Does not work: Anything with Punkbuster (cod4, battlefield, etc)
I'm not disagreeing, but have you tried ET:QW? It installs a PunkBuster service (two?) and so while installation requires admin access, playing the game may well not. (I've not tried it - I run as an admin and rely on my common sense to keep me out of trouble. So far, so good...)
Sure, you might nab man number 137 on the totem pole o' dealers through a wiretap, but you're not going to be troubling the guy at the top of the food chain.
If I were playing Devil's Advocate, I'd probably argue that even if you do only get guy #137, that gives you a chance to get him to turn "double agent", and dish up dirt to you on someone higher up the totem pole. You won't get him to get all the way to the top, but you might get, say, guy #100 - then repeat the process, until you get someone who can get you dirt on guy #1 (or inject your own undercover guy at a high-enough level).
Risky, with plenty of opportunities for failure, but then so are undercover infiltration exercises, and they still happen from time to time.
Oh, and I'm nit-picking, but it doesn't beg the question, it raises it. Begging the question is something else entirely, but most people make that mistake (so the meaning of the phrase will probably be changing soon anyway)
The decision to nuke posts about a security flaw, while stupid and short-sighted, does not immediately mean that Apple's OS security people are lax or lazy.
No - but not putting a log out button on a protected web resource does mean that they are either lax or lazy. I have no particular antipathy towards Apple, but that's just plain dumb. Even if the flaw isn't serious it certainly *looks* bad, and violates established practice for web applications.
He's right, a large number of people here decried XP for all the reasons he states (and more). Now a large number of people here are decrying Vista and praising XP. No, there's no guarantee that they're the same people, but you can bet your bottom dollar that as and when Windows 7 is released, there will be a large number of people here decrying it and singing the praises of Vista.
Doesn't mean you'll be one of them, of course, but that you won't be doesn't mean that it won't happen.
That's also a nice theory, but yours is the first report of.net-related instability that I've heard. The crack about "official party line" was uncalled for too - just because your experience differs from his doesn't make him a shill.
I guess the question is, would obfuscated code be the preferred form for making modifications to.
And the answer is no. Obfuscation is used expressly for the purposes of making the code harder to understand, and thus harder to copy or modify. It just so happens that most obfuscation techniques also compact the source code, but assuming you're dealing with a compiled language (even if just to byte code, rather than native executable) then that's not a concern, and making it harder to understand if someone decompiles it would be the most likely reason for obfuscating it.
You don't trust the system to count your vote correctly and want a way to check, but you trust it to tell you that it counted it correctly? Interesting.
Sharing copies of Star Wars is not the same as telling everyone you're George Lucas.
No, it's not - sharing copies of Star Wars potentially denies the creators the chance to earn money from their work. Claiming to be someone as famous as George Lucas generally just makes you look like an idiot...
I think you two are talking at cross purposes. The post you're replying to says "(and pertinent)" - ie files that *do* relate to the case.
You're saying "he can't be made to release incriminating files that are nothing to do with the case", while the poster you're replying to is saying "he can't be made to release incriminating files even if they are related to the case".
User education, that's all. Or locking the machine down so tight that they can't install any software at all, or run anything that's not white-listed (but then, by who?). Kind of defeats the purpose of a general purpose computer though, if you ask me.
Interesting. I'm soon to be the only senior programmer my company has - the rest have either left or are working their notice, with one exception (and he's going to resign next month, apparently).
On the other hand I have HL2, but not Ep1, so for me it's a rather better deal. Sucks to have to buy HL2 again, but with The Orange Box currently being sold by amazon.co.uk for roughly half the RRP, I'm not complaining too hard. (In fact, I'm waiting for it to arrive - hopefully tomorrow (well, later today now) with a bit of luck)
More than that the "viral" content is vicious, asking to check your various mail accounts to send requests for more people to join.
I've not seen this at all - the worst I've seen is the apps that invite you to invite your Facebook friends to add the application. I've not had a single application ask me to supply my email address book details (and of course I wasn't stupid enough to supply them to Facebook when I joined).
Go ahead and be a pirate/ninja warrior... but take a look at who wrote that ap. They get your infomation.
They get what you're willing to give, which in my case is my name, date of birth, town and country of residence, and the names of those friends that I have that are also on Facebook, and possibly my email address. I've not put my full address or phone number, etc on the site because frankly, why would I? My friends already have them. If I get chatting to someone via the site and decide that I want them to have them, I'll send them to them - probably offline (well, offline as far as Facebook is concerned).
Yes, sites like Facebook make it easy and tempting to give out all sorts of information that perhaps should be kept a little more private, but they by no means force you to do so. "Dangerous" is an inappropriate word, I think. So my government's security service could get my name and the names of my friends. My full name, date of birth, place of residence, sex, photograph, place of work, employer, salary, and quite probably height and approximate weight are already on a number of governmental databases (e.g. revenue services, passport, driver's licence, medical records, etc). Seriously, what's one more?
