this is inane. The point is the attacks not only come from the LOIC network, but other bot networks can also be employed. Therefore it is not possible to differentiate if the computer involved with an attack is a willing participant or a worm victim. So unless the authorities act on every IP-address involved and pay those IP users a personal visit, and IF these people indeed have used LOIC and managed not did not wipe it, only then they have a problem with their non/relative-anonymity. Every one of the conditionals is very questionable to ever occur.
`Anonymous' as the group is called is called such only to indicate that this group does not exist in the sense of identity or organisation. It is plain stupid to speak of anonymous as a group of this or that. One can laugh about it if the mass media doesn't get it, but it's said when universities think something like this is noteworthy. If anon bombs an address with pizza deliveries, it has never been implied that the people who call the pizza delivery companies did so using a untraceable telephone connections. Please.
Microsoft will not be arguing software patents are ludicrous before the supreme court; it will be arguing the patents are not valid. Translated: the rules apply, just not to Microsoft.
Let them get bitten in the ass by their own supported rules, and hope it happens enough times so they'll reconsider their stance.
that this can be more efficiently calculated using simple linear programming. Solutions are then even sure to be optimal, in contrast to when using GAs.
In case of gcc, consider using -Wall and it will pick up on such things. Apparently it's somehow just not really forbidden by the standard. Also realise that C++, for all its OO-ness, still is a language built to give the programmer ample low-level power. With all the ugliness and weirdness that may come from it.
I already did not expect anything else. Look at Dragon Age. Good game, but bugfest galore when it comes to DLC. And who'd you think is primarily concerned with that specific part: Bioware or EA? And do you think EA even cares, or even puts up half able people at their service desk?
More recent then: Dragon Age: Awakenings, expansion of the aforementioned game. I have never played a game which was more blatantly unfinished. Characters were rushed in, options were butchered-out. How do you know? Well, because they didn't even have the time to properly remove all traces. I realise this has been getting the norm for more and more games nowadays. But it's affecting more and more potentially really good games. Civilisation 5 anyone? Or Neverwinter Nights 2 back in the day?
My only hope is on consumer power. I will not buy any product, specifically EA products, before I *know* it is proper. I will not buy at launch. I will sit and wait until the bugs have been fixed, or until I forget about it. I hope many will do the same and companies will again produce only products which are *finished*, and developers regain their pride and tell publishers to sod off when they have to.
But thanks to the insider speaking out, confirming once again rushing is the norm nowadays.
First off, where did the news-item say this was a bad thing? Don't play victim over nothing.
Secondly, of course you're right. Anyone who argues against sovereignty of a country's government over its own country is not thinking straight. If one thinks censorship is bad, then of course the Chinese (government) is bad as well, but this may be too quick to judge. But let's not forget the other guilty party in this case, one which can more easily be judged: Google, rooted in a free (uncensored, 'not evil') society model, whom knowingly entered a censored market.
Playing along with your government, only to later on -hypocritically- state they don't want do censorship. After failing to get local web search dominance and cyber attacks from Chinese.
The latter one most likely due to your government. Which is inexcusable, no matter how you'd put it, but sadly also unprovable.
I'd reduce your statement to 'what market is there for a company selling decade-old games?'. I expect almost none, and definitely not enough for a company to survive on.
depart from the expected distribution at 90% confidence. In other words, the observed vote pattern for Rawl could be expected to occur only about 10% of the time by chance.
Just no. There's 10 percent chance of a type 1 error, assuming the null hypothesis (no cheating) is true.
are they pursuing the only thing sure to work, which is drilling at a tactically chosen spot of the same oil field to relieve or nullify the pressure at the leak?
Or are they really going through all options sequentially, with the least costly and fastest solutions first.
My thoughts exactly. I skimmed through the article but didn't find a clear answer (also, the formulas in there just seem to pop up from nowhere, but I'm no physicist and hope the guys from nature do get it...)
