Yep, I think the sane assumption is that they probably already CAN link the information from these accounts unless you were insanely careful and secretive at all time. The question would be, do they, and if they do, what thing might they use the information for in the future?
Theoretically right, but we will not have any way of assessing if the engine is worth the money unless it is open to 3rd parties for development as well.
If that's not a thing that works out for you, instead of DLC, sell us games, as you always did, because we don't want to pay in the hope future games for a certain engine will be good.
Re:Won't bode well with the gaming community...
on
DRM vs. Unfinished Games
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Well, Gamers don't care about what might happen. Fact is, most games with DLC haven't been cheaper. DLC couldn't be resold. These two already make DLC very unattractive, but all the hassle with installing it and such that may occur and being nagged to buy more inside the game world (as some games with DLC do) also reduce enjoyment of the actual game.
So, plain and simple, we haven't come close to any sane form of DLC so far and you'd first have to show that it has significant advantages for the players, before you can label people "alarmist". At the moment, it is just an undesirable thing from the perspective of a consumer.
No, books sell as a whole unit. They may not be as good or make as much sense without the first book in the series, but they are sold independently and without restrictions on reselling or anything like that.
DLC is both a restriction on reselling as well as (usually) introducing a dependence on having one or more books of the series already. And you can't buy it used from anyone else in most cases.
Besides, most DLC that actually exists right now is more like a tenth of the next book. That sort of unit is too small, only the comic and manga industry has had long-lasting success with it, and only because it helped them to keep their audience entertained better by leveling off an otherwise fairly much fluctuating output per artist group. And you still could buy these comic/manga magazines and compilations independently and resell them.
Maybe you should find a bank that will just let you have access with the SSN or such blocked and tell them to let you withdraw with your ATM card or against (nationally issued) ID verification only. You may not have realized this but signatures on checks / credit cards are also ridiculously insecure, same as your SSN.
At worst, you'll only find such a bank account abroads - however, they're easy to find anywhere else but in the US. Put your savings there, use the national account only for more frequent payments - if it only has a few thousand bucks in there and won't allow overdraft, the risk is very limited.
Wrong, I think it is a business model in the world of Windows. Wait until MS finally forces 64 bit onto everyone and everyone is going to have enough RAM to require an update and then sell a new edition of your software product line simply with this update. Much better than to compete with yourself by entering the 64 bit market when there still is low demand.
The more popular open source OS' on the other hand actually have long needed to run on very high end servers and hence are already running 64 bit in terms of OS and server software. And the remaining applications on these OS are simply works of love and got the update because it was simple to do (it also is so on windows, but there's more profit in waiting for Microsoft to force user's hands).
Or maybe they were not so foolish since advertisers and others can actually trust the ranking. Secrecy isn't always good for business, even if you're absolutely dependent on some business secrets perhaps the core of what you're doing is best not to be secret, only the finer details on how to do it well.
Yep, especially the many animals we eat. Fishes, Cows, Pigs... all sure have got meat on them, but they are all also quite intelligent (apparently a trait that helps if you're a large chunk of calories and out there in nature, surprise surprise). They are simply not nearly as stupid as was believed for centuries.
Compiling that can only work only to a small degree with existing languages, so far. The problem with these is that you very, very often ask things to be done that can't be done in parallel. And any program section where only one out of a million cores is working is REAL poison to your program's overall performance.
So, we will need libraries or programming languages (the latter may be preferrable) that simply don't allow for non-parallel programming - unless the programmer programatically states he REALLY, REALLY can't avoid it and is encouraged to keep these sections as small and as much separed from the rest of the program as possible.
And if you then go into parallel processing in the sense of a comparatively slowly interconnected cluster, you additionally need ways to chop up data, estimates which processors are best suited for a task and ways to measure that up to the cost of passing data somewhere, and much much more. Some of these problems may also need to be reflected in constraints applied to programming libraries and languages, again.
