An operating system should be just that. If you want a version of Windows bundled with Office, great, but the OS should be exactly the same in both cases.
As for "useless services running in the background", while many might not be necessary, most users won't know which usage cases would require which services. You can open up a list of all services and decide which you don't want to start, already, but presenting users with this choice is pointless. If you're thinking "for the games, just remove all the ones that gamers don't need", then just stop. Gamers use a lot of services, even ones you'd never think games would use.
Do you know which services are used by all game DRMs out there? Which services are required by emulators? Which services are required by virtualisation? Which services are required for syncing all this with your 3D TV? Which services are required to handle the decryption of your blu-ray movies? Which services are used to handle the authentication of that? I could go on and on, but I'm working so must cut this short.
Thinking that a "gaming OS" would just be "OpenGL drivers and something to let you add hardware" is very short-sighted. Our modern systems are fairly complex as are our modern games. The tools used by developers require far more of the OS than you can imagine, and if you think Windows loads a bunch of useless services, then I suggest firing up SteamOSwhich *is* a dedicated gaming OS and look at just how many processes it requires.
If the 'oblivious' drivers are driving at the speed limit, however, the cars wouldn't tell each other to "move over", and you'd still be behind them. You reek of self-importance.
No, not really - and as I was writing it I thought "I bet someone's gonna bring Moore's Law into this and then I'm going to have to explain". So I'll explain - the 50,000 years was a figure thrown out there. Really, as long at time taken > life expectancy, OP won't be able to find a result. The actual time to perform that many encryption cycles would be in the millions of years. If Moore's Law progresses over time that would certainly be brought down, but not within OPs lifetime. Then you've got to compare the data set. Nevermind that physically storing that many 32-bit strings would take more atoms than exist on our planet. The point was simply that OPs suggestion was ridiculous.
And when you're done in 50000 years with our current supercomputers, let us know the results. The number of possible combinations is a bit over 170141183460469231731687303715884105728. Good luck with your bubble-sort.
Yeah, my thoughts entirely. Was a little surprised this was making "news" since I've been using sat-based wifi whilst flying over the Pacific for a few years now on several carriers.
Funny.. I've had a sore neck and within 15 minutes I'd been seen by a doctor and was being wheeled in for a CT scan. Maybe call an ambulance next time you're in Australia and have a medical emergency?
On my debit card I get the regular VISA protection which I've had to call on a couple of times to get fraudulent charges removed. My partner has had the bank call her to ask if her debit card was really being used in Manilla. Generally I guess the protection you get varies between banks and providers, but I've been happy with the service I've received. One of the limitations of a debit card is that you can't perform "I got the service I paid for but decided I didn't like it so want my money back" charge-backs.
Rewards, now there's the first real reason I've heard that it can be useful to have a credit card.:) I'm not denying there are any positives to CCs, was simply calling out OP on his inability to name them, and his labelling of debit cards as "evil and useless" as somewhat ridiculous considering the alternatives. Most people can't pay off their CC each month and end up in debt. CCs let people spend beyond their means - it's the whole idea of them. Unfortunately, also, many folks DO pay fees on their credit cards. Also, many people are stupid. Just saying, debit cards aren't, per se.:)
If you have money to pay off the CC, then the credit card is unnecessary and stupid. Why would you need to maintain a line of credit just to pay it off with cash you already have? This is where a debit card's perfect. It's a credit card you can use everywhere and costs you less to run. While most online vendors may charge you a credit card fee even for using a debit card, almost no retailer ever will. To them, it's just an EFTPOS card. You gain the convenience of a credit card with the general fee-freeness of an EFTPOS card.
Where the evil comes in is that the whole premise of the credit card is the financial institutions hope that you *can't* pay it off by its due date, at which stage they get to start charging you interest.
If you have the cash to pay off a credit card, then I can't see any good reason to have a credit card instead of a debit card. To pay more fees? How's that a bonus for you?
> perhaps short of every participating computer having a quantum component that stops working as soon as you observe it. Shh.. don't give them any ideas.;)
They don't even need to do that - in most devices the CMOS is a square and it's simply software which dictates whether the output is portrait or landscape. You could simply force it to capture widescreen even when held in portrait mode. Probably the reason they don't do this is it would confuse the folks who.. don't understand this stuff. "I'm holding it vertically, why isn't it recording vertically?" Actually - it's really just usability, but perhaps there should be an option on most of these devices "Always capture widescreen video".
