But it goes both ways. It'd be easier to argue that they stopped providing Wifi to stop illegal activity (In good faith) than it would be to argue that they were providing Wifi (In Good Faith) knowing that it was helping someone perform illegal downloading.
Which I mean, given the circumstances - was probably the best course of action. If someone is doing something illegal on your public network, you better cut that off ASAP so that you aren't liable. And if the people clammer about how they don't have their internets, you can tell them that one of them ruined it for the rest of them.
I have watched some pros, and most of the times, their idea is that if you can get 2 zerglings (50 mineral) to take out a drone/probe/scv you've essentially made MORE on that trade off than anything else. Because those units cost as much, AND your denting your opponents economy. (So the idea is to send in 6 to get 3 probes, or 8 to get 4 drones, etc)
I've never seen early expansion work properly in any of the pro matches I've watched, which to be honest is just short of a dozen so I'm not the know it all.
It seems like whoever can take out the opponents mineral miners first ends up doing better in the long run.
In the time that you spent calling all your lumberjacks back to your town center, your opponents 10 militia Men will take down the Lumberyard, the Mill, any mining camps you have, and utterly destroy your economy so that when you finally manage to build a Barracks farther from your base and fend him off, he'll show up with some Horsemen to finish off the army you just built, and then when you take those out he'll be at your door with Battering Rams.
Either you aren't rushing properly, or your opponents aren't.
Doesn't that mean that both the client and the server have to be running this new application to see the benefits of this? Essentially either one or the other is still going to be using HTTP if you don't set it up on both, and its only as fast as the slowest piece.
While a great initiative, it could be a while before it actually takes off. To get the rest of the world running on a new protocol will take some time, and there will no doubt be some kinks to work out.
Potato Potahto, I would agree that it isn't fair, but neither is being able to command over 100 units individually in a miniscule fraction of a second. When this kind of information isn't readily available to AI, they tend not to be difficult. I've never seen a human opponent lose against an AI when the Human goes on the offensive first.
It's been a couple of years, but whenever I watched Boxer in the Korean SC tournaments a while back - the match is usually over within 15 or 20 minutes because they'd never need to progress past Dragoons, Hydra's, or Medics.
An expansive SC player would be destroyed by 8 zerglings before he could get that second Command center off.
How would you rather it be setup? I have not found a single RTS that isn't dominated by Rushing Tactics. I still play Age of Empires 2 for the whole walling off thing but it still doesn't beat a well developed rush.
Human Advantages: Advanced Prediction Flexible Stategies Arguably Faster Learning
AI Advantages: Able to command all units at once Usually More efficient w/ resources Instant Macro management
Another advantage to the AI could include knowing the map layout and what the player has at all times, which is something the original starcraft had so the AI would know whether to rush you or not.
Indeed. Remove Administrator Access and all the REALLY nasty stuff goes away.
Then, anything else they catch can generally be ridden with Malware Bytes or Super Anti Spyware.
Only thing left to teach them is: Avoid Email attachments from unknown senders, Don't install Active X controls from porn sites, and for the love of Pete, don't go to any of the linked fileshares posted on 4chan.org
Eh, depends what you're looking at. Other Botnets have been taken down, usually by physically arresting the hacker who started it. I'm sure that they've tried to stop other Spam Botnets before. They didn't actually STOP Ozdok, they just dented it a bit.
It's difficult to track how these things start because essentially you've got about a million breadcrumbs to go through.
Lets say you've got 3 computers, A, B, and C. A infects B, B infects C. There is no direct correlation between A and C, so you have to work your way all the way up the chain. Now imagine you've got a million infected PC's. Who infected who? How do you work your way backwards? There's lots of ways to do this, most simple of which is to look at the contacts and determine which of the contacts is infected. Then determine the time and date of which the infection occured (Date Modified/Date Created on the file). Whoever was first was who infected the others.
The problem with killing it is that it has a "multi layered fallback mechanism" - which is a fancy way of saying it replicates itself. It can do this by either having a secondary program or script copy itself back onto the infected PC when it detects the original infection is gone, or it can do this by RE-infecting any of the computers it was sent to infect in the first place.
I hope thats enough to make you stagger and wonder exactly how much damage they could have possibly done to this botnet.
Reality C: It's 20xx, suddenly there's a -shortage- of oil. Similar to when a refinery gets shut down in Texas, or up here in Canada. Prices go up. People pay it. A handful of people get much richer. People decide its too expensive to drive full Gasoline. Hybrid sales go up. Other people get richer. Business holds until oil is out, which hopefully will have another energy alternative by then. The rich people have secured a major fortune for them and their family, and the world continues.
Except that Google is the one providing the service. If he doesn't want to be scanned he can put that txt file in to stop it. If he thinks that he is going to get Google to pay for Google doing work - he's very mistaken. Google will drop him like a bad habit and they will be just fine.
I think they are trying to separate themselves to state that if you want the news, come to us and do it properly.