I am in (combinatorial) scientific computing and high performance computing, and use *NIX environments almost exclusively (ranging from proprietary Unix to different kinds of Linux flavours).
This goes for universities as well as businesses (ranging from software consultancy to companies like Shell). This choice is due to performance as well as productivity. These statements come from my own experiences.
Besides, if you want your students to learn something new, it makes sense to pick something else than Windows.
How does being bigger than Microsoft entail that Google was 'that big'? To my knowledge, Google was barely at 15% market share and not getting any bigger, *in China*. Fifteen is way smaller than basically anywhere. Leaving then, especially after the hacking, is a sound *business* move; as your quoted comment also argues.
And, again, leaving after knowingly entering a censored market does not give Google any higher moral ground than e.g. Microsoft, or even Cisco, as far as I'm concerned.
They weren't forced to beat their child, and made the conscious choice of starting to beat their child. Because everyone else was doing so and making money with it. While yelling "do no evil", of all things.
Also, Google would have never withdrawn if it had managed to take a large enough market share there. They weren't that big, had to comply with a nagging government and had to put up with a hacker's attack in the back. Not worthwhile, so withdrawn. Just business; not morals.
Mod parent up. Math is more than calculus. At its very base it's result-driven logical thinking combined with wanting to prove correctness of everything you do, within equally well-defined premises. Precisely what a programmer needs.
And head on with the discrete math and combinatorics; graph algorithms will impact the computing world more and more.
Ah, I see. Comment withdrawn then, and let's hope it doesn't get further than the first year of university. I also hope papers like that don't get any grade until it's properly rewritten.
Slashdot Mirror
this is inane. The point is the attacks not only come from the LOIC network, but other bot networks can also be employed. Therefore it is not possible to differentiate if the computer involved with an attack is a willing participant or a worm victim. So unless the authorities act on every IP-address involved and pay those IP users a personal visit, and IF these people indeed have used LOIC and managed not did not wipe it, only then they have a problem with their non/relative-anonymity. Every one of the conditionals is very questionable to ever occur.
`Anonymous' as the group is called is called such only to indicate that this group does not exist in the sense of identity or organisation. It is plain stupid to speak of anonymous as a group of this or that. One can laugh about it if the mass media doesn't get it, but it's said when universities think something like this is noteworthy. If anon bombs an address with pizza deliveries, it has never been implied that the people who call the pizza delivery companies did so using a untraceable telephone connections. Please.
Microsoft will not be arguing software patents are ludicrous before the supreme court; it will be arguing the patents are not valid. Translated: the rules apply, just not to Microsoft.
Let them get bitten in the ass by their own supported rules, and hope it happens enough times so they'll reconsider their stance.
how about editing summaries before putting them on? This reads like, and I am sorry to say, a story straight from elementary school.
that this can be more efficiently calculated using simple linear programming. Solutions are then even sure to be optimal, in contrast to when using GAs.
In case of gcc, consider using -Wall and it will pick up on such things. Apparently it's somehow just not really forbidden by the standard. Also realise that C++, for all its OO-ness, still is a language built to give the programmer ample low-level power. With all the ugliness and weirdness that may come from it.
I already did not expect anything else. Look at Dragon Age. Good game, but bugfest galore when it comes to DLC. And who'd you think is primarily concerned with that specific part: Bioware or EA? And do you think EA even cares, or even puts up half able people at their service desk?
More recent then: Dragon Age: Awakenings, expansion of the aforementioned game. I have never played a game which was more blatantly unfinished. Characters were rushed in, options were butchered-out. How do you know? Well, because they didn't even have the time to properly remove all traces. I realise this has been getting the norm for more and more games nowadays. But it's affecting more and more potentially really good games. Civilisation 5 anyone? Or Neverwinter Nights 2 back in the day?