Now.. some devices do have slightly wider than tall CMOS sensors, such as the iPhone 5s slightly landscape sensor, but a minor down-sampling of video resolution (since, if it's in portrait mode, the sensor is portrait so not quite as wide) would have little effect - especially on the majority of camera phones which don't record 1080p in the first place, so a "full-width" 720p widescreen video could be captured in portrait mode anyhow.
You can search this on your own. The general consensus is that the "many eyes" theory is flawed, and outside a few exceptions where a particular product has been security hardened beyond usual standards, most experts agree open source software in general tends to be no more or less secure than proprietary software. On the flip-side however, it is true that when the source code for a closed-source product does get compromised, we do generally get a new flood of exploits.
While that's true, the stats would likely show something in the region of 95% of XBMC users never installing any plugins or make any display changes, just using it as a DLNA streamer.
Talking about the likelihood of a manned mission to Europa, in a story about a manned mission to Europa, replying to a post about whether we should send people to Europa, is on topic, whether I decide it is or not. The irony of your statement, while you're changing topics, is delicious.
You clearly have nothing productive to add to the discussion if you don't want to talk about the the possibility of a manned mission to Europa. You're speculating down an endless path of "what-ifs" and examples that have nothing to do with the mission in question. Don't bother replying - won't be reading. The chances of you contributing anything useful are.. about the same as the chances of humans being sent on a one-way scientific mission to Europa. Not going to happen.
No, I don't believe they're going to send old or terminally ill people to Europa either. Nor to establish a permanent colony there, although if they were going to, that would fall within "continued survivability". You're getting further and further off-topic. I've never spoken about the likelihood of putting manned bases on Mars, or unrecoverable colonization trips to deep space, or whatever else you can conjure up. You're arguing for the sake of it - bringing up the fact that people die eventually as a counterpoint to a suicide mission being unlikely?
My original post was only ever pointing out that they will not send people on a one-way scientific mission to Europa. It's not going to happen. If you want to argue, structure your argument around that statement, not around other unrelated concepts you've imagined. You're saying "why send people?" - I'm saying "They're not going to send people - at least not one way, which means, not likely at all." You should be taking comfort in that fact, not trying to make up abstract arguments which have nothing to do with any of my posts on the subject.
I understand what you're saying, and indeed, many astronauts, and dozens of test pilots have been killed in high risk endeavors. But I don't agree this is necessarily a counterpoint to my argument - that being, the government will not send astronauts on a known one-way trip to Europa where there is no possibility of recovery or continued survival. Clearly, by your last sentence, you disagree with with my sentiments and that's fine - I just don't find "people have died before, unintentionally" to be a realistic counter-argument.
I should really clarify - I am only talking about the mission to Europa. "the government is not going to send people on a one-way trip to a moon with no prospect of survival". I fully agree there would be circumstances where even the US government would happily send people to their death - as you point out, they've done so before - although most instances (largely, during war times) are not public knowledge. I'm just saying, a scientific mission to Europa is not going to be one of those instances.
We won't be sending humans on a one-way trip. That's a pipe dream at this stage. Short of a dictatorship forcing people to go, the government is not going to send people on a one-way trip to a moon with no prospect of survival. Those who volunteer for such an endeavour are generally not going to be useful to your mission in a scientific capacity.
Both the Borderlands world and gameplay style would make for a great MMO and I sorely hope to see it done one day. The respawn rates, loot distribution, etc, have already been designed nicely around both a perpetual multiplayer and continuing singleplayer experience. Sure, they'd have to open the world up a bit more, make maps much larger than they already are, etc, but Borderlands seems a great contender for "could be an awesome MMOFPSRPGOMGBBQ"
So it doesn't seem so harsh, I believe OP was referring to Zahn, since he presents the video. >"I'm an ideas man with a lot of reputation, and you're giving me money due to the reputation..." So don't take it personally.:)
A big fan of the Conqueror's trilogy, must have read all 3 books at least half a dozen times. It's a shame I can't stand 4X games! I'd prefer to see someone with a bit more gaming clout trying to take on such a rich universe, as the majority of 4X indies made in the past few years have been sorely lacking anything appealing. Good luck to them, however! I'll probably keep my Zahn funding to buying books rather than games, unless this one manages to turn out amazing.
Can't fathom slapping down $30 on a 4X though. It's a genre with such a narrow cone of interest that the nuances in each individual title mean that a small select group will love it, and everyone else (even fans of other 4X titles) will hate it. Wake me again when it's closer to launch date and we can see what we're getting into.
> Your anxiety issues can be treated, the Internet is not proper treatment, Firstly, who said my anxiety was anything to do with the internet? I never even mentioned a computer. Stop making up shit.