Have you ever searched for some information, and Google gave a hit where the surrounding text of the query already answers your question? And then not clicked the website?
But those are two different scenarios, if I want the news, I WILL click on a link and read the full article (not here on/. mind you). I've never had a situation where the Headline on any news site or news article tells me enough of what I want to know.
As for the second scenario - that happens less than 1% of the time, at least for me.
Meaning if you can generalize the solution to poker, you have the ability to discover the Nash equilibrium of the economy
The general solution to poker is to end the game with everyone elses money to make yourself richer. Some people have already applied this strategy to the economy.
Easy, you don't have to disprove every possible existence first, because they are logically inconsistent with each other, based on the fact there are about 10000 distinct religions that all claim everyone who follows a different religion will be screwed/go to hell/reincarnated as a worm
Citation needed.
According to David Barrett et al, editors of the "World Christian Encyclopedia: A comparative survey of churches and religions - AD 30 to 2200," there are 19 major world religions which are subdivided into a total of 270 large religious groups, and many smaller ones. 34,000 separate Christian groups have been identified in the world.
For starters, there aren't 10,000 'distinct' religions. Most research I've found list there as being 20 major ones. Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are all based on the story of Abraham. And many denominations of Christianity and Judaism, as well as eastern some Religions such as Buddhism are more tolerant and allow marriages and other rituals to take place including people of different faiths.
Given that your statistical group of data is now about 20 items, and that more than 50% of them guide the same moral values (Don't Steal, Don't Kill), and even have the same historical background, you can't just spell it out as black and white one is right and one is wrong. And most religious leaders would agree that this is the case. The Pope and the Dalai Lama have both stated that they would rather you believe in something that directs you towards upkeeping higher moral standards than believing in nothing at all.
The problem is that when people try to disprove the existance of a God, all they really do is disprove a Religions way of life. I can believe in God without being a Catholic. So when they quote the Bible, the Qur'An, or any ancient manuscripts, they aren't arguing with me, they're arguing with someone else.
Slashdot Mirror
The making guns illegal part. Spines and brains irrelevant.
I would be all for that, actually.
But it goes both ways.
It'd be easier to argue that they stopped providing Wifi to stop illegal activity (In good faith)
than it would be to argue that they were providing Wifi (In Good Faith) knowing that it was helping someone perform illegal downloading.
Denying people a public service such as Wifi hardly seems like "Collective Punishment".
They were trying to take themselves off the liability list. Something illegal going down? Don't aid it.
Which I mean, given the circumstances - was probably the best course of action. If someone is doing something illegal on your public network, you better cut that off ASAP so that you aren't liable. And if the people clammer about how they don't have their internets, you can tell them that one of them ruined it for the rest of them.
I have watched some pros, and most of the times, their idea is that if you can get 2 zerglings (50 mineral) to take out a drone/probe/scv you've essentially made MORE on that trade off than anything else. Because those units cost as much, AND your denting your opponents economy. (So the idea is to send in 6 to get 3 probes, or 8 to get 4 drones, etc)
I've never seen early expansion work properly in any of the pro matches I've watched, which to be honest is just short of a dozen so I'm not the know it all.
It seems like whoever can take out the opponents mineral miners first ends up doing better in the long run.
In the time that you spent calling all your lumberjacks back to your town center, your opponents 10 militia Men will take down the Lumberyard, the Mill, any mining camps you have, and utterly destroy your economy so that when you finally manage to build a Barracks farther from your base and fend him off, he'll show up with some Horsemen to finish off the army you just built, and then when you take those out he'll be at your door with Battering Rams.
Either you aren't rushing properly, or your opponents aren't.
I think you mean SNKY
Doesn't that mean that both the client and the server have to be running this new application to see the benefits of this? Essentially either one or the other is still going to be using HTTP if you don't set it up on both, and its only as fast as the slowest piece.
While a great initiative, it could be a while before it actually takes off. To get the rest of the world running on a new protocol will take some time, and there will no doubt be some kinks to work out.
But if anyone could do it, it'd be Google.
Potato Potahto, I would agree that it isn't fair, but neither is being able to command over 100 units individually in a miniscule fraction of a second. When this kind of information isn't readily available to AI, they tend not to be difficult. I've never seen a human opponent lose against an AI when the Human goes on the offensive first.
It's been a couple of years, but whenever I watched Boxer in the Korean SC tournaments a while back - the match is usually over within 15 or 20 minutes because they'd never need to progress past Dragoons, Hydra's, or Medics.
An expansive SC player would be destroyed by 8 zerglings before he could get that second Command center off.
How would you rather it be setup? I have not found a single RTS that isn't dominated by Rushing Tactics. I still play Age of Empires 2 for the whole walling off thing but it still doesn't beat a well developed rush.
