now that Intel's waking up and smelling the coffee, I doubt it's going to sit on its laurels. Granted, the P4 currently still uses RDRAM, but at least Intel is planning to ditch it. And while its current performance is rather underwhelming, the chip/is/ meant to scale to much higher speeds.
If Intel gets Via or someone else to do a decent DDR chipset, and then manages to bump the speed up to 2+ ghz, I'm going to start getting concerned.
The Athlon is extremely nice, but with AMD's.13 micron process scheduled to go online significantly after Intel's, and with the Athlon's high heat dissipation, either AMD gets a seriously impressive {claw|sledge}hammer out, or it's going to have to let the pressure off of Intel, I think.
is that nothing is completely unhackable. Especially something connected to _the entire internet._ By making it so accessible, you open up the possibility for foreign governments, large corporations, and other powerful entities to try and "crack" into said systems.
The idea, while good and clean in principle, is susceptible to all sorts of non-sense ranging from DoS attacks on the host machines recording the election, to people stealing other's identities and voting multiple times.
I mean, currently you have to know what, D.O.B., S.S.N, and only a few other trivial things in order to transact certain types of business online with the government. (I know that I registered for federal financial aid this way!) How do you prevent people form stealing this info from others by, oh say, breaking into a poorly protected company, or perhaps a job-search engine site, and then using said information?
Point being, while the idea is nice, the execution is a long ways off.
Re:It's not the broken mods that piss people off..
on
New Q3A Patch And Mods
·
· Score: 1
What have you been smoking? And where the hell can I get some? These players have learned to use the physics to their advantage, not lame z-bot aim scripts and hacked proxies.
Learn a little bit about what you're talking about next time before you think about talking out of your ass again.
Indeed. And if you look at the absolutely rediculous number of filtering options that the SBLive! has, I doubt that any watermarking could survive if we knew what it was.
Well, perhaps you could go into the store, grab whatever titles they're interested in, and buy them without questioning the content. During the car ride home, you could tell them that you disagree with the need for the restriction,
Your point about an actual implementation is well-taken. And by no means am I asserting that a drive to K-mart a huge burden. But this isn't about laziness, but principles. I mean, as far as I'm concerned, K-mart generally doesn't sell games the cheapest anyhow. If kids wanted to buy games cheap, and not get carded, they should be looking in the back sections of their nearest EB.
Nevertheless, such an approach invalidates K-mart's solution to the 'problem' of violent video-games and kids. The fact remains that I've had to modify my parenting methods to make room for some other parent, who hasn't taken the time to educate their kids properly and watch them. If they had, there would be no problem:
This comes in 2 forms:
1) Their kids should know better than to disobey their parents. Granted, I agree, this one is often broken, kids being kids. But less so if they've been told why, and properly educated, etc. I think that's easy enough to agree with? If you've been properly educated that something is wrong, you're less likely to do it. Also:
2) Parents should be watching what the kids are buying, but also more appropriately, uh, what they are playing?
Look, it doesn't matter that Johnny can buy Soldier of Fortune. If the parent is 'anti-violence', the kid won't get to play the game. And if the parent isn't around often enough to notice that there's a game called SoF on the computer, and that it involves head shots where people's heads explode, then uh, they shouldn't have had the kid.
Look: responsible parenting is a duty of the parent, not of the stores, or the government. Why should K-mart bow to the wishes of those who don't want to take responsibility for their kids, and thereby inconvenience me, and cause me to modify my parenting methods? (Same goes for government bowing to whiny parents and mandating carding at movies, but that's a rant for another time.)
1) It's true: I don't have kids. How does this make it a moot point? That's like saying that since I've never been treated inhumanely, I shouldn't give a shit about human rights violations in [your favorite country here].
2) K-mart's policy is detrimental because a) it sets a standard by which other shops may be sued for not doing enough to prevent the creation of a killer. Like I've said in other posts, I don't wanna see some hillybilly parent suing EB or Babbages because some dimwit shot their runt, and the evil stores didn't card, thereby helping create a killer.
3) K-mart's policy does, for example, preclude a parent from a "I trust my kid" policy. A perfectly reasonable policy, designed to build 'the right person' through trust, and expectations, rather than rules and punishments. A policy which K-mart forbids.
Say, under this policy, a parent wanted to tell their child: "okay, you can go buy Quake III at K-mart, but don't buy Soldier of Fortune. I trust you." K-mart says: "no can do."
I say: why should I have to break my policy because of pressure to K-mart from other lazy parents? They want to enforce their policy of making sure their kids are on the right track by guidance, but refuse to take the time out to actually guide them, instead relying on a corporation to their their job for them.