> You use the Internet as a crutch. Man up and fucking go see a damn doctor and stop being such a coward. I said I don't make effort to hide my online activities. I'm not talking about myself. I'm respecting those who do want to maintain their privacy.
> You were NEVER anonymous on the Internet, you have ALWAYS been logged, you just aren't smart enough to realize it. Huh? Of course I realize that. I've been building networks since before the net existed. I just posted yesterday in fact about the futility of trying to hide your information on the net - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4173525&cid=44773011
You're completely mis-understanding me. We're probably on the same page in a lot of respects. My issue isn't that you're suggesting that the internet isn't secure. My issue is that you make no distinction between people who "have to hide" and people who "want to hide".
> I made no mention of that retarded 'nothing to hide nothing to fear' crap, you did. You did - as soon as you failed to make the above distinction, you treated people who want to hide but have nothing to fear as being in the same group as people who NEED to hide. For example, you said TOR is only really used by "uber nerds, pedophiles and bot nets".. So - anyone who uses TOR because they want to hide, who isn't an uber nerd or a bot is.. a pedophile?
I'm simply pointing out that your argument basically strips down the internet population into - precisely - those who have nothing to hide and those who need to hide. Not only are the two not mutually exclusive, but it completely ignores the category that the majority of people fall into who want to keep their privacy - those who have nothing to hide but want to hide anyway.
Your line of thinking is very near to treating anyone who uses encryption, or encrypted channels, or any means of trying to secure the communications, pre-emptively criminal. It's a line of thinking that needs to be stamped out whenever it's seen.
I'm not imposing anything on anyone. Far from it - I'm saying if people want to be left alone, then leave them alone. Unless you already have evidence they're committing a crime, then nothing they do is yours or my business. OP was saying "if you have to hide, stay off the internet". I'm saying that premise is offensive, primarily in that he's suggesting that people who "have to hide" are the same as people who "want to hide".
Slashdot Mirror
No.
An operating system should be just that. If you want a version of Windows bundled with Office, great, but the OS should be exactly the same in both cases.
As for "useless services running in the background", while many might not be necessary, most users won't know which usage cases would require which services. You can open up a list of all services and decide which you don't want to start, already, but presenting users with this choice is pointless. If you're thinking "for the games, just remove all the ones that gamers don't need", then just stop. Gamers use a lot of services, even ones you'd never think games would use.
Do you know which services are used by all game DRMs out there? Which services are required by emulators? Which services are required by virtualisation? Which services are required for syncing all this with your 3D TV? Which services are required to handle the decryption of your blu-ray movies? Which services are used to handle the authentication of that? I could go on and on, but I'm working so must cut this short.
Thinking that a "gaming OS" would just be "OpenGL drivers and something to let you add hardware" is very short-sighted. Our modern systems are fairly complex as are our modern games. The tools used by developers require far more of the OS than you can imagine, and if you think Windows loads a bunch of useless services, then I suggest firing up SteamOSwhich *is* a dedicated gaming OS and look at just how many processes it requires.
If the 'oblivious' drivers are driving at the speed limit, however, the cars wouldn't tell each other to "move over", and you'd still be behind them. You reek of self-importance.
No, not really - and as I was writing it I thought "I bet someone's gonna bring Moore's Law into this and then I'm going to have to explain". So I'll explain - the 50,000 years was a figure thrown out there. Really, as long at time taken > life expectancy, OP won't be able to find a result. The actual time to perform that many encryption cycles would be in the millions of years. If Moore's Law progresses over time that would certainly be brought down, but not within OPs lifetime. Then you've got to compare the data set. Nevermind that physically storing that many 32-bit strings would take more atoms than exist on our planet. The point was simply that OPs suggestion was ridiculous.
And when you're done in 50000 years with our current supercomputers, let us know the results. The number of possible combinations is a bit over 170141183460469231731687303715884105728. Good luck with your bubble-sort.
Yeah, my thoughts entirely. Was a little surprised this was making "news" since I've been using sat-based wifi whilst flying over the Pacific for a few years now on several carriers.
It's just a joke.
Funny.. I've had a sore neck and within 15 minutes I'd been seen by a doctor and was being wheeled in for a CT scan. Maybe call an ambulance next time you're in Australia and have a medical emergency?
On my debit card I get the regular VISA protection which I've had to call on a couple of times to get fraudulent charges removed. My partner has had the bank call her to ask if her debit card was really being used in Manilla. Generally I guess the protection you get varies between banks and providers, but I've been happy with the service I've received. One of the limitations of a debit card is that you can't perform "I got the service I paid for but decided I didn't like it so want my money back" charge-backs.
