Anyone that tells you the science is settled is not a scientist....
I agree.
they are a politician wanting to shutdown inquiry on an issue and install dogma in its place.
Or they are someone who, as somebody who is *not* a scientist, as you have noted above, does not believe that further scientific study in the area would add any further understanding of value, and so the money is, in their view, more wisely spent elsewhere. They could be entirely wrong in this view, but they have it nonetheless.
Do not attribute to malice what can easily be explained by ignorance.
There is no doubt in my mind that this decision will eventually come to bite them in the ass.... hard..
Even if they are physically adjacent, Netflix is still part of a network that isn't owned by Verizon. How is Verizon supposed to tell if treating those machines the same as it treats its own does not also allow that server to perform attacks on its network?
Imagine what would happen if there were no protections from people attaching equipment to their phone lines.... one person could sabatoge every landline telephone on his entire block.
If it's connecting to something made by a third party, it shouldn't matter if it is using a "standard" jack or not.... protection mechanisms should exist to ensure that noncompliant devices don't damage it.
Doing otherwise is the hardware equivalent of allowing a stack overflow bug based on unexpected user input.
If you plug in a non-compliant usb-c cable into a device's usb port, a compliant device should be able to recognize it as such and simply refuse to operate. It should categorically *NOT* cause the device to cease to operate.
The fact that this guy apparently shorted a $1000 computer because of a badly made $10 cable IMO shows just as much of a flaw in the computer as it does in the cable.
All that the computer needed to have on the port was a breaker that would trip if or when the expected limits were exceeded and it would have been fine.
To answer the question you posed in your subject, yes.
When power goes out in an area, cell towers can get affected too... and if the outage lasts long enough, any backup generators they had on a given tower won't last through it.
So while it might sound like a nice ideal, he's talking about trying to change something that is about as much a part of the human condition as living, breathing, and dying.
allow âoedestructionâ orders of any product circumvents copy protection
What if the thing that is enabling circumvention is the fact that somebody is smart? Do they destroy every programmable product that person owns, or do they destroy the person?
Obviously they were not previously doing any lossy transcoding or else this would not have worked at all. However, if they are going to continue to offer the unlimited photos service for free, they will have to do something to that effect to prevent future abuse, and explicitly warn users that picture quality may be slightly degraded, and to not use the service where any requirement for pixel-perfect fidelity exists
Except he was not talking advantage of the service as advertised, he was taking advantage of the fact that binary data can be encoded into something that looks like a photo to software, and using a service that was supposed to only be used for photos to host arbitrary data.
Now if they had offered unlimited storage for any data, you'd be right
One way that immediately comes to mind is that they could limit the service to jpgs only, and only respect jpgs that use at least some lossy compression, which would be useless for storing any binary data with fidelity.
Also, they could discontinue the service as a free one entirely.
The options they have for forbidding you from uploading are far greater than the options you have for trying to get around them.
Gosh, it's been years.... There were two instructions that I recall which deviated from the standard that I had, however.... PCT (protect), which would protect a memory location from being written into, but only until that location written to by any process, after it has been written once, it is unprotected until protected again. So while a long program had PCT'd itself could survive a single pass of a dwarf or bomber program, it would necessarily periodically need to execute the instruction on its entire body again regularly to avoid destruction. A program could determine if a memory location had been PCT'd by trying to read it after writing it, and if the value is different than what was written, the location had obviously been PCT'd. The other instruction was JNO (jump when not owned), which would branch to the address given in the second operand if the address of the first operand was last written to by someone else or contains code, data, or instructions owned by someone else.
Ah... a 'dwarf' variant. There are defenses against that strategy though. For example, a multiprocess warrior would demolish this, even though it may be several times as long.
Also, this crude approach would eventually clobber itself if the number of addresses in the VM was not evenly divisible by 5.
If the mechanics of the game are so tiresome as to make cheating look like a good idea, the game probably isn't good enough to warrant playing in the first place, let alone cheating at it.
"Why do you care if other people cheat, since it's just a game?"
I would speculate that the answer to that is because as a game, it is supposed to be fun... and cheaters make a game less fun for the people that don't cheat. If that weren't true, after all, one would not feel pressure to cheat in the first place simply because other people are.... an example that you yourself cited as one of the incentives behind cheating.
Yeah, I've spent time trying to figure out how to make the VM better. I think what you really need is a way to limit rocks, so program size can increase.
Option 2. I had at one point considered the possibility of Option 1.... where users who did not pay up after a trial period would no longer be able to use their computer until they did pay, which would effectively turn Windows 10 into ransomware, but the legal consequences to Microsoft on that avenue would be too severe for even Microsoft to withstand.
Still... it could be a very interest summer. Don't forget to make popcorn.
During the leadup to the release of Windows 10 at the end of July of last year, I remember that they were repeatedly stating that it would only be free to current Windows users for the first year after its initial public release (July 29, 2015).
Given MS's actions since with regards to Windows 10 and how they are pushing the upgrade that people have to explicitly opt out of, I believe it is quite apparent that they were only saying that to try and encourage people to adopt it early, and never had any intent to charge for it at all.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree.
