3) No good singleplayer titles that I could play online.
Ok, I haven't been a console gamer since the Dreamcast/PS1 generation of consoles, so I admit to being way out of touch here. But I've played multiplayer games online at friends houses on their 360's and such, as well as plenty of single player games and one or two multiplayer PC games.
But I have to ask
Both 'single player' and 'online' at the same time? That just sounds.. not quite right:) What games are single player and require being online to play, but not involving other players?
The only two things that come to mind are simple games that upload your score, and DRM games that need to phone home to run. I assume you don't mean either of those.
I guess more than game titles, I'm wondering the -type- of game that would fall under single-player-and-online category.
The only reason I can be so detached from this issue is because nobody in my family has drive-by-wire cars. I actually drive a standard car, so even if my throttle decides to go insane, all I have to do is clutch in and put it in neutral. The engine may bounce off the rev limiter, but the car won't be going anywhere.
Well, I guess I am happy for you, that where you drive consists of no one but yourself and family members. That would be a pretty safe way to do it, and thusly I am glad you are safe.
Sadly I am scared shitless, since I imagine these Toyotas will be driving on the same road I am driving on. More than likely, more than one over time.
While I am plenty confident in my own driving skills, and I do not own one of these vehicles, neither of those facts will stop one from plowing into me:(
The vast majority of people just want a computer that WORKS.
VERY few people are willing to tinker around *AT ALL*.
Repeat after us.. Ubuntu is not all of linux.
There are plenty of linux distros where the goal is stability.
If you want to randomly pick one known for being on the bleeding edge and not supposed to be stable, then we get to do the same for "Windows".
My choice is Windows 95. This is why no one runs windows. 20 reboots before you have a usable system, have to drop to dos to configure stuff, must make many registry edits for a usable system.
No one would want to go through all that right? Except they did. And there are alternatives (now) for that, such as XP or newer (well maybe not Vista pre-sp)
I currently have a Linux machine with a 1400+ day uptime. It is debian, which has the goal of stability. Try Windows 2003 or 2008 server. Those too are made for stability. Hell, if it wasn't for the fact windows updates still need reboots at times, those machines most likely could reach the same uptimes.
You need to be more careful when lumping a whole WHOLE lot of very different things into one group, then flaming that group when what you say only really applies to a small subset.
will they be sold off when they are replaced? I would love for my next laptop to be one that spent several years in orbit!
Not to dash your dreams of owning one of their laptops, but can you imagine the killing those could make at an auction? (Normally I would say on eBay.. but screw eBay)
I'm sure there are people out there that would value the fact they have been in space for so long, and/or are ISS left overs, that they could fetch a nice price on that alone. This would be true for most any hardware they bring back come to think of it.
It would be funny to see what percentage of their next mission was funded from auctioning off parts of the last mission:D
Password cracking is one example of massively scalable computing, which is presumably why the NSA allegedly has had to keep upgrading the electrical infrastructure at their headquarters.
Naa, the current state of the art is in Rainbow tables, which lets you do the brute force method once ahead of time, then reuse those generated tables to crack literally any password covered by that table in seconds.
If your system only allows ASCII characters (255 different values per character) and lets say 256 characters max in your password, you can setup and generate a rainbow table that matches using the same hashing method.
At that point, throwing any hash (any hash that will allow one to actually login that is) into the table, and plaintext pops out in seconds. Rinse and repeat for the entire password file.
Generating the rainbow tables does take a lot of time, and is a great example where distributed processing greatly speeds things up. The NSA already has access to such computing resources however and can generate said tables in a much quicker time than any of us most likely can. The generation process only needs done once per hashing method as well.
Brute forcing hashes in real time on an as-needed basis is so 90s;}
But shouldn't they also be liable somehow for the collateral damage they're causing, when they give traction to the spammers and botnets?
Well, there is should, and there is could.
Should, probably so.
Could, no. Unfortunately providing the means indirectly to criminals to do their thing is not illegal. For it to be illegal, one would have to convince a judge that Windows is used primarily for botnets and scammers, and much less so for anything else.
They have NO RIGHT to tell me what I can or can't install their OS on. They try to with EULAs, but it wouldn't hold up in court if they tried to sue over it.
Exactly.
