You cannot attempt to [W]ear most items in Nethack. If you type W with no armor available, it will tell you that you don't have anything else to wear. Similarly, you cannot [P]ut On non-accessory items--if you type P and have no accessories, it will tell you that you don't have anything to put on. It doesn't even give you the option to select an item. [q]uaffing works similarly.
If you have an item of the appropriate type, and you type P, q, or W, and you select an item of an inappropriate type, it will tell you, "That is a silly thing to [wear|put on]." I suspect that this is to simplify the code, rather than so that you have perceived freedom of action. Otherwise, you should be able to select items even if you have no legal items from which to choose.
In other words, I don't think it's too far outside of the spirit of the game to go object->action, however you absolutely have to account for every legal action. You can exclude a Wear action for arrows, for example. However, this might provide clues to the player for some actions, and may ruin the gameplay experience. For example, if the player selects a potion, and notices that he has the option of wielding the potion, it takes the joy out of discovering this particular option yourself.
I have an iPhone, and I use it regularly. There have been exactly two times when I wished that I had copy/paste. So no, I don't see what the big deal is. I don't think that lack of copy/paste was a good design decision--in fact, I'm sure that the phone would be better with it. But I don't think that it's a killer feature. I certainly don't think that the addition of copy/paste will make iPhone haters suddenly embrace the device--they'll just find something else to complain about.
No phone is perfect. The iPhone does what I want 99% of the time, and is stable. I can't say the same for any other smart phone I've tried (though I haven't had a chance to play with android yet, and probably won't bother until someone with 3G coverage in my area puts out an Android phone.)
Stop with the absurd holy wars over phone choice. Who cares what other people buy? If you don't like the phone, don't buy one. Leave everyone else alone.
A free ride? Man, that's quite the laugh, isn't it?
Maybe if they get knocked up by a millionaire or something. Most states child support laws don't come close to covering half of the real costs of raising a child. And there are several states where need is not taken into account at all (thus a very wealthy woman can still get child support payments from a poor man.)
We've been in danger of running out of various essential resources for decades. With constant growth, it's certainly inevitable, but anyone who tries to put a timeframe on it is probably trying to sell you something or push some agenda.
As an aside, I'm from one of the southern states in the USA, but my one visit to New York City was really quite pleasant, if hectic. People seemed terse, and brevity is often confused with impoliteness (particularly by southerners), but in general quite helpful. When we asked for directions, people seemed happy to oblige, and when my mother fell down as a subway car started moving, several people helped her up (and no one helped themselves to any of her possessions.)
I can't honestly believe that it costs that much extra for 8MB of flash compared to 2MB of flash.
Linksys sells a lot of these things per year. A whole lot. http://wifinetnews.com/archives/006101.html claims "hundreds of thousands per month" back in 2005. With numbers like that, even small savings add up. And frankly, I'm certain that they ran the numbers and found that it would be cheaper to go with VxWorks. These sorts of things aren't just decided willy-nilly.
They also managed to segregate their customers. Since they still ship a version based on Linux and running the Linux kernel, people who are buying the routers specifically to get the extra features of an alternate firmware will probably be buying a different model. They can increase the price of that model a bit and increase their profits even more.
If you're willing to settle for less than you initially asked for, it tends to look good. I don't think that the FSF wants or expects to get what they've officially requested.
It's poorly worded. I read it as, "In seven years, Apple might find itself in the position of Microsoft today [in 2008]."
Microsoft's market share is going down, but the grandparent meant to point out that Microsoft of 2008 has just under 90% of the market. Apple should be so lucky.
You got pretty angry and defensive in your reply. I'm not the one claiming that there's causation here. I'm saying that proponents of anti-child porn legislation make that claim.
There have been studies linking child porn and sexual assault of children. Politicians use these links to garner support for the bill, even if there's no official document stating that this is the reason for the bill. It doesn't work for official reasons because correlation does not equal causation, but it's a good way to get people on your side because (and here's the great part) you can pretty easily say, "Prove it doesn't." That doesn't make sense--you can't prove a negative, but in the worlds that politicians and your average bloke live in, that silly detail doesn't matter.
But hell, here's a page which mentions DAs using the link between child porn and molestation to allow for stiffer penalties for what we assume (based upon a complete reading of the article and its thesis) child pornography charges.
