Not to trivialise what Johnny is doing there is basically measuring the position of the wiimote in relation to the sensor bar - something it already does. The code to do this shouldn't be that difficult. The true genius was in him realising that you could do this easiest by reversing the moving component and the stationary component.
Apart from some smoothing algorithms, this is no more complex than reading the wiimote's pointer position and mapping that to a camera viewpoint.
You really want to be checking out ITX motherboards then. Running low-powered CPUs with a small form-factor means they doin't look too out of place alongside the TV:) Slap mythtv on a server and net-boot minimyth to the ITX box and you are onto a winner. I run that here and love it.
Yes, the Wii architecture is fundamentally the same as the Gamecube architecture, but so what?
All the way up the PC scale, each improvement is an incremental improvement on what went before. Does anyone complain about that? No.
Fundamentally, computers all do the same things. As long as you can perform the fundamental turin operations, you can do anything. Yeah, multi-core machines can do these same operations at a greater rate, but there's nothing different that what they are capable of (apart from making programmers worry about race conditions and such like).
People don't complain about the similarity between upgrades in PC processing power for a good reason, you don't have to spend many months training your programmers in how to get started and them watching them spend years before they are capable of fully utilising the system. With a similar architecture as you are already used to, the learning curve and associated costs are much much lower, programmers are more productive and happier.
Huh? You *can't* go the MSFT route, the Xbox 360 processor *isn't* a Cell.
Yes, but whether you think you do or not, Sony tell me that you really do want access to a Cell, just like you want that Blu-Ray drive you have no use for.
The online identity assurance process is intended to be more comprehensive and standardized across the entire industry. Whereas currently online identity assurance processes vary from CA to CA, the new standards/processes under discussion by the CA Browser Forum, will have to be adhered to by all CAs if they wish to offer High Assurance/Extended Validation SSL certificates. This will encourage greater confidence in CAs as well as the processes that are used to vet and issue digital certificates. thawte's commitment to establishing and implementing High Assurance/Extended Validation SSL standards, and to being one of the first to offer compliant product lines, underscores our commitment to enabling a secure digital environment for all.
Err, excuse me.. isn't the verification of the identity of the applicant of the certificate exactly what the CAs are meant to be doing anyway?
I thought that that is why we had these 'trusted' third-parties, to vouch for the identity of the certificate owner - that is the fundamental basis of PKI and certificates. If they weren't doing that before (which they clearly weren't doing properly), what the hell were they doing?
So, we're paying them extra to get a 'fixed' version of something that they caused to be broken in the first place because they couldn't do their job properly. WHy should paying an extra 50% on top of their fees all of a sudden make us able to trust them now?
Isn't that exactly what 'secret' data is meant to be. From what I understand of basic information theory is that you cannot completely secure data, there will always - eventually - be a path to it, information security's job is to make it so inconvenient for an unauthorised person to get to, that by the time they reach it, it will be worthless. They only to permanently stop someone from learning a piece of data is to totally destroy it. (this is why encryption keys and passwords should expire at regular intervals).
I think that Schnieder must have been mis-quoted there, as data that has been purposefully made inconvenient to get to is, by it's nature, secret. Data that has been simply obfuscated and published is not secret or has been dealt with incorrectly.
If this data can cause national (or even local) security issue, then it should be classified and secret whilst that info is useful (i.e. publish it immediately when the crews get back to their base from the call).
Yeah, but that upper limit only runs to the lawyer's fees. It does not cover expenses and what-not. These extra costs are already well into the millions of dollars.
The robots exclusion standard was primarily designed to exclude robots from the parts of the server's namespace that robots can't handle
Agreed, but it is still notification that bots are not authorised to access those pages. Therefore it likely has an effect on the legality of the situation.
That sounds rather absurd. It's like posting a massive page of text in a busy public location, with a sticky note attached saying "do not read this text."
The UK law does not seem to make any mention of protection mechanisms, just authorisation,
If I leave an unlocked bicycle outside a shop on a busy street while I go and buy something, it is still illegal for you to take it away.