Just like the authors of GPL software have NO RIGHT to tell me I am not allowed to distributed modified binaries with out source code!
If Apple offered an OS X license for non-Apple hardware, and priced it at whatever their margin is for a mid-range Mac, they'd be able to break into a lot of businesses where the customers don't get to pick their hardware.
It would be pretty hard for Apple to break into another market, if Apple is out of business:}
They have licensed Mac OS before, so we know exactly what the outcome of that would be.
Microsoft said today that computers in countries with high rates of software piracy are more likely to be infected because users are leery of applying security patches.
When you purposely push out "security patches" that only disable copies of Windows that are pirated, then yes, they are leery of using them, and rightly so (Assuming their goal is to run Windows without paying, and not buying Windows or using another OS)
This is the exact situation Microsoft has stated they wanted to happen.
And before anyone starts, I am not suggesting Microsoft change their rules on supporting pirated copies of Windows. It's theirs to choose how to support how they want. Just that this is the only conclusion one could expect from their current choice.
Maybe their argument will be that Section 117 doesn't apply because it's not an owner of a copy but a licensee?
Not exactly. Pystar is not licensed at all under copyright law, nor apples agreement, is the argument they are making, and thus this section does not exempt them of infringement when the copy is made to RAM on boot.
It might be bullshit, but its just one of a few billion laws that are only used as modifiers to existing laws. Think of it as a "+1 sword of infringement". Its the type of law that only applies to you when you already broke a different law.
For any legal matter, a judge must state you are guilty of the crime.
After that, punishment is a non-issue.
With this law, you don't have to do anything wrong, or even do ANYTHING. A person in a coma can easily be guilty of this law, since it just requires someone to accuse them.
If i said Mr. ComaGuy downloaded a video, he is instantly GUILTY. Full stop. No more argument nor defense. The act of me claiming he did something is all it takes to be guilty of this law, having done so or not, or even being able to do so, never comes into play.
Three people do that to Mr. ComaGuy, and when he wakes up he is banned from the internet.
Incorrect. Pay $99 for a developer's license, compile or develop any software you want, and put it on your phone.
Good call. I did totally forget about the developer process letting you install an app on phones manually.
So I was incorrect in that statement, one can do so.
I guess my mind blocked it out as an option, since for me (not a professional developer) that is too much money when jailbreaking is free. But that's just me, and it is still an option.
That is the neutrality issue in that specific case.
This has fuck all to do with net neutrality. Neutrality is about enforcing bandwidth neutrality for traffic passing through your system - The AppStore is an app and expected to be somewhat biased.
No, "Net Neutrality" doesn't mean what I said. That is why I did not use that term:}
Additionally, "that specific case" which clearly means the app store, is not a network issue. So no, I was not speaking of enforcing bandwidth.
As you clearly pointed out, but seem to not understand, the issue of enforcing bandwidth equally is called net neutrality.
Neutrality, the word I used (with no additional qualifiers), is defined as "The state or policy of being neutral"
prior to the most evil hideous oppressive App Store there was nothing like it...
What about Steam? And all those lame ringtone download systems for phones that wouldn't let you make/use your own?:/
Well none of those that existed before were made by Apple. And this is slashdot, so you won't see anyone admitting they existed let alone are as bad as the app store, for a decade+ before the app store existed...
The troll mods to come will show how against popular opinion those facts are, even if true.
While it is true Apple should be able to choose what to sell and what not to sell on their own store..
The actual complaint with the iTunes store is that Apple tries to prevent you from shopping at any other store to get software for the hardware you own (iPod touch/iPhone specific there really)
That is the neutrality issue in that specific case.
The music side of the store is fine. You can get MP3s anywhere. You can put your MP3s from anywhere on your Apple devices, No issue.
Without jailbreaking (Something Apple hasn't stated is OK to do, and has at least implied it is NOT OK to do) you can't load software of your choosing on your own hardware, only software Apple deems worthy to sell on their store.
I would rather pass though none at all. It all looks like one big barrel of privacy invading pork to me. A costly solution to an imaginary problem. That leaves us all with less privacy, to absolutely no benefit to anyone except the people with cushy TSA jobs.
For privacy reasons yes.
For the current topic of terahertz waves and safety however, no. Removing the scanners will not in any way change how much terahertz radiation you are exposed to, it will be the exact same amount.