My only hope is on consumer power. I will not buy any product, specifically EA products, before I *know* it is proper. I will not buy at launch. I will sit and wait until the bugs have been fixed, or until I forget about it. I hope many will do the same and companies will again produce only products which are *finished*, and developers regain their pride and tell publishers to sod off when they have to.
But thanks to the insider speaking out, confirming once again rushing is the norm nowadays.
who initially thought of the artist instead of the telephone company?
why this piece of PR-made-to-look-like-a-news-item actually ended up on a news site? Seriously?
The question of course is how large this search space is in comparison to the samples tried from it, to determine whether it really is amazing or not.
"Matt has gone so far as to post this on Twitter."
Just, *wow*.
First off, where did the news-item say this was a bad thing? Don't play victim over nothing.
Secondly, of course you're right. Anyone who argues against sovereignty of a country's government over its own country is not thinking straight.
If one thinks censorship is bad, then of course the Chinese (government) is bad as well, but this may be too quick to judge. But let's not forget the other guilty party in this case, one which can more easily be judged: Google, rooted in a free (uncensored, 'not evil') society model, whom knowingly entered a censored market. Playing along with your government, only to later on -hypocritically- state they don't want do censorship. After failing to get local web search dominance and cyber attacks from Chinese.
The latter one most likely due to your government. Which is inexcusable, no matter how you'd put it, but sadly also unprovable.
I'd reduce your statement to 'what market is there for a company selling decade-old games?'. I expect almost none, and definitely not enough for a company to survive on.
depart from the expected distribution at 90% confidence. In other words, the observed vote pattern for Rawl could be expected to occur only about 10% of the time by chance.
Just no. There's 10 percent chance of a type 1 error, assuming the null hypothesis (no cheating) is true.
Actually, The Netherlands really do have one of the highest percentage of population who use internet on a daily basis.
are they pursuing the only thing sure to work, which is drilling at a tactically chosen spot of the same oil field to relieve or nullify the pressure at the leak?
Or are they really going through all options sequentially, with the least costly and fastest solutions first.
My thoughts exactly. I skimmed through the article but didn't find a clear answer (also, the formulas in there just seem to pop up from nowhere, but I'm no physicist and hope the guys from nature do get it...)
I am in (combinatorial) scientific computing and high performance computing, and use *NIX environments almost exclusively (ranging from proprietary Unix to different kinds of Linux flavours).
This goes for universities as well as businesses (ranging from software consultancy to companies like Shell). This choice is due to performance as well as productivity. These statements come from my own experiences.
Besides, if you want your students to learn something new, it makes sense to pick something else than Windows.
They shot down a nuclear cruise missle. I saw it live on my tv yesterday on this show called '24'.
This is why slashdot rocks :)
How does being bigger than Microsoft entail that Google was 'that big'? To my knowledge, Google was barely at 15% market share and not getting any bigger, *in China*. Fifteen is way smaller than basically anywhere. Leaving then, especially after the hacking, is a sound *business* move; as your quoted comment also argues.
And, again, leaving after knowingly entering a censored market does not give Google any higher moral ground than e.g. Microsoft, or even Cisco, as far as I'm concerned.
They weren't forced to beat their child, and made the conscious choice of starting to beat their child. Because everyone else was doing so and making money with it. While yelling "do no evil", of all things. Also, Google would have never withdrawn if it had managed to take a large enough market share there. They weren't that big, had to comply with a nagging government and had to put up with a hacker's attack in the back. Not worthwhile, so withdrawn. Just business; not morals.
Mod parent up. Math is more than calculus. At its very base it's result-driven logical thinking combined with wanting to prove correctness of everything you do, within equally well-defined premises. Precisely what a programmer needs. And head on with the discrete math and combinatorics; graph algorithms will impact the computing world more and more.
Sister Miriam, is that you?
Thanks :)
Ah, I see. Comment withdrawn then, and let's hope it doesn't get further than the first year of university. I also hope papers like that don't get any grade until it's properly rewritten.