1. Because tickets are sent to the wrong people? 2. Because tickets are assessed to the owner (not the driver) of the car? 3. Because you have no accuser to confront in court?
These three are irrelevant, because a picture of the driver is included with the ticket in the mail. If you don't look like the picture, then it's pretty easy to contest it.
Not in Texas. There's no requirement that there be a photo of the driver, and there are several places where there is one camera pointed in one direction covering both directions of traffic.
Furthermore, they're civil penalties. How on earth this is the case is beyond me. The fact that a state law is enforced using a civil fine is a terrifying precedent.
The two main features I love are the shortcut keys to move between comments and the ability to collapse sub-threads that are uninteresting, yet modded high enough to escape my viewing threshold.
For example, your post has +5:
40% Insightful
40% Interesting
20% Informative
Yet being completely off-topic, I can see how one would want to skip it and all of the comments in the sub-thread. Discussion2 makes that pretty trivial.
Most of the time, I agree that adding javascript is highly superfluous to a website, but in this case, it really does add functionality.
I didn't feel that NSMB(DS) was all that challenging. I practically breezed through it in a way that I never did with the earlier games (SMB2/3 and SMW.) The challenge for me was finding all of the coins and alternate routes.
Hell, on my second playthrough, I don't think I died more than 10 times, and most of those were as tiny mario.
Once upon a time, it actually meant something to beat a game. One could brag to their friends that they made it through a tough game. There were no (or few) shortcuts. We had to fight through a boss a level, only to get to the final boss and have to fight all of his bosses over again! And we enjoyed it! We poured hours in the game to attain our goal: victory. There are still games on the Nintendo that I've never beaten, and it's haunted me to this day.
You know what? Megaman 1 and 2 were genuinely hard! Mario 1 was genuinely hard! Cobra Triangle was hard! Castlevania was hard! Metroid was hard! Dragon Warriors was hard! Tyson's Punch-out was hard! Solstice was hard! Contra was hard! Marble Madness was hard! I could go on. And it wasn't just the NES. Arcade games were a son-of-a-bitch (to get more quarters), several games on the SNES and Genesis were equally challenging.
I grew up on Nintendo. I beat Megaman 1 and 2--it took me months. I never beat Castlevania (mostly because I didn't enjoy it enough to play for months.) I beat Metroid and Dragon Warrior--but I don't think that they were hard. They were just long. Punch-Out, though....again, probably months (and writing down the strategies that worked against each fighter in each level.)
I guess what it boils down to is that to beat these games without "cheating", it took months and months of work, of replaying the same content over and over, of mastering each level.... Now I'm over 30. My attention span has actually shortened a bit, and I simply don't get enjoyment out of repetititve tasks. Hell, I use unix for this very reason--to cut down on repetition and get to the real meat of a project. Replaying the same levels over and over just doesn't do it for me anymore--I'm pretty likely to just give up on a game and bitch about the $50 I'm out. I guess I'm less hardcore than I used to be, but I think that's okay. I'm also fairly certain that there are a lot of people out there like me.
And that's the rub. Nintendo wants everyone to buy their games. Hardcore games probably won't sell as well[1]. However, for a long time now, game manufacturers have been putting in extras for people who want to "complete" the game. 120 stars in the recent Mario games (when all you need to beat the game is 60.) Extra tokens to find, hidden levels to beat, optional quests, etc. are a staple of modern games. The main quest may be easy enough to get through quickly, but to find everything, you have to work hard at it. This paradigm works fairly well for a lot of people. Demo mode is another take on it. Players who want to do it all themselves can do so. Players who would otherwise get frustrated can get through some of the harder parts without spending days on it. It seems like a reasonable experiment.
[1] Mega Man 9 is an obvious counterexample. It's pretty hard for a modern day game--somewhere between MM2 and the later ones which could actually be beaten fairly easily. And it sold like hotcakes.
Except that the 360 and PS3 provide more than enough power, while the Wii simply doesn't. So 360/PS3 developers can afford to waste some cycles when developing for those platforms, while the Wii gets left out in the cold.