What is wrong with this picture? Ummm, maybe that American's parents continue to breed little monsters at a rate that make rabbits turn green with envy, scream about their little babies when one decides to cap another in the head because the parents were too busy getting high off of glue and clorox bleach (or whatever's in fashion now), and then whine to the governments and the corporations and their churches and support groups, and demand that someone else do their parenting for them?
If you're the sort who believes your kids can play whatever games they like, the least you can do is go buy it for them. I mean, really - if you're too lazy to get off your ass and go to the store to FIGHT FOR YOUR PRINCIPLES, you mustn't feel all that strongly after all.
And you keep missing the point again and again.
What if I believe in freedom to play whatever games they want? What if I believe in teaching my child that I (gasp) trust them? That they should be doing what I want them to do without my supervision?
Why, K-mart is now infringing on my principles, and I can point back at the 'we-want-control' parents and ask "why are you too lazy to take your kids to Kmart, if you really believe in supervision?
As the parent, *I* should decide if they buy things that are not age appropriate. If I want them to get the "M" games, I'll buy them for them... that's called parental control, more people should practice it and the more help parents get from voluntary actions like what K-Mart is doing, the better.
You've missed the point. They're taking choice away from parents. If parents really were responsible, they shouldn't need "assistance" of this sort from K-mart. Lemme ask you this:
What if I'm of the sort who believes that kids should be allowed to play whatever video games they want? And instead focus on controlling other areas, like making sure my kids finish their homework on-time, and correctly?
If my kids wanted to buy Quake III at K-mart, I'd have to go with them. Despite my philosophy. You can assert that the converse is also true: if there were no carding, the other group of parents who believed in control over their kids would have to go with them to Kmart.
But that's the point!!! They believe in control, they'd better actually be there, and in control! Why do they need the clerk to be a surrogate parent???
You hit the nail on the head: this is an annoyance. One that can grow larger -- especially since K-mart is such a big corporation, and covers so much of the US. And considering that a great percentage of low/middle income Americans shop there, they have considerable leverage, in effect having the power to create somewhat of a de facto standard when it comes to the restriction of violent video games to minors.
All that said, you are perfectly correct in asserting that they have every right to do so. They do. And I have every right to take my business elsewhere for K-mart's stupidity, Wal-mart's censorship, and Amazon's idiotic patenting. You may also note that, I, in fact, do.
All that said, Kmart is encouraging parents to take less responsibility for their kids. I can't wait to see the day when some redneck parent who's usually far too busy watching redneck TV and getting drunk off of cheap beer sues EB or Baggages because some other fuckhead kid shot their precious little Johnny, with the argument that they didn't card like Kmart did, thereby helping to create a killer.
What utter bullshit this will lead to. Parents are responsible for raising their own kids. This is not the government's responsibility. It is not the corporation's responsibility. It is not the neighbor's responsiblity, nor that of the little bugger's algebra teacher. The responsibility of raising a kid belongs to the parent.
Okay, you might well say, but what about those parents too busy to take care of their kids? And I say:
1) If you've instilled your kids with the right values, you shouldn't have to worry. They'll grow up right -- knowing not only that something is off-limits, but also why. Instead of "Soldier of Fortune is off-limits because that fuckwit behind the counter won't sell me a copy," it'll be "Soldier of Fortune is probably something I should wait until I'm older to play -- it's not good for me right now." and
2) If you were too busy when you shit out the little bugger in the first place, then you're an idiot!!! Go give your kid up for adoption.
You have no right to diminish the convenience and choices of others because of your own laziness. What if I want my kids to be able to buy whatever video games they want? Under this policy, if my kid wants to buy it at Kmart because they're selling it cheap and he's poor (and all kids generally are), I'd have to go with him. I don't want to do that. You are making me. You're refusal to take care of your kids on an individual basis is causing ME inconveniences! Comprende?
As for movies: AFAIK there is a law saying that they must card. The ratings on videogames are an advisory at this point. Witness how EB doesn't card. Nor does, oh, say, Outpost. Until it becomes law, I'd like my advisories to stay advisories!
Granted, you won't be able to supervise her day and night. Not without surgically grafting yourself to her, anyhow. What you need to do is instill the right morals into a child, and then let them make their own decisions. I mean, eventually, you'd have to let go anyhow, and at that point it's not reasonable to expect either the government or the corporations to do supervision. If you've raised your child right, he/she shouldn't need it.
The point is that the erosion of basic freedoms can't be allowed. Speaking for myself, I couldn't give a rat's ass about Carnivore's actual functionality:
1) Mostly I just send profanity-ridden email to either friends or k3w1 d00dz
and
2) Whenever I send something important, it's encrypted.