There will probably be quite a few generations of hardware and software "tooling" to be done until we have anything that really feels both convenient/easy to work with and does not require much thinking to be made run efficiently in such a massively parallel setting.
I also think this is US internal politics at play.
Capturing spies is somewhat offensive anyhow, you just know any country won't stop needing information about the very existential (nuclear) threat- nor will it be wise to stop the other country from acquiring a good amount of information or stop all its spies, for that matter. It doesn't mean that you have to tolerate industrial / technology espionage, but letting spies check on the military / civilian industry is unavoidable when you're essentially in a nuclear stalemate with other nations. Taking 10 of them into custody for shady reasons is nothing but a stupid political statement of a group dissenting with current domestic politics, an attempt to cajole the Russians into doing the same to force hands.
Lets see if someone reviews and influences the case in the white house.
"Now suppose that the older child isn’t a boy born on Tuesday." <- simply put, this part does now specify something about Tuesday. It comes later in the article... as a second problem.
Actually, I doubt this statement. Humanity is not, by nature, only interested in a single partner - as should be quite evident. Forcing people to "promise fidelity" in relationships for them to be socially sanctioned is one of the modern social fallacies. Cheating is no less or more rational than having sex or offspring - it is all instincts.
Just because societies of old were incapable to control diseases (which apparently easily transmit during sexual intercourse) and organize good care for kids or alternatively do safe abortions by other means, it does not mean monogamy is a law of nature or should be a rule in modern society...
"I have two children, one of whom" says two, and exactly two need to be considered. No use considering all sorts of possibilities that were not mentioned in maths. That's something "riddles" more based in language love to do, but not maths.
And indeed, it does not say the other child can't be a son born on a Tuesday until the second problem in the article comes up, which reads "Now suppose that the older child isn’t a boy born on Tuesday.".
But the problem that immediately follows is: Encrypted - to who? Because if you don't have strong guarantees, these two are nearly indistinguishable save for a fraction of time used to do the en/decryption which is not noticeable on normal internet connections:
You <-> Bank
OR
You <-> Man in the middle <-> Bank
Either of these will be encrypted from your point of view - but in one case, Man in the Middle forwards data while not having encrypted access.
The only thing that makes something better with encryption is that many browsers remember the certificates they were given. People connect from different locations, so chances are that if the man in the middle is not located right "in front" of the server it covers, people will eventually find that they're getting a different certificate based on where they try to connect from, and raise alarm. This, however, should not be relied on for pages that presumably don't get too many visitors.
"I have two children, one of whom is a son born on a Tuesday. What is the probability that I have two boys?"
and
"Now suppose that the older child isn’t a boy born on Tuesday."
It is futile to discuss that one is not the other. That was already a fact in the article.
Regardless of that, I think the article is very misleading and the probabilities are all wrong for the wording given. Even the original "The Two Children Problem" he refers to was phrased ambiguously, so taking only one of the possible probabilities into consideration seems silly.
Perhaps this is because the biggest need in open source gaming, for a long time now, has been to get better game mechanics than commercial games, not better graphics. Having more fun with the game is surely worth some work, but just better graphics - not so much, apparently. Maybe if it become really easy to do better graphics it will change (I'm thinking primarily of blender, cheap & powerful 3d rendering hardware and specialized tools like makehuman if I say this). At least things sure have changed a lot for fonts and icons on desktops, since both now have great open source tools enabling the creation of these.
However, right now, for arts and graphics, you should look at the demo scene. That is where the open-source and/or indie combination of it all happens. Just not in games.
Not the same. Whether you are too risk averse or not to deal with a "slightly badly rated" person or worse is a decision that only affects you on Amazon or eBay.
However, gamers come in groups. Groups of friends, groups of people on a server etc.... This is making things much more difficult. Besides that people will be extremely inconsistent in actually giving other people negative reputation (plays too bad, plays too well, has too high a voice, talks too much, doesn't seem focused enough...), they also may game the system as groups (giving each other good reputation and undesirables bad reputation), have many identities, and more. And if one person gets banned, all of his friends and their friends may leave the game.