Or they are someone who, as somebody who is *not* a scientist, as you have noted above, does not believe that further scientific study in the area would add any further understanding of value, and so the money is, in their view, more wisely spent elsewhere. They could be entirely wrong in this view, but they have it nonetheless.
Do not attribute to malice what can easily be explained by ignorance.
There is no doubt in my mind that this decision will eventually come to bite them in the ass.... hard..
I mean, if all one is doing is "listening", which is all the headline directs one to do, what the fuck do any illustrations have to do with it?
Even if they are physically adjacent, Netflix is still part of a network that isn't owned by Verizon. How is Verizon supposed to tell if treating those machines the same as it treats its own does not also allow that server to perform attacks on its network?
Imagine what would happen if there were no protections from people attaching equipment to their phone lines.... one person could sabatoge every landline telephone on his entire block.
If it's connecting to something made by a third party, it shouldn't matter if it is using a "standard" jack or not.... protection mechanisms should exist to ensure that noncompliant devices don't damage it.
Doing otherwise is the hardware equivalent of allowing a stack overflow bug based on unexpected user input.
If you plug in a non-compliant usb-c cable into a device's usb port, a compliant device should be able to recognize it as such and simply refuse to operate. It should categorically *NOT* cause the device to cease to operate.
The fact that this guy apparently shorted a $1000 computer because of a badly made $10 cable IMO shows just as much of a flaw in the computer as it does in the cable.
All that the computer needed to have on the port was a breaker that would trip if or when the expected limits were exceeded and it would have been fine.
Do you have a specific reason for saying that, or is pessimism simply your go-to when you just don't want to be too optimistic?
To answer the question you posed in your subject, yes.
When power goes out in an area, cell towers can get affected too... and if the outage lasts long enough, any backup generators they had on a given tower won't last through it.
[nt]
Distrust.
So while it might sound like a nice ideal, he's talking about trying to change something that is about as much a part of the human condition as living, breathing, and dying.
What if the thing that is enabling circumvention is the fact that somebody is smart? Do they destroy every programmable product that person owns, or do they destroy the person?
Obviously they were not previously doing any lossy transcoding or else this would not have worked at all. However, if they are going to continue to offer the unlimited photos service for free, they will have to do something to that effect to prevent future abuse, and explicitly warn users that picture quality may be slightly degraded, and to not use the service where any requirement for pixel-perfect fidelity exists
That goal is inconsistent with keeping it secret and denying that they had him.
Overhead, yes. But not a substantial amount if only very simple mechanisms are used. It can probably be encoded about as fast as it is being uploaded.
Except he was not talking advantage of the service as advertised, he was taking advantage of the fact that binary data can be encoded into something that looks like a photo to software, and using a service that was supposed to only be used for photos to host arbitrary data.
Now if they had offered unlimited storage for any data, you'd be right
One way that immediately comes to mind is that they could limit the service to jpgs only, and only respect jpgs that use at least some lossy compression, which would be useless for storing any binary data with fidelity.
Also, they could discontinue the service as a free one entirely.
The options they have for forbidding you from uploading are far greater than the options you have for trying to get around them.
I might suggest that is probably because you are not Canadian.
And my comment is Godwin'd in a little over 2 hours.
Nice.
For example, the average person has approximately 1 testicle.
Gosh, it's been years.... There were two instructions that I recall which deviated from the standard that I had, however.... PCT (protect), which would protect a memory location from being written into, but only until that location written to by any process, after it has been written once, it is unprotected until protected again. So while a long program had PCT'd itself could survive a single pass of a dwarf or bomber program, it would necessarily periodically need to execute the instruction on its entire body again regularly to avoid destruction. A program could determine if a memory location had been PCT'd by trying to read it after writing it, and if the value is different than what was written, the location had obviously been PCT'd. The other instruction was JNO (jump when not owned), which would branch to the address given in the second operand if the address of the first operand was last written to by someone else or contains code, data, or instructions owned by someone else.
Well, I can't say I knew Dewdney's code by heart.... I only recognized the general pattern, which is why I called it a variant.
The articles he wrote in Scientific American were always my favourites.
Ah... a 'dwarf' variant. There are defenses against that strategy though. For example, a multiprocess warrior would demolish this, even though it may be several times as long.
Also, this crude approach would eventually clobber itself if the number of addresses in the VM was not evenly divisible by 5.
If the mechanics of the game are so tiresome as to make cheating look like a good idea, the game probably isn't good enough to warrant playing in the first place, let alone cheating at it.
I would speculate that the answer to that is because as a game, it is supposed to be fun... and cheaters make a game less fun for the people that don't cheat. If that weren't true, after all, one would not feel pressure to cheat in the first place simply because other people are.... an example that you yourself cited as one of the incentives behind cheating.
Could you elaborate? What do you mean, exactly?
Still... it could be a very interest summer. Don't forget to make popcorn.
During the leadup to the release of Windows 10 at the end of July of last year, I remember that they were repeatedly stating that it would only be free to current Windows users for the first year after its initial public release (July 29, 2015).
Given MS's actions since with regards to Windows 10 and how they are pushing the upgrade that people have to explicitly opt out of, I believe it is quite apparent that they were only saying that to try and encourage people to adopt it early, and never had any intent to charge for it at all.