I don't believe that was an "anti-game comment"... I think it was a valid point (and no it's not me who said it, but I pretty much agree).
The point being that everyone is trying to come out with newer, flashier, funkier games, that require more and more newer and more expensive hardware.
And let's be honest, folks. This isn't really necessary.
For the "hardcore gamers", then yes, I can see the point. But I am not a "hardcore gamer" or whatever term you prefer. And, I gather, neither is the person you were responding to.
I like games; I often even like half-decent graphics. But I would prefer games that are playable without the funky sound cards, 3d accelerators and so on...
Whatever happened to stuff like Civilization (whose graphics are more than acceptable, and which runs just fine on a 286)? Or Daggerfall (ditto, except a 486)?
These are brilliant games, not requiring anything above what the user probably already had in their computer.
I guess that's the point of this rant... I don't mind high requirements, as long as I don't have to buy anything extra. I have no use for either a sound card or a 3d accelerator, outside of games. So I don't particularly want to buy this equipment, if that is the only thing I use it for.
Sure, I don't mind some games requiring one or the other, but these days, it seems like every game in existence requires both.
And for someone who wants to play the occasional game, but doesn't play a lot, and wouldn't get much use out of the extra hardware, that sucks. -- - Sean
> Pardon my ignorance, but since when did hardcore linux ppl use PowerPC?
Pardon my rudeness, but who the hell cares?
What difference does it make whether or not a person fits the description of "hardcore linux ppl"?
If anything, the PPC should have more games ported to it than the Alpha. Remember, we're talking games here, not server software or something. If I want to run a server that needs good reliablility and on hardware that can take a pounding, I'll use an Alpha.
If I want a desktop machine that will run games, and such, I'll go for the (cheaper and) more widespread option of either 80x86 or PowerPC.
The Alpha is precisely the wrong platform to port games to first.
(Disclaimer as such: I run x86, so I have no real stake in any decision that's made.) -- - Sean
I think there would be a number of people that would take exception to your assertion that "people on the math end of the cryptography game, or any one else doing abstract algo stuff" can't be considered to be hackers.
I think they have just as much claim to the name as anyone else here. Of course some more than others, but that's just the point...
Hacking is a mindset; it has nothing whatsoever to do with some specific ability.
To be a coder, you have to be able to code.
To be a hacker, you have to have an innate curiosity about the world around you and how it works. Whether that is restricted to the computer world, or whether it encompasses the physical, mental, natural or electronical (or any other) worlds...
It so happens that most "computer hackers", as a result of this curiosity, want to find out how the computers work; what makes 'em tick... and this in turn leads to an ability to at least understand (if not write) code.
But it's not a requirement.
Don't get your causes mixed up with your effects.
Hacking most definitely does not rely on an ability to code... or an ability to do anything else for that matter.
It is a mindset.
And a "mathematician" (your term) who has the correct mindset, would be just as much a hacker as I (a coder) am... probably moreso. -- - Sean
Umm... it's not possible for you to buy stuff at the supermarket, or whatever, and bring it in to work?
That's what I do... -- - Sean
Re:getting in shape and eating right HOWTO
on
Hacker's Diet
·
· Score: 1
Please... do hammer one out.
As for technical detail, I would prefer (dunno about anyone else) it to be detailed enough that nothing is lost in the "dumbing down". More than that, if you think it provides a useful insight, include it, but I don't want to wade through too much that I really don't have much applicable use for. If anything starts getting really technical, still include it, if you think appropriate, but perhaps a URL pointing to a site that might help a layman (me) to decipher it, would be appropriate.
I just moved out recently (a couple weeks ago). Except that my mom was never the "you haven't had enough to eat" type, but rather the "you've had way too much already! No more!" type.
I'm already 50lbs or so overweight, and now, without that element of control... -- - Sean
That is, I think that's what CmdrTaco had in mind with the qualitative (as opposed to quantitative) ratings (aka: "Flamebait", "Offtopic", "Troll", etc...)
There are 2 things that should be done to improve this, however.