The problem is that erosion of basic freedoms, even if they seem to have no direct impact on us, will affect us one day unless we keep vigilant and make sure the government plays by the rules.
When it comes to prosperity, one could very well argue that the big corporations and the government is merely using this opportunity to erect a police state while people have been lulled into a false sense of security by their fattened pocketbooks.
Moreover, I don't see what they're hiding Carnivore for. Security by obscurity never works. Bring it into the open! Or does it suck so much that the feds will be laughed at and rediculed for wasting n years of time and x years of money for something written by an infinite number of monkeys???
I'd still like to say that Perl's funny characters are the best thing since sliced bread: one glance and I can tell what the variables are, and what type they are.
Secondly, the keywords unless, and until are great. Lastly, if/unless blah, etc. and other natural constructs also make my programming day a lot easier, and improve readability as well.
Um, having the source known makes open source software open to security breeches? Kinda like how because I have the source code for TwoFish sitting here, I can break it with ease?
On the contrary, software is going to become a greater part of the cost, at least for the people and corporations that haven't yet seen the One True Way of the GNU.
There are (not yet proven successful, but trying) business models which rely on mostly giving away the hardware at a loss, and then making it back in software and services.
I'd just like to point out that the most successful OSS projects out there are not managed or led by people that are as unsociable and well, stubborn (to put it mildly) as RMS.
Well, except for Theo's OpenBSD, which is very much alive and well, and personally my favorite OS. (I should also mention that he's managed to attract remarkably kind and patient people onto the mailing lists despite his/supposed/ personality shortcomings.
Slashdot Mirror
now that Intel's waking up and smelling the coffee, I doubt it's going to sit on its laurels. Granted, the P4 currently still uses RDRAM, but at least Intel is planning to ditch it. And while its current performance is rather underwhelming, the chip /is/ meant to scale to much higher speeds.
.13 micron process scheduled to go online significantly after Intel's, and with the Athlon's high heat dissipation, either AMD gets a seriously impressive {claw|sledge}hammer out, or it's going to have to let the pressure off of Intel, I think.
If Intel gets Via or someone else to do a decent DDR chipset, and then manages to bump the speed up to 2+ ghz, I'm going to start getting concerned.
The Athlon is extremely nice, but with AMD's
is that nothing is completely unhackable. Especially something connected to _the entire internet._ By making it so accessible, you open up the possibility for foreign governments, large corporations, and other powerful entities to try and "crack" into said systems.
The idea, while good and clean in principle, is susceptible to all sorts of non-sense ranging from DoS attacks on the host machines recording the election, to people stealing other's identities and voting multiple times.
I mean, currently you have to know what, D.O.B., S.S.N, and only a few other trivial things in order to transact certain types of business online with the government. (I know that I registered for federal financial aid this way!) How do you prevent people form stealing this info from others by, oh say, breaking into a poorly protected company, or perhaps a job-search engine site, and then using said information?
Point being, while the idea is nice, the execution is a long ways off.
What have you been smoking? And where the hell can I get some? These players have learned to use the physics to their advantage, not lame z-bot aim scripts and hacked proxies.
Learn a little bit about what you're talking about next time before you think about talking out of your ass again.
Well? Are they receiving any assistance from other companies or banks at this time, to help them keep afloat?
melting snowballs! (or so says Larry Wall!)
BR.
Indeed. And if you look at the absolutely rediculous number of filtering options that the SBLive! has, I doubt that any watermarking could survive if we knew what it was.
Uhh, how about this: the "Hack the HackSDMI Website Contest?"
:-) *grin*.
Free root login!
I agree with most of what you've said, but I think the intent is to allow the cases to be judged by people who are /more/ "our peers."
Granted, this could likely be done by a judge appointing a panel, but this doesn't always happen, and isn't required to happen.
presumably by batches of tape several times a day, I would assume. *Shrug*.
Well, perhaps you could go into the store, grab whatever titles they're interested in, and buy them without questioning the content. During the car ride home, you could tell them that you disagree with the need for the restriction,
Your point about an actual implementation is well-taken. And by no means am I asserting that a drive to K-mart a huge burden. But this isn't about laziness, but principles. I mean, as far as I'm concerned, K-mart generally doesn't sell games the cheapest anyhow. If kids wanted to buy games cheap, and not get carded, they should be looking in the back sections of their nearest EB.