Keep in mind that what matters is how the encryption is used. I don't think anyone cares to keep DNS requests private. What matters is keeping them authentic. Signing (and having a way to verify the signature) is of utmost important.
In other words, it doesn't matter that RSA can be broken by large botnets. If it can't be broken as I'm making the request, or before I receive the answer, then it's too late.
Now if somewhere along the way, someone decided that the goal was to keep DNS transactions a complete secret, then that's another issue. I don't see a general need for this level of secrecy.
The code is executed natively, which means that execution will not tax the remote server and output can be displayed immediately without waiting for the server to respond to a request.
That said, I'm not a fan of adding sandboxes willy-nilly. They're hard to get right, and this is just one more security issue to be concerned about.
The official reason is because it creates a market for the material, which means that there will be money to be made in creation/distribution of the material, and thus there's an incentive to hurt children.
Semi-officially, there's a widespread belief that child-porn is a gateway to molestation, and that if you prevent people from seeing child-porn, then they won't go on to harming real children.
Unofficially, I suspect that lawmakers think that people who get off on kiddie porn are sick freaks who deserve to be locked away, even if they'd never hurt a fly. Since these are the people in power, and they can use the "we're protecting the children" banner, they get the laws passed with a good amount of support.
I still think it's astoundingly inconsistent with the purposes of the law. I think that distribution and possession of sexual images of underage children, whether illustrated or photographs, should be treated the same given the stated reasons for criminalizing said possession/distribution. I'm not one of those "think of the children" nuts who wants to ban anything and everything that might ever harm a child--I just think that we should achieve consistency in our laws.
One of the reasons for prosecuting distribution of such imagery is that it supposedly creates a market for the child porn. This is why no matter where the image was produced, it's considered illegal to transmit it within US borders.
That would logically extend to drawings, but so far, the US has been hesitant to say that drawings of children engaged in sexual acts is illegal. When such things happen, it's generally tried under obscenity laws instead of child porn laws.
Moore's law dealt specifically with hardware. To say that "Moore's law is now a software problem" shows as much of a misunderstanding as attributing "any mention of Nazis causing someone to immediately lose the argument" to Godwin's Law[1].
It's reasonable to suggest that increasing the speed at which software runs will start requiring learning multi-threaded programming techniques, but to say that software will allow Moore's Law to continue is incorrect.
The idea that performance will increase at the same rate as doubling of transistors is attributed to a colleague of Moore. I have not heard of a moniker for this "law."
[1] Godwin's law states that as a USENET thread increases in length, the probability of a comparison to Hitler or a Nazi goes to 1. Godwin's law states nothing about the thread ending or about a winner or loser.
I don't have a link offhand. It's not a common setup, so it often has to be done manually.
In a nutshell, you'd need to have another config file (perhaps/etc/sshd2_config) set up to listen on another port. Then you'd need to run sshd and tell it to read the new config file. Obviously, since you want this to happen at startup, you're going to have to create startup scripts. That's going to be distribution-specific.
(The best move against this attack is either to go with port-knocking or simply move your primary SSH port to a non-standard port. We've chosen the latter solution on all of our public facing servers, along with requiring public-key logins.)
Yeah, I'd definitely do that if the machine were just mine, or just a few people. I run a small shell host, and getting everyone to understand and switch is going to be problematic. Without access to their e-mail, they're going to have a hard time asking questions about it!:)
Yes, but then you'd miss the long, technological discussion of OS X in a mixed environment and how computer security doesn't just rely on software vulnerabilities to manifest. Indeed, Wikipedia offers this insight:
A computer virus is a computer program that can copy itself and infect a computer without permission or knowledge of the user. The term "virus" is also commonly used, albeit erroneously, to refer to many different types of malware and adware programs. The original virus may modify the copies, or the copies may modify themselves, as occurs in a metamorphic virus. A virus can only spread from one computer to another when its host is taken to the uninfected computer, for instance by a user sending it over a network or the Internet, or by carrying it on a removable medium such as a floppy disk, CD, or USB drive. Meanwhile viruses can spread to other computers by infecting files on a network file system or a file system that is accessed by another computer. Viruses are sometimes confused with computer worms and Trojan horses. A worm can spread itself to other computers without needing to be transferred as part of a host, and a Trojan horse is a file that appears harmless. Worms and Trojans may cause harm to either a computer system's hosted data, functional performance, or networking throughput, when executed. In general, a worm does not actually harm either the system's hardware or software, while at least in theory, a Trojan's payload may be capable of almost any type of harm if executed. Some can't be seen when the program is not running, but as soon as the infected code is run, the Trojan horse kicks in. That is why it is so hard for people to find viruses and other malware themselves and why they have to use spyware programs and registry processors.