I'm pretty sure if you go that way, its not going to be represented well in the financial bottom line.You pretty much need an unbiased technical supervisor to combat cheating...
You're absolutely correct that there's irrational decisions. But you are not really correct in that this is a reason to "not have direct democracy", because our representatives elect are just as irrational as people are. There's quite a lot of documentation on that. Watch some recordings from brain-dead Swiss or US Senate debates (or any other nation that records and publishes its "regular" proceedings). Or perhaps the videos and reports of fighting in the russian / korean / taiwan's / ukraine's /... etc. parliament - I mean, what could they rationally hope to win by a fist fight?
This is simply a consequence of these representatives being chosen by irrational, emotionally rooted people.
However, I strongly believe direct democracy is a safeguard against despotism, and that it is safe enough with something like a "constitution" and internationally accepted laws as moderating influence. It is a good idea.
I'm sure you can find more evidence if you care enough.
Whether a human right has been dented with the minaret law is (potentially) still to be determined by some court. But I think it would sure be a tough case for the court. Determining whether towers in certain shapes can't be prohibited by a democratic and fair election isn't easy by itself, I bet. Add to that that these towers are not necessary, but only somewhat (modern-)symbolic for a certain religion...
I agree with the headlines being grossly misleading. Linux does support 4k block sizes just fine. But this is not a distro-specific issue, so you are wrong, too.
This is simply a matter of fdisk from that version of util-linux-ng (which is clearly named in the article) trusting the hardware vendor to specify correct block sizes. The vendor did not. Thus fdisk does not end up with 4k block sizes, as happens for many programs. And only(?) parted apparently contains a workaround that detects the correct block size.
Its not that you can't use parted on Gentoo, though, it is just that in the world of user choices that is Gentoo, not everyone will be using that program or that particular option.
Not ethical? Why should this person be credited?
Is the program code taken from Alain Riazuelo, or did he perhaps invent the theory behind Black Holes that made it possible to write the program from the article?
Because what is asked in research is only that the persons whose work the current publication is based on are credited, both for the sake of their achievement and to enable verification of theories that isn't only superficial (current publication).
I myself doubt that wiretapping (even without encryption) is a desirable approach to get at data, as opposed to stealing computer drives. With the drives you get everything that has not been mailed yet as well as everything from years back, all in one go. Most evil doers would not only be interested in current correspondence, no?
It is also an issue of practicality. Drive encryption is very easy and unobtrusive to deploy and manage. The basic variant uses just the same password in the same login screen.
As opposed to that, key management, and other basic usage concerns on PGP or similar are not easy. Average Joe needs to know too way too much about how these things work, and IT Staff / Power users don't get enough flexibility. Your white collar people may have spared you a LOT of annoyances while you still were sysadmin, in fact.
but what happens when the decryption mechanism or the OS crashes? [...]
It all comes down to a simple calculation - what is the mathematical probability of someone stealing my drive vs. my OS or disk crashing?(1) Anyone who has traveled knows the second far outweighs the first.
(1) As long as it is unencrypted, you can still recover it relatively easily.
Well, I'm not sure what encryption solution you might have tried. I for one have been using first TrueCrypt and then LUKS on a laptop. It traveled far and its hard disk drive already had to be replaced twice. There never were any particular pains with encryption.
First and most important of all, backups and encryption do not interfere. So you obviously DO backup such a laptop that may get stolen, lost, or break completely. Certainly, if you use encryption, you want to have the software needed to decrypt an encrypted partition it on your backup or a live DVD, but that's nothing that's hard to get.
Even filewise recovery and forensics is possible on an encrypted partition, too - as long as you have the master encryption header (or similar) backed up, there's little chance for additional problems introduced by having encryption in case of a recovery.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep, I think the sane assumption is that they probably already CAN link the information from these accounts unless you were insanely careful and secretive at all time. The question would be, do they, and if they do, what thing might they use the information for in the future?