Where was there a contract for TDS to install fiber optic networking?
The contract said the government would give them money (millions), in exchange for providing service to all locations in their area, even if it is not profitable to do so.
They took the money, then kept to the same saying that it is not profitable to provide broadband to far out rural areas.
That is the main reason this particular story is such a kick in the teeth. They were paid to bring broadband to those areas, and took the payment to do so yet refused to put broadband out there. Now that the city decided/planned to do it themselves, the telco that refused to run broadband thus creating this need, is suing the government to stop.
The fact they rushed out broadband just before doing so is at least a step in the right direction for the end game, but is very dickish to do.
Especially considering without the monopoly granted by that same government, the telco wouldn't even have a business to be in.
So to conclude, yes signing a contract to receive money in exchange for a service that you refuse to provide and then sue anyone else who Does come through to provide, including the same entity that paid you to provide it in the first place, is a contract violation, which last I checked was against the law. Granted it is a civil case and not a criminal one, but it is against the law none the less to violate a contract.
Perhaps you are right in that the contract was poorly worded and there are loopholes or other issues that keep the government from pressing the point. All most people remember is the purpose of the spending, not the legal jargon related to it. This was also roughly a decade ago.
So if they aim for being usable on 256mb of ram, just imagine how much faster than that it would run on 1gb!
When system X runs on 256mb as fast as system Y runs in 1gb ram, it is usually a given that system X will FAR outperform system Y on the same 1gb system.
Slashdot Mirror
3) No good singleplayer titles that I could play online.
Ok, I haven't been a console gamer since the Dreamcast/PS1 generation of consoles, so I admit to being way out of touch here. But I've played multiplayer games online at friends houses on their 360's and such, as well as plenty of single player games and one or two multiplayer PC games.
But I have to ask
Both 'single player' and 'online' at the same time? That just sounds.. not quite right :)
What games are single player and require being online to play, but not involving other players?
The only two things that come to mind are simple games that upload your score, and DRM games that need to phone home to run. I assume you don't mean either of those.
I guess more than game titles, I'm wondering the -type- of game that would fall under single-player-and-online category.
We wouldn't put a GPS on a 5-year-old kid and let them run loose in the streets, thinking "It's okay now, they have GPS!"
I think you waaaaay over estimate most Americans there.
The only reason I can be so detached from this issue is because nobody in my family has drive-by-wire cars. I actually drive a standard car, so even if my throttle decides to go insane, all I have to do is clutch in and put it in neutral. The engine may bounce off the rev limiter, but the car won't be going anywhere.
Well, I guess I am happy for you, that where you drive consists of no one but yourself and family members.
That would be a pretty safe way to do it, and thusly I am glad you are safe.
Sadly I am scared shitless, since I imagine these Toyotas will be driving on the same road I am driving on. More than likely, more than one over time.
While I am plenty confident in my own driving skills, and I do not own one of these vehicles, neither of those facts will stop one from plowing into me :(
In other words, don't burn the strawman.
In hindsight, yes.
The comment I replied to however was modded +5 insightful at the time I replied. It seems to be down to 0 Troll now thou.
I guess I was had.
Yup.
This is why nobody uses Linux.
The vast majority of people just want a computer that WORKS.
VERY few people are willing to tinker around *AT ALL*.
Repeat after us.. Ubuntu is not all of linux.
There are plenty of linux distros where the goal is stability.
If you want to randomly pick one known for being on the bleeding edge and not supposed to be stable, then we get to do the same for "Windows".
My choice is Windows 95.
This is why no one runs windows. 20 reboots before you have a usable system, have to drop to dos to configure stuff, must make many registry edits for a usable system.
No one would want to go through all that right? Except they did. And there are alternatives (now) for that, such as XP or newer (well maybe not Vista pre-sp)
I currently have a Linux machine with a 1400+ day uptime. It is debian, which has the goal of stability.
Try Windows 2003 or 2008 server. Those too are made for stability. Hell, if it wasn't for the fact windows updates still need reboots at times, those machines most likely could reach the same uptimes.
You need to be more careful when lumping a whole WHOLE lot of very different things into one group, then flaming that group when what you say only really applies to a small subset.
will they be sold off when they are replaced? I would love for my next laptop to be one that spent several years in orbit!