The entry on Trojan Horses may be more apropos: n the context of computing and software, a Trojan horse, also known as a trojan, is malware that appears to perform a desirable function but in fact performs undisclosed malicious functions. Therefore, a computer worm or virus may be a Trojan horse. The term is derived from the classical story of the Trojan Horse.... Types of Trojan horse payloads
Trojan horse payloads are almost always designed to cause harm, but can also be harmless. They are classified based on how they breach and damage systems. The six main types of Trojan horse payloads are:
Without extensive elucidation, we are reduced to mere physiological grunting, albeit grunting in text form on a user forum. One wonders, then, whether or not the initial answer to your question might have been better answered with the short, ironic, two-letter response of: No.
Ever notice how the Enterprise in Enterprise looked way more advanced that the Enterprise in Star Trek (I'm not enough of a fanboy to remember the ship model numbers.)
You can tell the story, and even pay a small homage to the old designs, without being stuck to 1970s special effects and set design. A few die-hard fans might bitch, but you'll be way more likely to attract new viewers by making things more modern.
Also, it's not completely clear that BSG2003 was a reboot. Lots of fans postulate that the show is set either long before or long after the original series, and that the time line is cyclical with lots of the same characters and events replaying over and over. This has all happened before; it will happen again.
Distributed attacks require distributed defenses. Newer versions of Denyhosts let you synchronize your block lists with other Denyhosts users. It's really quite excellent.
Slashdot Mirror
Pedantic Man to the rescue!
You cannot attempt to [W]ear most items in Nethack. If you type W with no armor available, it will tell you that you don't have anything else to wear. Similarly, you cannot [P]ut On non-accessory items--if you type P and have no accessories, it will tell you that you don't have anything to put on. It doesn't even give you the option to select an item. [q]uaffing works similarly.
If you have an item of the appropriate type, and you type P, q, or W, and you select an item of an inappropriate type, it will tell you, "That is a silly thing to [wear|put on]." I suspect that this is to simplify the code, rather than so that you have perceived freedom of action. Otherwise, you should be able to select items even if you have no legal items from which to choose.
In other words, I don't think it's too far outside of the spirit of the game to go object->action, however you absolutely have to account for every legal action. You can exclude a Wear action for arrows, for example. However, this might provide clues to the player for some actions, and may ruin the gameplay experience. For example, if the player selects a potion, and notices that he has the option of wielding the potion, it takes the joy out of discovering this particular option yourself.
I have an iPhone, and I use it regularly. There have been exactly two times when I wished that I had copy/paste. So no, I don't see what the big deal is. I don't think that lack of copy/paste was a good design decision--in fact, I'm sure that the phone would be better with it. But I don't think that it's a killer feature. I certainly don't think that the addition of copy/paste will make iPhone haters suddenly embrace the device--they'll just find something else to complain about.
No phone is perfect. The iPhone does what I want 99% of the time, and is stable. I can't say the same for any other smart phone I've tried (though I haven't had a chance to play with android yet, and probably won't bother until someone with 3G coverage in my area puts out an Android phone.)
Stop with the absurd holy wars over phone choice. Who cares what other people buy? If you don't like the phone, don't buy one. Leave everyone else alone.
And then went right ahead with the WRT54GL (among other versions that still use Linux)?
A free ride? Man, that's quite the laugh, isn't it?
Maybe if they get knocked up by a millionaire or something. Most states child support laws don't come close to covering half of the real costs of raising a child. And there are several states where need is not taken into account at all (thus a very wealthy woman can still get child support payments from a poor man.)
The rules are all out of whack.
We've been in danger of running out of various essential resources for decades. With constant growth, it's certainly inevitable, but anyone who tries to put a timeframe on it is probably trying to sell you something or push some agenda.
As an aside, I'm from one of the southern states in the USA, but my one visit to New York City was really quite pleasant, if hectic. People seemed terse, and brevity is often confused with impoliteness (particularly by southerners), but in general quite helpful. When we asked for directions, people seemed happy to oblige, and when my mother fell down as a subway car started moving, several people helped her up (and no one helped themselves to any of her possessions.)