Theoretically right, but we will not have any way of assessing if the engine is worth the money unless it is open to 3rd parties for development as well.
If that's not a thing that works out for you, instead of DLC, sell us games, as you always did, because we don't want to pay in the hope future games for a certain engine will be good.
Well, Gamers don't care about what might happen. Fact is, most games with DLC haven't been cheaper. DLC couldn't be resold. These two already make DLC very unattractive, but all the hassle with installing it and such that may occur and being nagged to buy more inside the game world (as some games with DLC do) also reduce enjoyment of the actual game.
So, plain and simple, we haven't come close to any sane form of DLC so far and you'd first have to show that it has significant advantages for the players, before you can label people "alarmist". At the moment, it is just an undesirable thing from the perspective of a consumer.
No, books sell as a whole unit. They may not be as good or make as much sense without the first book in the series, but they are sold independently and without restrictions on reselling or anything like that.
DLC is both a restriction on reselling as well as (usually) introducing a dependence on having one or more books of the series already. And you can't buy it used from anyone else in most cases.
Besides, most DLC that actually exists right now is more like a tenth of the next book. That sort of unit is too small, only the comic and manga industry has had long-lasting success with it, and only because it helped them to keep their audience entertained better by leveling off an otherwise fairly much fluctuating output per artist group. And you still could buy these comic/manga magazines and compilations independently and resell them.
Maybe you should find a bank that will just let you have access with the SSN or such blocked and tell them to let you withdraw with your ATM card or against (nationally issued) ID verification only. You may not have realized this but signatures on checks / credit cards are also ridiculously insecure, same as your SSN.
At worst, you'll only find such a bank account abroads - however, they're easy to find anywhere else but in the US. Put your savings there, use the national account only for more frequent payments - if it only has a few thousand bucks in there and won't allow overdraft, the risk is very limited.
Wrong, I think it is a business model in the world of Windows. Wait until MS finally forces 64 bit onto everyone and everyone is going to have enough RAM to require an update and then sell a new edition of your software product line simply with this update. Much better than to compete with yourself by entering the 64 bit market when there still is low demand.
The more popular open source OS' on the other hand actually have long needed to run on very high end servers and hence are already running 64 bit in terms of OS and server software. And the remaining applications on these OS are simply works of love and got the update because it was simple to do (it also is so on windows, but there's more profit in waiting for Microsoft to force user's hands).
Or maybe they were not so foolish since advertisers and others can actually trust the ranking. Secrecy isn't always good for business, even if you're absolutely dependent on some business secrets perhaps the core of what you're doing is best not to be secret, only the finer details on how to do it well.
Yep, especially the many animals we eat. Fishes, Cows, Pigs... all sure have got meat on them, but they are all also quite intelligent (apparently a trait that helps if you're a large chunk of calories and out there in nature, surprise surprise). They are simply not nearly as stupid as was believed for centuries.
Compiling that can only work only to a small degree with existing languages, so far. The problem with these is that you very, very often ask things to be done that can't be done in parallel. And any program section where only one out of a million cores is working is REAL poison to your program's overall performance.
So, we will need libraries or programming languages (the latter may be preferrable) that simply don't allow for non-parallel programming - unless the programmer programatically states he REALLY, REALLY can't avoid it and is encouraged to keep these sections as small and as much separed from the rest of the program as possible.
And if you then go into parallel processing in the sense of a comparatively slowly interconnected cluster, you additionally need ways to chop up data, estimates which processors are best suited for a task and ways to measure that up to the cost of passing data somewhere, and much much more. Some of these problems may also need to be reflected in constraints applied to programming libraries and languages, again.
There will probably be quite a few generations of hardware and software "tooling" to be done until we have anything that really feels both convenient/easy to work with and does not require much thinking to be made run efficiently in such a massively parallel setting.
I also think this is US internal politics at play.
