got it dead right. People like to think that you can get a couple missiles and a shitload of guns to handle any political problem.
The irony of an Irish quote being used in regards to terrorism is amusing, since the IRA started it.
Silicon Valley is alive and well, just like everywhere else in America. There was never any problems with things being dead. However, it still is hard to get a job and a lot of people are unemployed. I moved out of the bay area last year after being laid off to avoid a constant game of leaping from job to job just to get laid off when the company went under.
I feel bad for my friends who stayed down there, who are competing with about 250 other candidates for any programming job that opens up, because most of the jobs gets picked by favoritism of people who have an in at the company. Some of my friends just moved to the bay area for a job, and don't know many people yet to get that luxory. Before reporting booms, lets try to look at some realities, ok?
Go read Hyperspace and Beyond Einstein by Michio Kaku. It will probably change a lot of your perceptions of String Theory. And yes, it is a very real and viable theory.
Good one.
:-)
But it should be GNU/Hurd.