First, let me get two points expressed first. 1) IANAL, 2) I wholeheartedly agree with the aims of wayback and support that organisation whole-heartedly. I am playing devil's advocate here.
In the UK Computer Misuse laws, there is the concept of unauthorised access. It is an offence to access data on a computer system without authorisation.
Typically it is assumed that access to data held on a publicly available website, without notice to the contrary, is authorised. A notice displayed stating that you should not look at the data unless you are me is sufficient to make you aware that you should not access it. Similarly, a robots.txt file is the place to explicitly definae what data is unauthorised for access by automated spider systems. Anyone writing such a system can be reasonably expected to know that robots.txt contains such information and should therefor have the spider check that to see if access to the data is unauthorised. Failure to check that does not magically make the access any more legal. I would imagine that the US has similar provisions.
The creatiopn of a robots.txt file after the spider has collected the information will not make the previous access and data collection illegal nor should it affect the presentation of that data. Copyright law may have an imapct though.
After all the talk about 'innovation' are gamers going to want to spend full price for slightly upgraded GameCube games with pointing/swinging control added in 2007 and on?
Hell no, I'm eagerly awaiting essentially the same games that I got last year, but an innovative higher resolution graphics, and all the extra fun of a higher price-point.
It is always best, when looking aat situations like this, to look at what might just happen....
As a hardware manufacturare, I could sell you a computer that would only boot a kernel that has been digitally signed by me.
Under GPL v2, I could also write a varient of the Linux kernel that would only load drivers that have been signed by me, and only run applications that have been signed by me. Whilst I have to distribute these modifications to the kernel, I do not have to distribute the private keys. As part of this system, the only web-browser I provide willrestrict you to browsing sites that provide me with a healthy profit from advertising and affiliate revenue (myspace is one of my partners, so the majority of web-traffic is covered;)).This browser cannot reach/. so you cannot complain about it here.
I will also, graciously, allow you to purchase software like the gimp, gpg or Open Office for 100 quid a go. I will also provide the source for these packages, covering my obligations under the GPL.The digital signatures authenticating these binaries also reference your machine's identifier via it's TPM module, thus ensuring that you cannot effectively share this GPL software with your friends (who own similar systems) whilst staying well within the letter of GPL v2.
I could aalso impose other technical restrictions, such as having each digital signature expire in a year so I have a continuous revenue stream for legally leeching off other people's time and effort. Marketing describe this as 'maintenance and upgrades', so you're kept happy).
Whatr, in the above scenario, is different from current proprietary models & 'Shared Source'? Yet all is legal within the wording of GPL v2.
If the Operating System kernel is licensed under the current v2 license, then there is nothing that can be done to stop the above happening. If the OS adopts v3, this is explicitly denied, and you have an open system.
In this situation, GPL v2w offers little more protection to application developers tha the BSD or MIT licenses if you happen to buy the wrong hardware.
If a password is so secure that it can't be guessed, then why change it?
Because often password compromises don't come about from passwords being guessed. Passwords may be stolen in many other ways (social engineering, man-in-the-middle, brute-force against a password file backup, dumpster diving for the post-it with it written down on, etc. etc.).
If an attacker has your password, they're not likely to let you know about it. Changing your password regularly (no matter how 'strong' it is) limits your exposure.
Aye - depends on how accurate the motion sensor is hough - can it distinguish between a 'shake' and just a movement. Heh, with the seakers, you could also have the maracas sound like on he DC.
There is a 'port' to the PS2, as part of the Sega SUperstars games pack for the eye-toy. Unfortunately, it's dire in comparison. On the plus side, the NiGHTS, Sonic and Puyo Pop games are superb (if arm-tiring in the case of NiGHTS).
You gave a fine explanation, but you missed a key point.
Licenses are not restrictions.
D'oh! Yeah, I know that.. it's only the licence that gives you the permissions to use it. So I can't explain what had gotten into me last night when I wrote that. Thanks for catching my snafu.
Just how wrong do you want to be??