Other people noted that Wii-exclusive games tend to be better than ports of 360/PS3 games. Unfortunately, companies want to sell to the largest userbase possible with the least effort. Targeting the Wii plus any other console means, as you point out, that you must write very efficient code. Targeting the PS3 and 360 means you get some slack. You don't have to hire people who know the system inside and out because inefficiency isn't a problem.
If your system has a TPM chip, then IMA also maintains an aggregate integrity value over this list inside the TPM hardware, so that the TPM can prove to a third party whether or not critical system files have been modified.
This sounds more like it's for auditing. It allows you to prove to an authority that system files were not modified after a certain point.
Trusted computing is not inherently evil. I, for one, would love the ability to prove to myself that my system hasn't been compromised from the bootloader on up. Nothing says that trusted computer must be used by a third-party to regulate what I do on my machine.
That's because "Linux" supplies drivers for most peripherals which work under Linux, whereas vendors provide drivers for most peripherals which work under Windows.
Not to mention the fact that since Windows is a de facto standard for computing, almost every device is going to have drivers for it.
The problem is that one flipped bit can cause ZFS to think that the whole pool is unusable - even though it keeps redundant copies of the metadata which it then completely ignores! What for does it keep the copies then?
Where are you getting this from? It's not in the link you posted.
In the link you posted, the admin found three uberblocks (there are supposed to be four). ZFS correctly made multiple uberblocks, per design. It appears that all three were corrupt. Why? Who the hell knows. Could be that the disk was going bad. Could be the problem I mentioned. Could be a ZFS bug. There's not enough information in that thread to say with certainty.
Now I'd say that ZFS "isn't ready for the desktop" no matter what the reason for the faulty uberblocks. I'm not supporting ZFS by disagreeing with what you're saying--rather, I'm railing against drives that do bad things and developers not being willing to work around them. One of these is the fault of Sun--and it's a major one. The ability to recover from hardware misbehaving is important.
However, the posting you're discussing doesn't have anything to do with "silent corruption"--it's explicitly about an unexpected halt, which causes highly unpredictable results when using drives that misbehave. Hence my bringing up that possibility in the first place. As I said, I don't know how the blocks got corrupted--but neither do you.
Take it from another perspective. If all of the copies of the superblock on an ext3 filesystem were simultaneously corrupted (it doesn't matter how), what would happen? Won't the drive fail to mount, or even fsck? (fsck requires a good superblock, I think.)
I think that other people are talking about what are arguably bugs in the disk's firmware. The disk will report back that data has been written, but in reality, it's only in the cache. I only glanced at the forum postings in your link, but I didn't see any mention of what hardware was being used. It's certainly possible that they were using good hardware--but the poster's note that they had accidentally halted makes me wonder if his problems were related to using a poorly implemented drive.
Regardless, behavior like this can cause metadata corruption in filesystems which are designed with consistency in mind--and I think that's what happens with ZFS. The developers apparently don't want to code a utility to recover from failures from these poorly or incorrectly designed hard drives. And it makes sense--Sun is ultimately a hardware company, and they want to sell you the good stuff. Why work around a bad firmware when they can sell you computers+drives with good firmware?
IDS are far from perfect. They actually miss quite a large amount of data, and there are false-positives to worry about. Trust me, when you falsely flag a computer as infected, people get just as upset as if you ask them to run an agent on their machines.
So would buying a domain name from someone who previously registered it, and then holding onto it in the hopes of selling it to someone else for more money be okay with you?
And you have to define value. We're starting to get into some eminent domain issues, here.
I own several domains that I use almost solely for e-mail. Do they add value to the world? Should someone be able to come take my domain because they might do more with it?
NoScript implements many other security controls, such as Clickjacking protection and the ability to disable iFrames. It tries to detect and prevent cross-site scripting. Its options for managing your blocked content are quite impressive, too.