I think it's actually just a sign that software licenses are out of control.
I can't honestly believe that it costs that much extra for 8MB of flash compared to 2MB of flash.
Linksys sells a lot of these things per year. A whole lot. http://wifinetnews.com/archives/006101.html claims "hundreds of thousands per month" back in 2005. With numbers like that, even small savings add up. And frankly, I'm certain that they ran the numbers and found that it would be cheaper to go with VxWorks. These sorts of things aren't just decided willy-nilly.
They also managed to segregate their customers. Since they still ship a version based on Linux and running the Linux kernel, people who are buying the routers specifically to get the extra features of an alternate firmware will probably be buying a different model. They can increase the price of that model a bit and increase their profits even more.
If you're willing to settle for less than you initially asked for, it tends to look good. I don't think that the FSF wants or expects to get what they've officially requested.
It's poorly worded. I read it as, "In seven years, Apple might find itself in the position of Microsoft today [in 2008]."
Microsoft's market share is going down, but the grandparent meant to point out that Microsoft of 2008 has just under 90% of the market. Apple should be so lucky.
You got pretty angry and defensive in your reply. I'm not the one claiming that there's causation here. I'm saying that proponents of anti-child porn legislation make that claim.
There have been studies linking child porn and sexual assault of children. Politicians use these links to garner support for the bill, even if there's no official document stating that this is the reason for the bill. It doesn't work for official reasons because correlation does not equal causation, but it's a good way to get people on your side because (and here's the great part) you can pretty easily say, "Prove it doesn't." That doesn't make sense--you can't prove a negative, but in the worlds that politicians and your average bloke live in, that silly detail doesn't matter.
But hell, here's a page which mentions DAs using the link between child porn and molestation to allow for stiffer penalties for what we assume (based upon a complete reading of the article and its thesis) child pornography charges.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/19/us/19sex.html?_r=1&pagewanted=1
There are other examples of people discussing the link, and whether or not there's any causation. All you gotta do is learn how to use Google.
Yes, as someone else pointed out.
Excellent point. I was focusing on transactions, not the keys. Thanks for pointing out my error.
Keep in mind that what matters is how the encryption is used. I don't think anyone cares to keep DNS requests private. What matters is keeping them authentic. Signing (and having a way to verify the signature) is of utmost important.
In other words, it doesn't matter that RSA can be broken by large botnets. If it can't be broken as I'm making the request, or before I receive the answer, then it's too late.
Now if somewhere along the way, someone decided that the goal was to keep DNS transactions a complete secret, then that's another issue. I don't see a general need for this level of secrecy.
The code is executed natively, which means that execution will not tax the remote server and output can be displayed immediately without waiting for the server to respond to a request.
That said, I'm not a fan of adding sandboxes willy-nilly. They're hard to get right, and this is just one more security issue to be concerned about.
No, but I'll tell you that there's a widespread belief that it does.
The official reason is because it creates a market for the material, which means that there will be money to be made in creation/distribution of the material, and thus there's an incentive to hurt children.
Semi-officially, there's a widespread belief that child-porn is a gateway to molestation, and that if you prevent people from seeing child-porn, then they won't go on to harming real children.
Unofficially, I suspect that lawmakers think that people who get off on kiddie porn are sick freaks who deserve to be locked away, even if they'd never hurt a fly. Since these are the people in power, and they can use the "we're protecting the children" banner, they get the laws passed with a good amount of support.
Thanks for the correction.
I still think it's astoundingly inconsistent with the purposes of the law. I think that distribution and possession of sexual images of underage children, whether illustrated or photographs, should be treated the same given the stated reasons for criminalizing said possession/distribution. I'm not one of those "think of the children" nuts who wants to ban anything and everything that might ever harm a child--I just think that we should achieve consistency in our laws.
One of the reasons for prosecuting distribution of such imagery is that it supposedly creates a market for the child porn. This is why no matter where the image was produced, it's considered illegal to transmit it within US borders.
That would logically extend to drawings, but so far, the US has been hesitant to say that drawings of children engaged in sexual acts is illegal. When such things happen, it's generally tried under obscenity laws instead of child porn laws.
Moore's law dealt specifically with hardware. To say that "Moore's law is now a software problem" shows as much of a misunderstanding as attributing "any mention of Nazis causing someone to immediately lose the argument" to Godwin's Law[1].