Rewards, now there's the first real reason I've heard that it can be useful to have a credit card. :) I'm not denying there are any positives to CCs, was simply calling out OP on his inability to name them, and his labelling of debit cards as "evil and useless" as somewhat ridiculous considering the alternatives. Most people can't pay off their CC each month and end up in debt. CCs let people spend beyond their means - it's the whole idea of them. Unfortunately, also, many folks DO pay fees on their credit cards. Also, many people are stupid. Just saying, debit cards aren't, per se. :)
The opposite tends to be true.
If you have money to pay off the CC, then the credit card is unnecessary and stupid. Why would you need to maintain a line of credit just to pay it off with cash you already have? This is where a debit card's perfect. It's a credit card you can use everywhere and costs you less to run. While most online vendors may charge you a credit card fee even for using a debit card, almost no retailer ever will. To them, it's just an EFTPOS card. You gain the convenience of a credit card with the general fee-freeness of an EFTPOS card.
Where the evil comes in is that the whole premise of the credit card is the financial institutions hope that you *can't* pay it off by its due date, at which stage they get to start charging you interest.
If you have the cash to pay off a credit card, then I can't see any good reason to have a credit card instead of a debit card. To pay more fees? How's that a bonus for you?
Right, but it's only just gained keyboard support, so up until now it was a fairly boring text-demo.
> perhaps short of every participating computer having a quantum component that stops working as soon as you observe it. ;)
Shh.. don't give them any ideas.
They don't even need to do that - in most devices the CMOS is a square and it's simply software which dictates whether the output is portrait or landscape. You could simply force it to capture widescreen even when held in portrait mode. Probably the reason they don't do this is it would confuse the folks who.. don't understand this stuff. "I'm holding it vertically, why isn't it recording vertically?" Actually - it's really just usability, but perhaps there should be an option on most of these devices "Always capture widescreen video".
Now.. some devices do have slightly wider than tall CMOS sensors, such as the iPhone 5s slightly landscape sensor, but a minor down-sampling of video resolution (since, if it's in portrait mode, the sensor is portrait so not quite as wide) would have little effect - especially on the majority of camera phones which don't record 1080p in the first place, so a "full-width" 720p widescreen video could be captured in portrait mode anyhow.
Open source programs have their code exposed to everyone, including those with malicious intent, and are therefor "battle hardened" for security.
While this would the expected situation, the evidence demonstrates that it isn't.
http://www.zdnet.com/six-open-source-security-myths-debunked-and-eight-real-challenges-to-consider-7000014225/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/03/05/does_open_source_software_enhance/
etc..
You can search this on your own. The general consensus is that the "many eyes" theory is flawed, and outside a few exceptions where a particular product has been security hardened beyond usual standards, most experts agree open source software in general tends to be no more or less secure than proprietary software. On the flip-side however, it is true that when the source code for a closed-source product does get compromised, we do generally get a new flood of exploits.
While that's true, the stats would likely show something in the region of 95% of XBMC users never installing any plugins or make any display changes, just using it as a DLNA streamer.
Well, "stolen" is a bit harsh, considering SOLEIL themselves simply appropriated it and have no ownership to the public domain work produced by NASA.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2007/first_light_prt.htm
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/165490main_fl_blue.jpg
To be fair, you could Google a lot of other "Blue Glowing Sphere" images and get closer matches.
Talking about the likelihood of a manned mission to Europa, in a story about a manned mission to Europa, replying to a post about whether we should send people to Europa, is on topic, whether I decide it is or not. The irony of your statement, while you're changing topics, is delicious.
You clearly have nothing productive to add to the discussion if you don't want to talk about the the possibility of a manned mission to Europa. You're speculating down an endless path of "what-ifs" and examples that have nothing to do with the mission in question. Don't bother replying - won't be reading. The chances of you contributing anything useful are.. about the same as the chances of humans being sent on a one-way scientific mission to Europa. Not going to happen.
No, I don't believe they're going to send old or terminally ill people to Europa either. Nor to establish a permanent colony there, although if they were going to, that would fall within "continued survivability". You're getting further and further off-topic. I've never spoken about the likelihood of putting manned bases on Mars, or unrecoverable colonization trips to deep space, or whatever else you can conjure up. You're arguing for the sake of it - bringing up the fact that people die eventually as a counterpoint to a suicide mission being unlikely?
My original post was only ever pointing out that they will not send people on a one-way scientific mission to Europa. It's not going to happen. If you want to argue, structure your argument around that statement, not around other unrelated concepts you've imagined. You're saying "why send people?" - I'm saying "They're not going to send people - at least not one way, which means, not likely at all." You should be taking comfort in that fact, not trying to make up abstract arguments which have nothing to do with any of my posts on the subject.