Not to dash your dreams of owning one of their laptops, but can you imagine the killing those could make at an auction?
(Normally I would say on eBay.. but screw eBay)
I'm sure there are people out there that would value the fact they have been in space for so long, and/or are ISS left overs, that they could fetch a nice price on that alone.
This would be true for most any hardware they bring back come to think of it.
It would be funny to see what percentage of their next mission was funded from auctioning off parts of the last mission :D
You should look up "salting hashes" and see why Rainbow tables are useless.
So for the bulk of systems that do not salt hashes, why exactly are rainbow tables useless?
Password cracking is one example of massively scalable computing, which is presumably why the NSA allegedly has had to keep upgrading the electrical infrastructure at their headquarters.
Naa, the current state of the art is in Rainbow tables, which lets you do the brute force method once ahead of time, then reuse those generated tables to crack literally any password covered by that table in seconds.
If your system only allows ASCII characters (255 different values per character) and lets say 256 characters max in your password, you can setup and generate a rainbow table that matches using the same hashing method.
At that point, throwing any hash (any hash that will allow one to actually login that is) into the table, and plaintext pops out in seconds. Rinse and repeat for the entire password file.
Generating the rainbow tables does take a lot of time, and is a great example where distributed processing greatly speeds things up.
The NSA already has access to such computing resources however and can generate said tables in a much quicker time than any of us most likely can. The generation process only needs done once per hashing method as well.
Brute forcing hashes in real time on an as-needed basis is so 90s ;}
But shouldn't they also be liable somehow for the collateral damage they're causing, when they give traction to the spammers and botnets?
Well, there is should, and there is could.
Should, probably so.
Could, no. Unfortunately providing the means indirectly to criminals to do their thing is not illegal.
For it to be illegal, one would have to convince a judge that Windows is used primarily for botnets and scammers, and much less so for anything else.
They have NO RIGHT to tell me what I can or can't install their OS on. They try to with EULAs, but it wouldn't hold up in court if they tried to sue over it.
Exactly.
Just like the authors of GPL software have NO RIGHT to tell me I am not allowed to distributed modified binaries with out source code!
Oh wait...
If Apple offered an OS X license for non-Apple hardware, and priced it at whatever their margin is for a mid-range Mac, they'd be able to break into a lot of businesses where the customers don't get to pick their hardware.
It would be pretty hard for Apple to break into another market, if Apple is out of business :}
They have licensed Mac OS before, so we know exactly what the outcome of that would be.
Microsoft said today that computers in countries with high rates of software piracy are more likely to be infected because users are leery of applying security patches.
When you purposely push out "security patches" that only disable copies of Windows that are pirated, then yes, they are leery of using them, and rightly so (Assuming their goal is to run Windows without paying, and not buying Windows or using another OS)
This is the exact situation Microsoft has stated they wanted to happen.
And before anyone starts, I am not suggesting Microsoft change their rules on supporting pirated copies of Windows.
It's theirs to choose how to support how they want.
Just that this is the only conclusion one could expect from their current choice.
Maybe their argument will be that Section 117 doesn't apply because it's not an owner of a copy but a licensee?
Not exactly. Pystar is not licensed at all under copyright law, nor apples agreement, is the argument they are making, and thus this section does not exempt them of infringement when the copy is made to RAM on boot.
It might be bullshit, but its just one of a few billion laws that are only used as modifiers to existing laws.
Think of it as a "+1 sword of infringement". Its the type of law that only applies to you when you already broke a different law.
the obvious solution is to ban pills
or ban children
That one is so simple!
For any legal matter, a judge must state you are guilty of the crime.
After that, punishment is a non-issue.
With this law, you don't have to do anything wrong, or even do ANYTHING. A person in a coma can easily be guilty of this law, since it just requires someone to accuse them.
If i said Mr. ComaGuy downloaded a video, he is instantly GUILTY. Full stop. No more argument nor defense. The act of me claiming he did something is all it takes to be guilty of this law, having done so or not, or even being able to do so, never comes into play.
Three people do that to Mr. ComaGuy, and when he wakes up he is banned from the internet.
Now do you see why this law is a bad idea?