Capturing spies is somewhat offensive anyhow, you just know any country won't stop needing information about the very existential (nuclear) threat- nor will it be wise to stop the other country from acquiring a good amount of information or stop all its spies, for that matter. It doesn't mean that you have to tolerate industrial / technology espionage, but letting spies check on the military / civilian industry is unavoidable when you're essentially in a nuclear stalemate with other nations. Taking 10 of them into custody for shady reasons is nothing but a stupid political statement of a group dissenting with current domestic politics, an attempt to cajole the Russians into doing the same to force hands.
Lets see if someone reviews and influences the case in the white house.
Right, I apologize. It is the second half of the evaluation, not a second problem.
"Now suppose that the older child isn’t a boy born on Tuesday." <- simply put, this part does now specify something about Tuesday. It comes later in the article... as a second problem.
Actually, I doubt this statement. Humanity is not, by nature, only interested in a single partner - as should be quite evident. Forcing people to "promise fidelity" in relationships for them to be socially sanctioned is one of the modern social fallacies. Cheating is no less or more rational than having sex or offspring - it is all instincts.
Just because societies of old were incapable to control diseases (which apparently easily transmit during sexual intercourse) and organize good care for kids or alternatively do safe abortions by other means, it does not mean monogamy is a law of nature or should be a rule in modern society...
Let me correct my last sentence and say that the problems in the initial part of the article are what is very misleading. Not the article as a whole.
"I have two children, one of whom" says two, and exactly two need to be considered. No use considering all sorts of possibilities that were not mentioned in maths. That's something "riddles" more based in language love to do, but not maths.
And indeed, it does not say the other child can't be a son born on a Tuesday until the second problem in the article comes up, which reads "Now suppose that the older child isn’t a boy born on Tuesday.".
But the problem that immediately follows is: Encrypted - to who? Because if you don't have strong guarantees, these two are nearly indistinguishable save for a fraction of time used to do the en/decryption which is not noticeable on normal internet connections:
You <-> Bank
OR
You <-> Man in the middle <-> Bank
Either of these will be encrypted from your point of view - but in one case, Man in the Middle forwards data while not having encrypted access.
The only thing that makes something better with encryption is that many browsers remember the certificates they were given. People connect from different locations, so chances are that if the man in the middle is not located right "in front" of the server it covers, people will eventually find that they're getting a different certificate based on where they try to connect from, and raise alarm. This, however, should not be relied on for pages that presumably don't get too many visitors.
"I have two children, one of whom is a son born on a Tuesday. What is the probability that I have two boys?" and "Now suppose that the older child isn’t a boy born on Tuesday."
It is futile to discuss that one is not the other. That was already a fact in the article.
Regardless of that, I think the article is very misleading and the probabilities are all wrong for the wording given. Even the original "The Two Children Problem" he refers to was phrased ambiguously, so taking only one of the possible probabilities into consideration seems silly.
You could say this is true for games. Yes.
Perhaps this is because the biggest need in open source gaming, for a long time now, has been to get better game mechanics than commercial games, not better graphics. Having more fun with the game is surely worth some work, but just better graphics - not so much, apparently. Maybe if it become really easy to do better graphics it will change (I'm thinking primarily of blender, cheap & powerful 3d rendering hardware and specialized tools like makehuman if I say this). At least things sure have changed a lot for fonts and icons on desktops, since both now have great open source tools enabling the creation of these.
However, right now, for arts and graphics, you should look at the demo scene. That is where the open-source and/or indie combination of it all happens. Just not in games.
Not the same. Whether you are too risk averse or not to deal with a "slightly badly rated" person or worse is a decision that only affects you on Amazon or eBay.
... This is making things much more difficult. Besides that people will be extremely inconsistent in actually giving other people negative reputation (plays too bad, plays too well, has too high a voice, talks too much, doesn't seem focused enough...), they also may game the system as groups (giving each other good reputation and undesirables bad reputation), have many identities, and more. And if one person gets banned, all of his friends and their friends may leave the game.