Human Advantages:
Advanced Prediction
Flexible Stategies
Arguably Faster Learning
AI Advantages:
Able to command all units at once
Usually More efficient w/ resources
Instant Macro management
Another advantage to the AI could include knowing the map layout and what the player has at all times, which is something the original starcraft had so the AI would know whether to rush you or not.
Indeed. Remove Administrator Access and all the REALLY nasty stuff goes away.
Then, anything else they catch can generally be ridden with Malware Bytes or Super Anti Spyware.
Only thing left to teach them is: Avoid Email attachments from unknown senders, Don't install Active X controls from porn sites, and for the love of Pete, don't go to any of the linked fileshares posted on 4chan.org
Eh, depends what you're looking at. Other Botnets have been taken down, usually by physically arresting the hacker who started it. I'm sure that they've tried to stop other Spam Botnets before. They didn't actually STOP Ozdok, they just dented it a bit.
It's difficult to track how these things start because essentially you've got about a million breadcrumbs to go through.
Lets say you've got 3 computers, A, B, and C. A infects B, B infects C. There is no direct correlation between A and C, so you have to work your way all the way up the chain. Now imagine you've got a million infected PC's. Who infected who? How do you work your way backwards? There's lots of ways to do this, most simple of which is to look at the contacts and determine which of the contacts is infected. Then determine the time and date of which the infection occured (Date Modified/Date Created on the file). Whoever was first was who infected the others.
The problem with killing it is that it has a "multi layered fallback mechanism" - which is a fancy way of saying it replicates itself. It can do this by either having a secondary program or script copy itself back onto the infected PC when it detects the original infection is gone, or it can do this by RE-infecting any of the computers it was sent to infect in the first place.
I hope thats enough to make you stagger and wonder exactly how much damage they could have possibly done to this botnet.
I don't believe in Conspiracy Theories.
They're all a conspiracy.
Exactly. The only thing more annoying then a Conspiracy Theorist is someone who believes conspiracies don't exist.
Just because its not a huge, elaborate ploy, doesn't mean that there isn't SOMETHING underhanded going on, even if its just 1 individual.
Reality C: It's 20xx, suddenly there's a -shortage- of oil. Similar to when a refinery gets shut down in Texas, or up here in Canada. Prices go up. People pay it. A handful of people get much richer. People decide its too expensive to drive full Gasoline. Hybrid sales go up. Other people get richer. Business holds until oil is out, which hopefully will have another energy alternative by then. The rich people have secured a major fortune for them and their family, and the world continues.
In fact, cars [...] can't even hold still against the Earth's natural rotation
So thats where it went. I thought the worst when I left my keys in the ignition.
I mean its cool and all, but I'm not sure I see where this is going. Can someone enlighten me?
Except that Google is the one providing the service. If he doesn't want to be scanned he can put that txt file in to stop it. If he thinks that he is going to get Google to pay for Google doing work - he's very mistaken. Google will drop him like a bad habit and they will be just fine.
I think they are trying to separate themselves to state that if you want the news, come to us and do it properly.
Have you ever searched for some information, and Google gave a hit where the surrounding text of the query already answers your question? And then not clicked the website?
But those are two different scenarios, if I want the news, I WILL click on a link and read the full article (not here on /. mind you). I've never had a situation where the Headline on any news site or news article tells me enough of what I want to know.
As for the second scenario - that happens less than 1% of the time, at least for me.
He wants to make more money by making his headlines not available to the top search engine?
Meaning if you can generalize the solution to poker, you have the ability to discover the Nash equilibrium of the economy
The general solution to poker is to end the game with everyone elses money to make yourself richer. Some people have already applied this strategy to the economy.
Easy, you don't have to disprove every possible existence first, because they are logically inconsistent with each other, based on the fact there are about 10000 distinct religions that all claim everyone who follows a different religion will be screwed/go to hell/reincarnated as a worm
Citation needed.
According to David Barrett et al, editors of the "World Christian Encyclopedia: A comparative survey of churches and religions - AD 30 to 2200," there are 19 major world religions which are subdivided into a total of 270 large religious groups, and many smaller ones. 34,000 separate Christian groups have been identified in the world.
For starters, there aren't 10,000 'distinct' religions. Most research I've found list there as being 20 major ones. Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are all based on the story of Abraham. And many denominations of Christianity and Judaism, as well as eastern some Religions such as Buddhism are more tolerant and allow marriages and other rituals to take place including people of different faiths.
Given that your statistical group of data is now about 20 items, and that more than 50% of them guide the same moral values (Don't Steal, Don't Kill), and even have the same historical background, you can't just spell it out as black and white one is right and one is wrong. And most religious leaders would agree that this is the case. The Pope and the Dalai Lama have both stated that they would rather you believe in something that directs you towards upkeeping higher moral standards than believing in nothing at all.
The problem is that when people try to disprove the existance of a God, all they really do is disprove a Religions way of life. I can believe in God without being a Catholic. So when they quote the Bible, the Qur'An, or any ancient manuscripts, they aren't arguing with me, they're arguing with someone else.