Incorrect. Pay $99 for a developer's license, compile or develop any software you want, and put it on your phone.
Good call. I did totally forget about the developer process letting you install an app on phones manually.
So I was incorrect in that statement, one can do so.
I guess my mind blocked it out as an option, since for me (not a professional developer) that is too much money when jailbreaking is free. But that's just me, and it is still an option.
My mistake!
That is the neutrality issue in that specific case.
This has fuck all to do with net neutrality. Neutrality is about enforcing bandwidth neutrality for traffic passing through your system - The AppStore is an app and expected to be somewhat biased.
No, "Net Neutrality" doesn't mean what I said. That is why I did not use that term :}
Additionally, "that specific case" which clearly means the app store, is not a network issue. So no, I was not speaking of enforcing bandwidth.
As you clearly pointed out, but seem to not understand, the issue of enforcing bandwidth equally is called net neutrality.
Neutrality, the word I used (with no additional qualifiers), is defined as "The state or policy of being neutral"
prior to the most evil hideous oppressive App Store there was nothing like it...
What about Steam? And all those lame ringtone download systems for phones that wouldn't let you make/use your own? :/
Well none of those that existed before were made by Apple. And this is slashdot, so you won't see anyone admitting they existed let alone are as bad as the app store, for a decade+ before the app store existed...
The troll mods to come will show how against popular opinion those facts are, even if true.
While it is true Apple should be able to choose what to sell and what not to sell on their own store..
The actual complaint with the iTunes store is that Apple tries to prevent you from shopping at any other store to get software for the hardware you own (iPod touch/iPhone specific there really)
That is the neutrality issue in that specific case.
The music side of the store is fine. You can get MP3s anywhere. You can put your MP3s from anywhere on your Apple devices, No issue.
Without jailbreaking (Something Apple hasn't stated is OK to do, and has at least implied it is NOT OK to do) you can't load software of your choosing on your own hardware, only software Apple deems worthy to sell on their store.
That is the issue.
I would rather pass though none at all. It all looks like one big barrel of privacy invading pork to me. A costly solution to an imaginary problem. That leaves us all with less privacy, to absolutely no benefit to anyone except the people with cushy TSA jobs.
For privacy reasons yes.
For the current topic of terahertz waves and safety however, no.
Removing the scanners will not in any way change how much terahertz radiation you are exposed to, it will be the exact same amount.
Where was there a contract for TDS to install fiber optic networking?
The contract said the government would give them money (millions), in exchange for providing service to all locations in their area, even if it is not profitable to do so.
They took the money, then kept to the same saying that it is not profitable to provide broadband to far out rural areas.
That is the main reason this particular story is such a kick in the teeth.
They were paid to bring broadband to those areas, and took the payment to do so yet refused to put broadband out there. Now that the city decided/planned to do it themselves, the telco that refused to run broadband thus creating this need, is suing the government to stop.
The fact they rushed out broadband just before doing so is at least a step in the right direction for the end game, but is very dickish to do.
Especially considering without the monopoly granted by that same government, the telco wouldn't even have a business to be in.
So to conclude, yes signing a contract to receive money in exchange for a service that you refuse to provide and then sue anyone else who Does come through to provide, including the same entity that paid you to provide it in the first place, is a contract violation, which last I checked was against the law.
Granted it is a civil case and not a criminal one, but it is against the law none the less to violate a contract.
Perhaps you are right in that the contract was poorly worded and there are loopholes or other issues that keep the government from pressing the point. All most people remember is the purpose of the spending, not the legal jargon related to it. This was also roughly a decade ago.
So if they aim for being usable on 256mb of ram, just imagine how much faster than that it would run on 1gb!
When system X runs on 256mb as fast as system Y runs in 1gb ram, it is usually a given that system X will FAR outperform system Y on the same 1gb system.
Whats not to like?
Next time the town should be more careful about granting exclusive contracts.
What was given by the government, can be taken away by the government.
It is just sad they do not do so when the other side has so clearly violated the terms of the exclusive contract.
Would you mind telling who "they" are, so I'll know who's maps can't be relied on?
"They" = The map makers
Thus "who" is all of them.
I already have too many things connected to too many other things with wires.
I am really curious how many things and wires you have there!
Just think, it could be worse!