Furthermore, the ease with which you can enable/disable sites means that most of the time, I don't even bother whitelisting sites. If I get to a page which needs Javascript, I temporarily enable it. Next time I close my browser, everything's back to no scripts.
It has some additional privacy features, such as the ability to disable web bugs. Overall, I've found no reasonable replacement for NoScript in any other browser, and this is one of the things that ties me to Firefox.
My problem with Opera has largely been the compatibility issues, but even without that, the lack of NoScript (per-site scripting options aren't enough) is pretty bad, and the lack of AdBlock Plus turns off a lot of people (I don't use it, personally.)
I just can't think of any Opera features I used that I missed when I switched back to Firefox.
Have you tried fiddling with the display preferences? I've had issues where my display preferences collided with new code that they added. Resetting everything and reconfiguring it as I wanted it fixed it.
D2 (the Ajaxified comments system) used to have handy shortcut keys for moving between comments. It was great--I never had to touch my mouse!
Now it looks like they've added some Javascript which used to power Firehose, and they've completely clobbered the shortcut keys for navigating comments. It's pretty annoying:(
Not to mention, from the beginning, Nintendo was making a profit on each console sold (not counting R&D.) Sony and Microsoft were taking losses on every console sold (not counting R&D.)
So Nintendo is a success in sales, and in profit-per-console sold. They're probably behind in selling developer licenses.
Of course they won. That's the point. The point is that the Playstation and the Playstation 2 won their respective generations despite having inferior specs. There's no reason to assume that a console with the best specs will be the one with the most success, for most reasonable definitions of 'success.'
Slashdot Mirror
1. Because tickets are sent to the wrong people?
2. Because tickets are assessed to the owner (not the driver) of the car?
3. Because you have no accuser to confront in court?
These three are irrelevant, because a picture of the driver is included with the ticket in the mail. If you don't look like the picture, then it's pretty easy to contest it.
Not in Texas. There's no requirement that there be a photo of the driver, and there are several places where there is one camera pointed in one direction covering both directions of traffic.
Furthermore, they're civil penalties. How on earth this is the case is beyond me. The fact that a state law is enforced using a civil fine is a terrifying precedent.
Weird--I absolutely love it.
The two main features I love are the shortcut keys to move between comments and the ability to collapse sub-threads that are uninteresting, yet modded high enough to escape my viewing threshold.
For example, your post has +5:
40% Insightful
40% Interesting
20% Informative
Yet being completely off-topic, I can see how one would want to skip it and all of the comments in the sub-thread. Discussion2 makes that pretty trivial.
Most of the time, I agree that adding javascript is highly superfluous to a website, but in this case, it really does add functionality.
I didn't feel that NSMB(DS) was all that challenging. I practically breezed through it in a way that I never did with the earlier games (SMB2/3 and SMW.) The challenge for me was finding all of the coins and alternate routes.
Hell, on my second playthrough, I don't think I died more than 10 times, and most of those were as tiny mario.
Once upon a time, it actually meant something to beat a game. One could brag to their friends that they made it through a tough game. There were no (or few) shortcuts. We had to fight through a boss a level, only to get to the final boss and have to fight all of his bosses over again! And we enjoyed it! We poured hours in the game to attain our goal: victory. There are still games on the Nintendo that I've never beaten, and it's haunted me to this day.
You know what? Megaman 1 and 2 were genuinely hard! Mario 1 was genuinely hard! Cobra Triangle was hard! Castlevania was hard! Metroid was hard! Dragon Warriors was hard! Tyson's Punch-out was hard! Solstice was hard! Contra was hard! Marble Madness was hard! I could go on. And it wasn't just the NES. Arcade games were a son-of-a-bitch (to get more quarters), several games on the SNES and Genesis were equally challenging.
I grew up on Nintendo. I beat Megaman 1 and 2--it took me months. I never beat Castlevania (mostly because I didn't enjoy it enough to play for months.) I beat Metroid and Dragon Warrior--but I don't think that they were hard. They were just long. Punch-Out, though....again, probably months (and writing down the strategies that worked against each fighter in each level.)