No, this is about Beacon, the Facebook feature that allowed participating websites to publish stories on your Facebook account about the dealings you had had with them - e.g. items you've bought, or in this case, films you've rented.
Beacon was particularly controversial because it was not only opt-out, you couldn't opt-out of it altogether, you could only opt-out on a per-participating company basis *after* that company had already published a story. Facebook has since made changes due to the backlash the original version caused.
This isn't a case of users making information available and someone else using it, this is the Blockbuster website making available information about its users who also use Facebook, apparently in direct contravention of this legislation.
I don't get why an action is less evil when done on less qualified people.
Some people would argue that targeting people who are less able or qualified to understand what's being done and/or protect themselves from it is in fact more evil - hence the vitriol reserved for those who prey on children or the elderly.
Now if only the Dutch could export this way of thinking across the North Sea to us non-mainland Europeans, we'd all be happy...
Assuming you mean the UK, you should perhaps have a read of the eGIF rules sometime. They're quite explicit - while proprietary software is not forbidden, open standards and formats are very strongly encouraged. Failing to comply with the rules can result in funding being pulled.
Now I don't know how vigorously the rules are enforced, but certainly the times that I've worked with various governmental bodies they have been very keen indeed on using open standards and software as far as possible. It's a pragmatic approach though - if a proprietary solution really is the best, all things considered, then that's what'll be used.
The onus on providing evidence is on the person making the claim. If they can't find a source to back their claim up, then perhaps they shouldn't be making it at all. Otherwise, it's just FUD, and we all know how much we hate it when certain other people spread that...
Home has the rdp *client* of course, so you can connect out, but not the rdp *server*. Pro also ships with IIS as an optional installable extra, which Home lacks.
He's clearly not talking about providing MS with feedback when he says that, he's talking about bitching about the experience here and on other forums. Hence his very next sentence:
Now, if you install the RC on your test system, provide feedback on you major error, and then the RTM has the same problem, you can complain.
He's saying sure, install the RC and provide feedback to MS - but don't install the RC then bitch pointlessly on the web without at least also telling MS directly.
So... are you agreeing with him (that all the tales of incompatibilities are not hard data) or disagreeing with him (that his tale of compatibility is not hard data)?
Besides, as someone else has already pointed out that's not an anecdote, that's empirical data. "I heard that Vista breaks compatibility with loads of software" is an anecdote. "I installed Vista and had no issues with compatibility" or "I installed Vista and had issues with the following apps..." are not.
Well there you go then - 3 good reasons to replace them. It was an honest question; I've seen a lot of needless replacement of perfectly good hardware and software in the past. I've also seen a lot of comments about the "upgrade treadmill", as though you *have* to buy the latest version of software as soon as it comes out. Generally speaking, the old stuff doesn't magically stop working.
That said, if there's a genuine reason to replace stuff, replace it.
Those reading this might think I'm kidding, but let me tell you this: I once replaced a token ring network with an ethernet network connecting Pentium IIs and IIIs. In 2005.
Did the machines perform their allotted tasks adequately? Were the users frustrated or impeded by them? If not, then - baring malfunction - why replace them?
The women aren't naked. They are scantily clad. They have panties and pasties on, to be exact.
That's not the point.
I admit they are supposed to 'look' naked
That is.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm no prude and see nothing wrong with nudity in the right context (or pornography, for that matter), but this was not it. In fact, if you ask me it's just as demeaning to the males it was supposed to titillate as it is to the women; do they really think that we games-playing males are that juvenile? (Don't bother answering that, I play online games too...)
Slashdot Mirror
Laws are there to make immoral and amoral people act according to the moral will of society.
In other words, laws enforce society's idea of moral behaviour.
Risky, with plenty of opportunities for failure, but then so are undercover infiltration exercises, and they still happen from time to time.
Oh, and I'm nit-picking, but it doesn't beg the question, it raises it. Begging the question is something else entirely, but most people make that mistake (so the meaning of the phrase will probably be changing soon anyway)
Wow, take things personally much?
He's right, a large number of people here decried XP for all the reasons he states (and more). Now a large number of people here are decrying Vista and praising XP. No, there's no guarantee that they're the same people, but you can bet your bottom dollar that as and when Windows 7 is released, there will be a large number of people here decrying it and singing the praises of Vista.
Doesn't mean you'll be one of them, of course, but that you won't be doesn't mean that it won't happen.
That's also a nice theory, but yours is the first report of .net-related instability that I've heard. The crack about "official party line" was uncalled for too - just because your experience differs from his doesn't make him a shill.