As far as I can tell, the GPL (and, yes, I have read it, and I have queried the FSF on certain aspects of it) deals almost exclusively with distribution. Basically, it is 'do whatever you want with this program or code, but if you distribute a program incorporating GPL'd code, then the whole program must be under the rules of the GPL
If I were a Windows source licensee, there is nothing in the GPL that stops me from combining the two for my own use. It is only if I intend to give you a copy of the result that it causes me a 'problem'.
I say 'problem', because actually, both licenses would give restrictions, you would need to license the Windows code from Microsoft yourself (or I would pay to arrange for a license for you) regardless of wether I included GPL'd code - all licenses (but "I don't care, it's PD and I don't want attributation") are a set of restrictions on how you use something. The GPL is no worse than any other for this. The GPL, however, does effectively restrict the 'eee' strategy by stating that if an entity wants to do that, they would have to write all the code for it from scratch (or license it from non-GPL sources).
I am constantly astounded at just how well built and designed the rover must have been. AFAIR, it was only intended to run for a couple of months, yet it has now clocked up a couple of years, and now they are upgrading it's software to make it perform even better - that entire team is doing a fantastic job, and easily deserve whatever the US equivalent of an OBE is.
Tis a shame that Beagle2 didn't survive impact. I reckon that'd have done just as well, and the two teams would have mapped Mars and have the rovers playing a game of fotball with each other by now;)
Of course it does, it means I don't have to suffer with any kludgey environment re-implementations like Wine, or interrupt everything I was doing and find another machine to boot another OS to run the app.
When you design a system, you place security in at as many levels you can. This is called 'Defense in Depth' and has been practised for many hundreds of years (castles were built upon the same principle).
If you can, stip your system to the bare minimun, run a network firewall and a local firewall, protocol analysis, IDS and host level solutions such as PaX all add up.
It's good to work on the idea that no systetem is undefeatable, so arranging a few different security systems can only gain you more security than just one method.
Firewall, specifically provide a good advantage over just stripping a system. FOr one, they typically slow an attackers discovery of available services on your system, A network firewall can hide that a system is there (and therefore leave doubt when things say there's nothing there), they provide a nice central point for detecting attacks against a network, and also give a good choke-point to defend against known attackers.
SCIII seems pretty rushed to me. SCII only came out on console, what less than a year ago?
My UK GameCube Version is Dated 2003 (ISTR it being about April/May time) - that's two years.
I also have the Japanese version on PS2 - dated 2002... many, many months before the UK version came out, it certainly wasn't late 2002.
It was in the arcades long before then.
AFAIK, the current thinking among those to have to enforce strict security is to use phrases
Most modern password systems allow an almost arbitrary length password, and randomly generated passwords are not working - people simply write them down in order to remember them.
Take a phrase that is meaningful to the user, say, 'My car is a red Ford' and add some simpleobfuscation 'My c@r is a red-F0rd!', and you have a phrase that is not only easy to remember, but is going to take a lot of effort to brute-force.
Slashdot Mirror
Starpping a wiimote to the head is a) haver than two leds and b) opens up the user to a whole menagerie of xxx-head jokes.
Not very.
Not to trivialise what Johnny is doing there is basically measuring the position of the wiimote in relation to the sensor bar - something it already does. The code to do this shouldn't be that difficult. The true genius was in him realising that you could do this easiest by reversing the moving component and the stationary component.
Apart from some smoothing algorithms, this is no more complex than reading the wiimote's pointer position and mapping that to a camera viewpoint.
You really want to be checking out ITX motherboards then. Running low-powered CPUs with a small form-factor means they doin't look too out of place alongside the TV :)
Slap mythtv on a server and net-boot minimyth to the ITX box and you are onto a winner. I run that here and love it.
Yes, the Wii architecture is fundamentally the same as the Gamecube architecture, but so what?
All the way up the PC scale, each improvement is an incremental improvement on what went before. Does anyone complain about that? No.
Fundamentally, computers all do the same things. As long as you can perform the fundamental turin operations, you can do anything. Yeah, multi-core machines can do these same operations at a greater rate, but there's nothing different that what they are capable of (apart from making programmers worry about race conditions and such like).