I guess what it boils down to is that to beat these games without "cheating", it took months and months of work, of replaying the same content over and over, of mastering each level.... Now I'm over 30. My attention span has actually shortened a bit, and I simply don't get enjoyment out of repetititve tasks. Hell, I use unix for this very reason--to cut down on repetition and get to the real meat of a project. Replaying the same levels over and over just doesn't do it for me anymore--I'm pretty likely to just give up on a game and bitch about the $50 I'm out. I guess I'm less hardcore than I used to be, but I think that's okay. I'm also fairly certain that there are a lot of people out there like me.
And that's the rub. Nintendo wants everyone to buy their games. Hardcore games probably won't sell as well[1]. However, for a long time now, game manufacturers have been putting in extras for people who want to "complete" the game. 120 stars in the recent Mario games (when all you need to beat the game is 60.) Extra tokens to find, hidden levels to beat, optional quests, etc. are a staple of modern games. The main quest may be easy enough to get through quickly, but to find everything, you have to work hard at it. This paradigm works fairly well for a lot of people. Demo mode is another take on it. Players who want to do it all themselves can do so. Players who would otherwise get frustrated can get through some of the harder parts without spending days on it. It seems like a reasonable experiment.
[1] Mega Man 9 is an obvious counterexample. It's pretty hard for a modern day game--somewhere between MM2 and the later ones which could actually be beaten fairly easily. And it sold like hotcakes.
You cannot know how big the site will be ahead of time.
That's because many ISPs don't exist within the free market. They're a pocket monopoly surrounded by an otherwise free market.
I'd rather be talking to people, but people look at you funny if you smile and say 'hi,' let alone try to strike up a conversation.
and then
Thanks for playing, fuckbean.
I think we may have pinpointed the problem with your social skills....
Except that the 360 and PS3 provide more than enough power, while the Wii simply doesn't. So 360/PS3 developers can afford to waste some cycles when developing for those platforms, while the Wii gets left out in the cold.
Other people noted that Wii-exclusive games tend to be better than ports of 360/PS3 games. Unfortunately, companies want to sell to the largest userbase possible with the least effort. Targeting the Wii plus any other console means, as you point out, that you must write very efficient code. Targeting the PS3 and 360 means you get some slack. You don't have to hire people who know the system inside and out because inefficiency isn't a problem.
Hardware's (relatively) cheap. The new metric for code is not how efficient it is, but how quickly it can be churned out.
If your system has a TPM chip, then IMA also maintains an aggregate integrity value over this list inside the TPM hardware, so that the TPM can prove to a third party whether or not critical system files have been modified.
This sounds more like it's for auditing. It allows you to prove to an authority that system files were not modified after a certain point.
Trusted computing is not inherently evil. I, for one, would love the ability to prove to myself that my system hasn't been compromised from the bootloader on up. Nothing says that trusted computer must be used by a third-party to regulate what I do on my machine.
That's because "Linux" supplies drivers for most peripherals which work under Linux, whereas vendors provide drivers for most peripherals which work under Windows.
Not to mention the fact that since Windows is a de facto standard for computing, almost every device is going to have drivers for it.
The problem is that one flipped bit can cause ZFS to think that the whole pool is unusable - even though it keeps redundant copies of the metadata which it then completely ignores! What for does it keep the copies then?
Where are you getting this from? It's not in the link you posted.
In the link you posted, the admin found three uberblocks (there are supposed to be four). ZFS correctly made multiple uberblocks, per design. It appears that all three were corrupt. Why? Who the hell knows. Could be that the disk was going bad. Could be the problem I mentioned. Could be a ZFS bug. There's not enough information in that thread to say with certainty.
Now I'd say that ZFS "isn't ready for the desktop" no matter what the reason for the faulty uberblocks. I'm not supporting ZFS by disagreeing with what you're saying--rather, I'm railing against drives that do bad things and developers not being willing to work around them. One of these is the fault of Sun--and it's a major one. The ability to recover from hardware misbehaving is important.