You don't trust the system to count your vote correctly and want a way to check, but you trust it to tell you that it counted it correctly? Interesting.
Drop DirectX and go OpenGL.
OpenGL and SDL (and whatever else is required) of course - OpenGL is roughly equivalent* to Direct 3D, which is a subset of Direct X.
(* that's from the point of view of a gamer, not a games programmer, of course - I've no idea how close they are in features, ease of use, etc)
Sharing copies of Star Wars is not the same as telling everyone you're George Lucas.
No, it's not - sharing copies of Star Wars potentially denies the creators the chance to earn money from their work. Claiming to be someone as famous as George Lucas generally just makes you look like an idiot...
I think you two are talking at cross purposes. The post you're replying to says "(and pertinent)" - ie files that *do* relate to the case.
You're saying "he can't be made to release incriminating files that are nothing to do with the case", while the poster you're replying to is saying "he can't be made to release incriminating files even if they are related to the case".
User education, that's all. Or locking the machine down so tight that they can't install any software at all, or run anything that's not white-listed (but then, by who?). Kind of defeats the purpose of a general purpose computer though, if you ask me.
Interesting. I'm soon to be the only senior programmer my company has - the rest have either left or are working their notice, with one exception (and he's going to resign next month, apparently).
Yeah, that sucks.
On the other hand I have HL2, but not Ep1, so for me it's a rather better deal. Sucks to have to buy HL2 again, but with The Orange Box currently being sold by amazon.co.uk for roughly half the RRP, I'm not complaining too hard. (In fact, I'm waiting for it to arrive - hopefully tomorrow (well, later today now) with a bit of luck)
Yes, sites like Facebook make it easy and tempting to give out all sorts of information that perhaps should be kept a little more private, but they by no means force you to do so. "Dangerous" is an inappropriate word, I think. So my government's security service could get my name and the names of my friends. My full name, date of birth, place of residence, sex, photograph, place of work, employer, salary, and quite probably height and approximate weight are already on a number of governmental databases (e.g. revenue services, passport, driver's licence, medical records, etc). Seriously, what's one more?
No, this is about Beacon, the Facebook feature that allowed participating websites to publish stories on your Facebook account about the dealings you had had with them - e.g. items you've bought, or in this case, films you've rented.
Beacon was particularly controversial because it was not only opt-out, you couldn't opt-out of it altogether, you could only opt-out on a per-participating company basis *after* that company had already published a story. Facebook has since made changes due to the backlash the original version caused.
This isn't a case of users making information available and someone else using it, this is the Blockbuster website making available information about its users who also use Facebook, apparently in direct contravention of this legislation.
Now I don't know how vigorously the rules are enforced, but certainly the times that I've worked with various governmental bodies they have been very keen indeed on using open standards and software as far as possible. It's a pragmatic approach though - if a proprietary solution really is the best, all things considered, then that's what'll be used.
The onus on providing evidence is on the person making the claim. If they can't find a source to back their claim up, then perhaps they shouldn't be making it at all. Otherwise, it's just FUD, and we all know how much we hate it when certain other people spread that...
Home has the rdp *client* of course, so you can connect out, but not the rdp *server*. Pro also ships with IIS as an optional installable extra, which Home lacks.
He's clearly not talking about providing MS with feedback when he says that, he's talking about bitching about the experience here and on other forums. Hence his very next sentence:
Now, if you install the RC on your test system, provide feedback on you major error, and then the RTM has the same problem, you can complain.
He's saying sure, install the RC and provide feedback to MS - but don't install the RC then bitch pointlessly on the web without at least also telling MS directly.
So... are you agreeing with him (that all the tales of incompatibilities are not hard data) or disagreeing with him (that his tale of compatibility is not hard data)?
Besides, as someone else has already pointed out that's not an anecdote, that's empirical data. "I heard that Vista breaks compatibility with loads of software" is an anecdote. "I installed Vista and had no issues with compatibility" or "I installed Vista and had issues with the following apps..." are not.
Well there you go then - 3 good reasons to replace them. It was an honest question; I've seen a lot of needless replacement of perfectly good hardware and software in the past. I've also seen a lot of comments about the "upgrade treadmill", as though you *have* to buy the latest version of software as soon as it comes out. Generally speaking, the old stuff doesn't magically stop working.
That said, if there's a genuine reason to replace stuff, replace it.
The women aren't naked. They are scantily clad. They have panties and pasties on, to be exact.
That's not the point.
I admit they are supposed to 'look' naked
That is.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm no prude and see nothing wrong with nudity in the right context (or pornography, for that matter), but this was not it. In fact, if you ask me it's just as demeaning to the males it was supposed to titillate as it is to the women; do they really think that we games-playing males are that juvenile? (Don't bother answering that, I play online games too...)