It's reasonable to suggest that increasing the speed at which software runs will start requiring learning multi-threaded programming techniques, but to say that software will allow Moore's Law to continue is incorrect.
The idea that performance will increase at the same rate as doubling of transistors is attributed to a colleague of Moore. I have not heard of a moniker for this "law."
[1] Godwin's law states that as a USENET thread increases in length, the probability of a comparison to Hitler or a Nazi goes to 1. Godwin's law states nothing about the thread ending or about a winner or loser.
Got a link for setting up a 2nd SSH daemon?
I don't have a link offhand. It's not a common setup, so it often has to be done manually.
In a nutshell, you'd need to have another config file (perhaps /etc/sshd2_config) set up to listen on another port. Then you'd need to run sshd and tell it to read the new config file. Obviously, since you want this to happen at startup, you're going to have to create startup scripts. That's going to be distribution-specific.
(The best move against this attack is either to go with port-knocking or simply move your primary SSH port to a non-standard port. We've chosen the latter solution on all of our public facing servers, along with requiring public-key logins.)
Yeah, I'd definitely do that if the machine were just mine, or just a few people. I run a small shell host, and getting everyone to understand and switch is going to be problematic. Without access to their e-mail, they're going to have a hard time asking questions about it! :)
Could you have maybe said that shorter?
Yes, but then you'd miss the long, technological discussion of OS X in a mixed environment and how computer security doesn't just rely on software vulnerabilities to manifest. Indeed, Wikipedia offers this insight:
A computer virus is a computer program that can copy itself and infect a computer without permission or knowledge of the user. The term "virus" is also commonly used, albeit erroneously, to refer to many different types of malware and adware programs. The original virus may modify the copies, or the copies may modify themselves, as occurs in a metamorphic virus. A virus can only spread from one computer to another when its host is taken to the uninfected computer, for instance by a user sending it over a network or the Internet, or by carrying it on a removable medium such as a floppy disk, CD, or USB drive. Meanwhile viruses can spread to other computers by infecting files on a network file system or a file system that is accessed by another computer. Viruses are sometimes confused with computer worms and Trojan horses. A worm can spread itself to other computers without needing to be transferred as part of a host, and a Trojan horse is a file that appears harmless. Worms and Trojans may cause harm to either a computer system's hosted data, functional performance, or networking throughput, when executed. In general, a worm does not actually harm either the system's hardware or software, while at least in theory, a Trojan's payload may be capable of almost any type of harm if executed. Some can't be seen when the program is not running, but as soon as the infected code is run, the Trojan horse kicks in. That is why it is so hard for people to find viruses and other malware themselves and why they have to use spyware programs and registry processors.
The entry on Trojan Horses may be more apropos: ...
n the context of computing and software, a Trojan horse, also known as a trojan, is malware that appears to perform a desirable function but in fact performs undisclosed malicious functions. Therefore, a computer worm or virus may be a Trojan horse. The term is derived from the classical story of the Trojan Horse.
Types of Trojan horse payloads
Trojan horse payloads are almost always designed to cause harm, but can also be harmless. They are classified based on how they breach and damage systems. The six main types of Trojan horse payloads are:
* Remote Accessing
* Data Destruction
* Downloader
* Server Trojan(Proxy, FTP , IRC, Email, HTTP/HTTPS, etc.)
* Security software disabler
* Denial-of-service attack (DoS)
Without extensive elucidation, we are reduced to mere physiological grunting, albeit grunting in text form on a user forum. One wonders, then, whether or not the initial answer to your question might have been better answered with the short, ironic, two-letter response of:
No.
I still think it will, eventually.
Of course, that just exposes my optimism that OS X will manage to grab enough market share to make it a worthwhile target to malware writers.
Probably not.
Ever notice how the Enterprise in Enterprise looked way more advanced that the Enterprise in Star Trek (I'm not enough of a fanboy to remember the ship model numbers.)
You can tell the story, and even pay a small homage to the old designs, without being stuck to 1970s special effects and set design. A few die-hard fans might bitch, but you'll be way more likely to attract new viewers by making things more modern.
Also, it's not completely clear that BSG2003 was a reboot. Lots of fans postulate that the show is set either long before or long after the original series, and that the time line is cyclical with lots of the same characters and events replaying over and over. This has all happened before; it will happen again.
Distributed attacks require distributed defenses. Newer versions of Denyhosts let you synchronize your block lists with other Denyhosts users. It's really quite excellent.