However, the posting you're discussing doesn't have anything to do with "silent corruption"--it's explicitly about an unexpected halt, which causes highly unpredictable results when using drives that misbehave. Hence my bringing up that possibility in the first place. As I said, I don't know how the blocks got corrupted--but neither do you.
Take it from another perspective. If all of the copies of the superblock on an ext3 filesystem were simultaneously corrupted (it doesn't matter how), what would happen? Won't the drive fail to mount, or even fsck? (fsck requires a good superblock, I think.)
I think that other people are talking about what are arguably bugs in the disk's firmware. The disk will report back that data has been written, but in reality, it's only in the cache. I only glanced at the forum postings in your link, but I didn't see any mention of what hardware was being used. It's certainly possible that they were using good hardware--but the poster's note that they had accidentally halted makes me wonder if his problems were related to using a poorly implemented drive.
Regardless, behavior like this can cause metadata corruption in filesystems which are designed with consistency in mind--and I think that's what happens with ZFS. The developers apparently don't want to code a utility to recover from failures from these poorly or incorrectly designed hard drives. And it makes sense--Sun is ultimately a hardware company, and they want to sell you the good stuff. Why work around a bad firmware when they can sell you computers+drives with good firmware?
IDS are far from perfect. They actually miss quite a large amount of data, and there are false-positives to worry about. Trust me, when you falsely flag a computer as infected, people get just as upset as if you ask them to run an agent on their machines.
Let me get this straight--you trusted some random guy to install crap on your computer over the university?
I find that pretty interesting.
So would buying a domain name from someone who previously registered it, and then holding onto it in the hopes of selling it to someone else for more money be okay with you?
And you have to define value. We're starting to get into some eminent domain issues, here.
I own several domains that I use almost solely for e-mail. Do they add value to the world? Should someone be able to come take my domain because they might do more with it?
Strange, then, that speculating on land is considered reasonable.
especially since there's a lot more domain-name space than useful land.
That's really not good enough, honestly.
NoScript implements many other security controls, such as Clickjacking protection and the ability to disable iFrames. It tries to detect and prevent cross-site scripting. Its options for managing your blocked content are quite impressive, too.
Furthermore, the ease with which you can enable/disable sites means that most of the time, I don't even bother whitelisting sites. If I get to a page which needs Javascript, I temporarily enable it. Next time I close my browser, everything's back to no scripts.
It has some additional privacy features, such as the ability to disable web bugs. Overall, I've found no reasonable replacement for NoScript in any other browser, and this is one of the things that ties me to Firefox.
Which extensions, out of curiousity?
My problem with Opera has largely been the compatibility issues, but even without that, the lack of NoScript (per-site scripting options aren't enough) is pretty bad, and the lack of AdBlock Plus turns off a lot of people (I don't use it, personally.)
I just can't think of any Opera features I used that I missed when I switched back to Firefox.
I feel the same way about Chrome. But frankly, the responsiveness and crispness overwhelms that for me when I'm in Windows.
Have you tried fiddling with the display preferences? I've had issues where my display preferences collided with new code that they added. Resetting everything and reconfiguring it as I wanted it fixed it.
They broke the UI, too.
D2 (the Ajaxified comments system) used to have handy shortcut keys for moving between comments. It was great--I never had to touch my mouse!
Now it looks like they've added some Javascript which used to power Firehose, and they've completely clobbered the shortcut keys for navigating comments. It's pretty annoying :(
Not to mention, from the beginning, Nintendo was making a profit on each console sold (not counting R&D.) Sony and Microsoft were taking losses on every console sold (not counting R&D.)
So Nintendo is a success in sales, and in profit-per-console sold. They're probably behind in selling developer licenses.
Of course they won. That's the point. The point is that the Playstation and the Playstation 2 won their respective generations despite having inferior specs. There's no reason to assume that a console with the best specs will be the one with the most success, for most reasonable definitions of 'success.'