I understand what you're saying, and indeed, many astronauts, and dozens of test pilots have been killed in high risk endeavors. But I don't agree this is necessarily a counterpoint to my argument - that being, the government will not send astronauts on a known one-way trip to Europa where there is no possibility of recovery or continued survival. Clearly, by your last sentence, you disagree with with my sentiments and that's fine - I just don't find "people have died before, unintentionally" to be a realistic counter-argument.
I should really clarify - I am only talking about the mission to Europa. "the government is not going to send people on a one-way trip to a moon with no prospect of survival". I fully agree there would be circumstances where even the US government would happily send people to their death - as you point out, they've done so before - although most instances (largely, during war times) are not public knowledge. I'm just saying, a scientific mission to Europa is not going to be one of those instances.
We won't be sending humans on a one-way trip. That's a pipe dream at this stage. Short of a dictatorship forcing people to go, the government is not going to send people on a one-way trip to a moon with no prospect of survival. Those who volunteer for such an endeavour are generally not going to be useful to your mission in a scientific capacity.
Both the Borderlands world and gameplay style would make for a great MMO and I sorely hope to see it done one day. The respawn rates, loot distribution, etc, have already been designed nicely around both a perpetual multiplayer and continuing singleplayer experience. Sure, they'd have to open the world up a bit more, make maps much larger than they already are, etc, but Borderlands seems a great contender for "could be an awesome MMOFPSRPGOMGBBQ"
So it doesn't seem so harsh, I believe OP was referring to Zahn, since he presents the video. :)
>"I'm an ideas man with a lot of reputation, and you're giving me money due to the reputation..."
So don't take it personally.
A big fan of the Conqueror's trilogy, must have read all 3 books at least half a dozen times. It's a shame I can't stand 4X games! I'd prefer to see someone with a bit more gaming clout trying to take on such a rich universe, as the majority of 4X indies made in the past few years have been sorely lacking anything appealing. Good luck to them, however! I'll probably keep my Zahn funding to buying books rather than games, unless this one manages to turn out amazing.
Can't fathom slapping down $30 on a 4X though. It's a genre with such a narrow cone of interest that the nuances in each individual title mean that a small select group will love it, and everyone else (even fans of other 4X titles) will hate it. Wake me again when it's closer to launch date and we can see what we're getting into.
No, it doesn't really. Do you speak any of them? If not, the answer is no.
> Your anxiety issues can be treated, the Internet is not proper treatment,
Firstly, who said my anxiety was anything to do with the internet? I never even mentioned a computer. Stop making up shit.
> You use the Internet as a crutch. Man up and fucking go see a damn doctor and stop being such a coward.
I said I don't make effort to hide my online activities. I'm not talking about myself. I'm respecting those who do want to maintain their privacy.
> You were NEVER anonymous on the Internet, you have ALWAYS been logged, you just aren't smart enough to realize it.
Huh? Of course I realize that. I've been building networks since before the net existed. I just posted yesterday in fact about the futility of trying to hide your information on the net - http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4173525&cid=44773011
You're completely mis-understanding me. We're probably on the same page in a lot of respects. My issue isn't that you're suggesting that the internet isn't secure. My issue is that you make no distinction between people who "have to hide" and people who "want to hide".
> I made no mention of that retarded 'nothing to hide nothing to fear' crap, you did.
You did - as soon as you failed to make the above distinction, you treated people who want to hide but have nothing to fear as being in the same group as people who NEED to hide. For example, you said TOR is only really used by "uber nerds, pedophiles and bot nets".. So - anyone who uses TOR because they want to hide, who isn't an uber nerd or a bot is.. a pedophile?
I'm simply pointing out that your argument basically strips down the internet population into - precisely - those who have nothing to hide and those who need to hide. Not only are the two not mutually exclusive, but it completely ignores the category that the majority of people fall into who want to keep their privacy - those who have nothing to hide but want to hide anyway.
Your line of thinking is very near to treating anyone who uses encryption, or encrypted channels, or any means of trying to secure the communications, pre-emptively criminal. It's a line of thinking that needs to be stamped out whenever it's seen.
I'm not imposing anything on anyone. Far from it - I'm saying if people want to be left alone, then leave them alone. Unless you already have evidence they're committing a crime, then nothing they do is yours or my business. OP was saying "if you have to hide, stay off the internet". I'm saying that premise is offensive, primarily in that he's suggesting that people who "have to hide" are the same as people who "want to hide".