People don't complain about the similarity between upgrades in PC processing power for a good reason, you don't have to spend many months training your programmers in how to get started and them watching them spend years before they are capable of fully utilising the system. With a similar architecture as you are already used to, the learning curve and associated costs are much much lower, programmers are more productive and happier.
Yes, but whether you think you do or not, Sony tell me that you really do want access to a Cell, just like you want that Blu-Ray drive you have no use for.
Pro drivers (on race tracks) can get the most out of the newest Ferraris. That's not nobody.
Well, if it's not possible to use all the power in the PS3, there's no point in making a more powerful console in a few years time, right?
Err, excuse me.. isn't the verification of the identity of the applicant of the certificate exactly what the CAs are meant to be doing anyway?
I thought that that is why we had these 'trusted' third-parties, to vouch for the identity of the certificate owner - that is the fundamental basis of PKI and certificates. If they weren't doing that before (which they clearly weren't doing properly), what the hell were they doing?
So, we're paying them extra to get a 'fixed' version of something that they caused to be broken in the first place because they couldn't do their job properly. WHy should paying an extra 50% on top of their fees all of a sudden make us able to trust them now?
Heh, yeah I have a copy of this for an old Altos 886 box I have here somewhere - fun bit of kit. Also had MS Word for Xenix.
Then they sold the OS onto a company with a three letter name - funny how atitudes travel with products, isn't it?
I think that Schnieder must have been mis-quoted there, as data that has been purposefully made inconvenient to get to is, by it's nature, secret. Data that has been simply obfuscated and published is not secret or has been dealt with incorrectly.
If this data can cause national (or even local) security issue, then it should be classified and secret whilst that info is useful (i.e. publish it immediately when the crews get back to their base from the call).
Yeah, but that upper limit only runs to the lawyer's fees. It does not cover expenses and what-not. These extra costs are already well into the millions of dollars.
The UK law does not seem to make any mention of protection mechanisms, just authorisation,
If I leave an unlocked bicycle outside a shop on a busy street while I go and buy something, it is still illegal for you to take it away.
First, let me get two points expressed first. 1) IANAL, 2) I wholeheartedly agree with the aims of wayback and support that organisation whole-heartedly. I am playing devil's advocate here.
In the UK Computer Misuse laws, there is the concept of unauthorised access. It is an offence to access data on a computer system without authorisation.
Typically it is assumed that access to data held on a publicly available website, without notice to the contrary, is authorised. A notice displayed stating that you should not look at the data unless you are me is sufficient to make you aware that you should not access it. Similarly, a robots.txt file is the place to explicitly definae what data is unauthorised for access by automated spider systems. Anyone writing such a system can be reasonably expected to know that robots.txt contains such information and should therefor have the spider check that to see if access to the data is unauthorised. Failure to check that does not magically make the access any more legal. I would imagine that the US has similar provisions.
The creatiopn of a robots.txt file after the spider has collected the information will not make the previous access and data collection illegal nor should it affect the presentation of that data. Copyright law may have an imapct though.
It is always best, when looking aat situations like this, to look at what might just happen....
;)).This browser cannot reach /. so you cannot complain about it here.
As a hardware manufacturare, I could sell you a computer that would only boot a kernel that has been digitally signed by me.
Under GPL v2, I could also write a varient of the Linux kernel that would only load drivers that have been signed by me, and only run applications that have been signed by me. Whilst I have to distribute these modifications to the kernel, I do not have to distribute the private keys. As part of this system, the only web-browser I provide willrestrict you to browsing sites that provide me with a healthy profit from advertising and affiliate revenue (myspace is one of my partners, so the majority of web-traffic is covered
I will also, graciously, allow you to purchase software like the gimp, gpg or Open Office for 100 quid a go. I will also provide the source for these packages, covering my obligations under the GPL.The digital signatures authenticating these binaries also reference your machine's identifier via it's TPM module, thus ensuring that you cannot effectively share this GPL software with your friends (who own similar systems) whilst staying well within the letter of GPL v2.