Nevertheless, such an approach invalidates K-mart's solution to the 'problem' of violent video-games and kids. The fact remains that I've had to modify my parenting methods to make room for some other parent, who hasn't taken the time to educate their kids properly and watch them. If they had, there would be no problem:
This comes in 2 forms:
1) Their kids should know better than to disobey their parents. Granted, I agree, this one is often broken, kids being kids. But less so if they've been told why, and properly educated, etc. I think that's easy enough to agree with? If you've been properly educated that something is wrong, you're less likely to do it. Also:
2) Parents should be watching what the kids are buying, but also more appropriately, uh, what they are playing?
Look, it doesn't matter that Johnny can buy Soldier of Fortune. If the parent is 'anti-violence', the kid won't get to play the game. And if the parent isn't around often enough to notice that there's a game called SoF on the computer, and that it involves head shots where people's heads explode, then uh, they shouldn't have had the kid.
Look: responsible parenting is a duty of the parent, not of the stores, or the government. Why should K-mart bow to the wishes of those who don't want to take responsibility for their kids, and thereby inconvenience me, and cause me to modify my parenting methods? (Same goes for government bowing to whiny parents and mandating carding at movies, but that's a rant for another time.)
A lovely set of questions indeed:
/Serial Experiments Lain/. And it just happens to have some interesting ideas about God and Gaeism as well, IMHO.
3 -- I'm gonna let the number theory math nerds argue this one. I frankly don't care.
Minds -- nothing more than electrical, and possibly quantum interactions between particles in a highly organized state.
Red -- merely an interpretation by the Mind (see above), of a certain range of electromagnetic radiation.
Spock vs. John Smith -- see
All the above merely my random ramblings. Flames away!
3 points:
1) It's true: I don't have kids. How does this make it a moot point? That's like saying that since I've never been treated inhumanely, I shouldn't give a shit about human rights violations in [your favorite country here].
2) K-mart's policy is detrimental because a) it sets a standard by which other shops may be sued for not doing enough to prevent the creation of a killer. Like I've said in other posts, I don't wanna see some hillybilly parent suing EB or Babbages because some dimwit shot their runt, and the evil stores didn't card, thereby helping create a killer.
3) K-mart's policy does, for example, preclude a parent from a "I trust my kid" policy. A perfectly reasonable policy, designed to build 'the right person' through trust, and expectations, rather than rules and punishments. A policy which K-mart forbids.
Say, under this policy, a parent wanted to tell their child: "okay, you can go buy Quake III at K-mart, but don't buy Soldier of Fortune. I trust you." K-mart says: "no can do."
I say: why should I have to break my policy because of pressure to K-mart from other lazy parents? They want to enforce their policy of making sure their kids are on the right track by guidance, but refuse to take the time out to actually guide them, instead relying on a corporation to their their job for them.
What is wrong with this picture? Ummm, maybe that American's parents continue to breed little monsters at a rate that make rabbits turn green with envy, scream about their little babies when one decides to cap another in the head because the parents were too busy getting high off of glue and clorox bleach (or whatever's in fashion now), and then whine to the governments and the corporations and their churches and support groups, and demand that someone else do their parenting for them?
Hmm, I see.
If you're the sort who believes your kids can play whatever games they like, the least you can do is go buy it for them. I mean, really - if you're too lazy to get off your ass and go to the store to FIGHT FOR YOUR PRINCIPLES, you mustn't feel all that strongly after all.
And you keep missing the point again and again.
What if I believe in freedom to play whatever games they want? What if I believe in teaching my child that I (gasp) trust them? That they should be doing what I want them to do without my supervision?
Why, K-mart is now infringing on my principles, and I can point back at the 'we-want-control' parents and ask "why are you too lazy to take your kids to Kmart, if you really believe in supervision?
As the parent, *I* should decide if they buy things that are not age appropriate. If I want them to get the "M" games, I'll buy them for them ... that's called parental control, more people should practice it and the more help parents get from voluntary actions like what K-Mart is doing, the better.
You've missed the point. They're taking choice away from parents. If parents really were responsible, they shouldn't need "assistance" of this sort from K-mart. Lemme ask you this:
What if I'm of the sort who believes that kids should be allowed to play whatever video games they want? And instead focus on controlling other areas, like making sure my kids finish their homework on-time, and correctly?
If my kids wanted to buy Quake III at K-mart, I'd have to go with them. Despite my philosophy. You can assert that the converse is also true: if there were no carding, the other group of parents who believed in control over their kids would have to go with them to Kmart.
But that's the point!!! They believe in control, they'd better actually be there, and in control! Why do they need the clerk to be a surrogate parent???
You hit the nail on the head: this is an annoyance. One that can grow larger -- especially since K-mart is such a big corporation, and covers so much of the US. And considering that a great percentage of low/middle income Americans shop there, they have considerable leverage, in effect having the power to create somewhat of a de facto standard when it comes to the restriction of violent video games to minors.