However, gamers come in groups. Groups of friends, groups of people on a server etc.
I'm pretty sure if you go that way, its not going to be represented well in the financial bottom line.You pretty much need an unbiased technical supervisor to combat cheating...
You're absolutely correct that there's irrational decisions. But you are not really correct in that this is a reason to "not have direct democracy", because our representatives elect are just as irrational as people are. There's quite a lot of documentation on that. Watch some recordings from brain-dead Swiss or US Senate debates (or any other nation that records and publishes its "regular" proceedings). Or perhaps the videos and reports of fighting in the russian / korean / taiwan's / ukraine's / ... etc. parliament - I mean, what could they rationally hope to win by a fist fight?
This is simply a consequence of these representatives being chosen by irrational, emotionally rooted people.
However, I strongly believe direct democracy is a safeguard against despotism, and that it is safe enough with something like a "constitution" and internationally accepted laws as moderating influence. It is a good idea.
Agreed. Free speech is not really in danger in switzerland:
Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index 2009
Freedom house
I'm sure you can find more evidence if you care enough.
Whether a human right has been dented with the minaret law is (potentially) still to be determined by some court. But I think it would sure be a tough case for the court. Determining whether towers in certain shapes can't be prohibited by a democratic and fair election isn't easy by itself, I bet. Add to that that these towers are not necessary, but only somewhat (modern-)symbolic for a certain religion...
I agree with the headlines being grossly misleading. Linux does support 4k block sizes just fine. But this is not a distro-specific issue, so you are wrong, too.
This is simply a matter of fdisk from that version of util-linux-ng (which is clearly named in the article) trusting the hardware vendor to specify correct block sizes. The vendor did not. Thus fdisk does not end up with 4k block sizes, as happens for many programs. And only(?) parted apparently contains a workaround that detects the correct block size.
Its not that you can't use parted on Gentoo, though, it is just that in the world of user choices that is Gentoo, not everyone will be using that program or that particular option.
Not ethical? Why should this person be credited?
Is the program code taken from Alain Riazuelo, or did he perhaps invent the theory behind Black Holes that made it possible to write the program from the article?
Because what is asked in research is only that the persons whose work the current publication is based on are credited, both for the sake of their achievement and to enable verification of theories that isn't only superficial (current publication).
I myself doubt that wiretapping (even without encryption) is a desirable approach to get at data, as opposed to stealing computer drives. With the drives you get everything that has not been mailed yet as well as everything from years back, all in one go. Most evil doers would not only be interested in current correspondence, no?
It is also an issue of practicality. Drive encryption is very easy and unobtrusive to deploy and manage. The basic variant uses just the same password in the same login screen.
As opposed to that, key management, and other basic usage concerns on PGP or similar are not easy. Average Joe needs to know too way too much about how these things work, and IT Staff / Power users don't get enough flexibility. Your white collar people may have spared you a LOT of annoyances while you still were sysadmin, in fact.
but what happens when the decryption mechanism or the OS crashes? [...]
It all comes down to a simple calculation - what is the mathematical probability of someone stealing my drive vs. my OS or disk crashing?(1) Anyone who has traveled knows the second far outweighs the first.
(1) As long as it is unencrypted, you can still recover it relatively easily.
Well, I'm not sure what encryption solution you might have tried. I for one have been using first TrueCrypt and then LUKS on a laptop. It traveled far and its hard disk drive already had to be replaced twice. There never were any particular pains with encryption.
First and most important of all, backups and encryption do not interfere. So you obviously DO backup such a laptop that may get stolen, lost, or break completely. Certainly, if you use encryption, you want to have the software needed to decrypt an encrypted partition it on your backup or a live DVD, but that's nothing that's hard to get.
Even filewise recovery and forensics is possible on an encrypted partition, too - as long as you have the master encryption header (or similar) backed up, there's little chance for additional problems introduced by having encryption in case of a recovery.