I could aalso impose other technical restrictions, such as having each digital signature expire in a year so I have a continuous revenue stream for legally leeching off other people's time and effort. Marketing describe this as 'maintenance and upgrades', so you're kept happy).
Whatr, in the above scenario, is different from current proprietary models & 'Shared Source'? Yet all is legal within the wording of GPL v2.
If the Operating System kernel is licensed under the current v2 license, then there is nothing that can be done to stop the above happening. If the OS adopts v3, this is explicitly denied, and you have an open system.
In this situation, GPL v2w offers little more protection to application developers tha the BSD or MIT licenses if you happen to buy the wrong hardware.
If an attacker has your password, they're not likely to let you know about it. Changing your password regularly (no matter how 'strong' it is) limits your exposure.
Aye - depends on how accurate the motion sensor is hough - can it distinguish between a 'shake' and just a movement. Heh, with the seakers, you could also have the maracas sound like on he DC.
There is a 'port' to the PS2, as part of the Sega SUperstars games pack for the eye-toy. Unfortunately, it's dire in comparison. On the plus side, the NiGHTS, Sonic and Puyo Pop games are superb (if arm-tiring in the case of NiGHTS).
D'oh! Yeah, I know that
Just how wrong do you want to be??
As far as I can tell, the GPL (and, yes, I have read it, and I have queried the FSF on certain aspects of it) deals almost exclusively with distribution. Basically, it is 'do whatever you want with this program or code, but if you distribute a program incorporating GPL'd code, then the whole program must be under the rules of the GPL
If I were a Windows source licensee, there is nothing in the GPL that stops me from combining the two for my own use. It is only if I intend to give you a copy of the result that it causes me a 'problem'.
I say 'problem', because actually, both licenses would give restrictions, you would need to license the Windows code from Microsoft yourself (or I would pay to arrange for a license for you) regardless of wether I included GPL'd code - all licenses (but "I don't care, it's PD and I don't want attributation") are a set of restrictions on how you use something. The GPL is no worse than any other for this. The GPL, however, does effectively restrict the 'eee' strategy by stating that if an entity wants to do that, they would have to write all the code for it from scratch (or license it from non-GPL sources).
I am constantly astounded at just how well built and designed the rover must have been. AFAIR, it was only intended to run for a couple of months, yet it has now clocked up a couple of years, and now they are upgrading it's software to make it perform even better - that entire team is doing a fantastic job, and easily deserve whatever the US equivalent of an OBE is.
;)
Tis a shame that Beagle2 didn't survive impact. I reckon that'd have done just as well, and the two teams would have mapped Mars and have the rovers playing a game of fotball with each other by now
Of course it does, it means I don't have to suffer with any kludgey environment re-implementations like Wine, or interrupt everything I was doing and find another machine to boot another OS to run the app.
Your point is completely correct.
When you design a system, you place security in at as many levels you can. This is called 'Defense in Depth' and has been practised for many hundreds of years (castles were built upon the same principle).
If you can, stip your system to the bare minimun, run a network firewall and a local firewall, protocol analysis, IDS and host level solutions such as PaX all add up.
It's good to work on the idea that no systetem is undefeatable, so arranging a few different security systems can only gain you more security than just one method.
Firewall, specifically provide a good advantage over just stripping a system. FOr one, they typically slow an attackers discovery of available services on your system, A network firewall can hide that a system is there (and therefore leave doubt when things say there's nothing there), they provide a nice central point for detecting attacks against a network, and also give a good choke-point to defend against known attackers.
My UK GameCube Version is Dated 2003 (ISTR it being about April/May time) - that's two years.
I also have the Japanese version on PS2 - dated 2002
It was in the arcades long before then.
I've been waiting for three for a long time.
AFAIK, the current thinking among those to have to enforce strict security is to use phrases
Most modern password systems allow an almost arbitrary length password, and randomly generated passwords are not working - people simply write them down in order to remember them.
Take a phrase that is meaningful to the user, say, 'My car is a red Ford' and add some simpleobfuscation 'My c@r is a red-F0rd!', and you have a phrase that is not only easy to remember, but is going to take a lot of effort to brute-force.