All that said, you are perfectly correct in asserting that they have every right to do so. They do. And I have every right to take my business elsewhere for K-mart's stupidity, Wal-mart's censorship, and Amazon's idiotic patenting. You may also note that, I, in fact, do.
All that said, Kmart is encouraging parents to take less responsibility for their kids. I can't wait to see the day when some redneck parent who's usually far too busy watching redneck TV and getting drunk off of cheap beer sues EB or Baggages because some other fuckhead kid shot their precious little Johnny, with the argument that they didn't card like Kmart did, thereby helping to create a killer.
What utter bullshit this will lead to. Parents are responsible for raising their own kids. This is not the government's responsibility. It is not the corporation's responsibility. It is not the neighbor's responsiblity, nor that of the little bugger's algebra teacher. The responsibility of raising a kid belongs to the parent.
Okay, you might well say, but what about those parents too busy to take care of their kids? And I say:
1) If you've instilled your kids with the right values, you shouldn't have to worry. They'll grow up right -- knowing not only that something is off-limits, but also why. Instead of "Soldier of Fortune is off-limits because that fuckwit behind the counter won't sell me a copy," it'll be "Soldier of Fortune is probably something I should wait until I'm older to play -- it's not good for me right now." and 2) If you were too busy when you shit out the little bugger in the first place, then you're an idiot!!! Go give your kid up for adoption.
You have no right to diminish the convenience and choices of others because of your own laziness. What if I want my kids to be able to buy whatever video games they want? Under this policy, if my kid wants to buy it at Kmart because they're selling it cheap and he's poor (and all kids generally are), I'd have to go with him. I don't want to do that. You are making me. You're refusal to take care of your kids on an individual basis is causing ME inconveniences! Comprende?
As for movies: AFAIK there is a law saying that they must card. The ratings on videogames are an advisory at this point. Witness how EB doesn't card. Nor does, oh, say, Outpost. Until it becomes law, I'd like my advisories to stay advisories!
Granted, you won't be able to supervise her day and night. Not without surgically grafting yourself to her, anyhow. What you need to do is instill the right morals into a child, and then let them make their own decisions. I mean, eventually, you'd have to let go anyhow, and at that point it's not reasonable to expect either the government or the corporations to do supervision. If you've raised your child right, he/she shouldn't need it.
and dear has also not made one concrete argument against my assertions. Please try again.
The point is that the erosion of basic freedoms can't be allowed. Speaking for myself, I couldn't give a rat's ass about Carnivore's actual functionality:
1) Mostly I just send profanity-ridden email to either friends or k3w1 d00dz and 2) Whenever I send something important, it's encrypted.
The problem is that erosion of basic freedoms, even if they seem to have no direct impact on us, will affect us one day unless we keep vigilant and make sure the government plays by the rules.
When it comes to prosperity, one could very well argue that the big corporations and the government is merely using this opportunity to erect a police state while people have been lulled into a false sense of security by their fattened pocketbooks.
My $0.02.
Moreover, I don't see what they're hiding Carnivore for. Security by obscurity never works. Bring it into the open! Or does it suck so much that the feds will be laughed at and rediculed for wasting n years of time and x years of money for something written by an infinite number of monkeys???
I'd still like to say that Perl's funny characters are the best thing since sliced bread: one glance and I can tell what the variables are, and what type they are.
Secondly, the keywords unless, and until are great. Lastly, if/unless blah, etc. and other natural constructs also make my programming day a lot easier, and improve readability as well.
More specifically, lists and scalars. This is because Perl functions depend on context.
Functions perform differently if they are in list, scalar, or void contexts.
Um, having the source known makes open source software open to security breeches? Kinda like how because I have the source code for TwoFish sitting here, I can break it with ease?
On the contrary, software is going to become a greater part of the cost, at least for the people and corporations that haven't yet seen the One True Way of the GNU.
There are (not yet proven successful, but trying) business models which rely on mostly giving away the hardware at a loss, and then making it back in software and services.
Witness, iOpener.
RMS just thinks that he is entitled to handouts and freebies for eternity without giving anything back to those who support him financially.
RMS gave us EMACS, and delivered us from TECO. 'nuff said.
I'd just like to point out that the most successful OSS projects out there are not managed or led by people that are as unsociable and well, stubborn (to put it mildly) as RMS.
/supposed/ personality shortcomings.
Well, except for Theo's OpenBSD, which is very much alive and well, and personally my favorite OS. (I should also mention that he's managed to attract remarkably kind and patient people onto the mailing lists despite his