1. There should be more categories. The fact that this was marked as "Troll" indicates that there is no category such as "offensive". Perhaps (probably), posts should be able to have more than one descriptive rating applied to them (ie: this one was both offtopic and offensive).
2. You should be able to set your filter by these categories, instead of only by number. Currently, all you can do is set a numeric threshold (which is obviously set at -1). But if you could set/. to filter everything out that is marked as "offensive", that would allow you greater control, rather than the current 2 options of setting it to -1 and seeing everything, including this garbage, or setting to 0 (or higher) and missing out on stuff that is perhaps offtopic, but not distasteful...
(Of course, then we just have to trust then moderators to categorize the posts adequately...:-) -- - Sean
IBM did have a "copy" of the Windows (16 bit), and later Win32s API set in Win-OS/2. But not because they were mirroring the MS API.
Rather, the reason was that originally, IBM and Microsoft developed OS/2 jointly. Win-OS/2 is and was in fact a fully-functional direct copy of Windows itself.
When MS quit the partnership, part of the remaining agreements were that IBM had the rights to the Windows source code for a couple of more years. This allowed them to implement the Win32s API in successive versions of Win-OS/2.
But, by the time Win95 rolled around, that agreement had expired, and IBM no longer had any access to the Windows source. They did not, and never did have any interest in emulating the API, so without the source, they simply didn't include it.
It was not that they couldn't keep up with the pace, but rather that it wasn't their intention to try. -- - Sean
Ummm... excuse me, but who ever said they had any interest at all in Open-Source?
It's quite possible they have their own interests in making this proprietary, and selling it... I seem to recall the article saying something about embedded systems... maybe that's the market they're going after for the $$...
Then again, maybe not, but don't assume that just because the article is posted here on/. that they have any interest in open sourcing / giving out their programs, or in helping the Free Un*x community...
After all, Trumpet Winsock was shareware, and definitely proprietary... -- - Sean
> ensuring that 99% of all successful NT attacks will have the uniform signature of a BO2K installation to accompany them...
You forget, mon ami, that cDc is releasing the source. That means that people are free to modify the program as they desire (a phonomenon very familiar to us of the Free Software/Open Source persuasion).
Who's to say what "signature" these modified BO2K variants will have? Who's to say how identifiable they will be? -- - Sean
"In Excel 7.0 open a blank sheet and use your arrow keys to get to the 95'th row, highlight the entire row by clicking to the left of columnA and then hit TAB to col. B, then go to help about Excel and hold down Shift+Ctrl and click on tech supt. This should give you a doom like window. arrow keys move you around and d,c look up and down. if you turn away from the stairs and type EXCELKFA the wall will disappear and you can go into a room with pictures of the developers." -- - Sean
> I'm much happier with the UNIX way of having small applications that do just enough.
Bingo!. You prefer the "many small utils that do one thing and do it well" approach over the "one big app that does everything" approach.
Realize that not everyone prefers things this way. I also like this way of doing things, but my mother (for example) does not.
I use her as an example often, because she is a "typical" (is there such a thing?) PC user. She teaches chemistry at college level, and uses MS-Word to make up her exams, MS-Excel to keep track of her students' marks, etc... and Netscape to surf the web. She logs in to her AIX account and uses Pine to get her mail, and is quite happy.
She has no interest in using any apps other than those 5 I just mentioned (Word, Excel, Netscape, Pine, (VT-Terminal)).
Even just using MS-Word to make up an exam, if she has to ermbed a molecular diagram or something in the document, she will use Word's built-in "MS-Draw" thingie (even though it sucks rocks); she will use the equation editor extensively and all the rest (actually, she uses a lot of the built-in features).
And you know what happens if she needs to embed an image that is more complex than the MS-Draw sub-applet can handle?
I head for the hills -- fast!
The amount of complaining and grousing she will do at having to use a different program to draw the image, then import it back into her document is more than I, for one, care to handle.
She's not stupid, she is quite capable of doing it. But she doesn't want to. She wants to be able to open a single application (MS-Word), and create everything she needs -- from scratch, if needs be, then print it out, without ever having to use another program.
And most of the time, Word allows her to do this. Which is why she's happy with it. And why I wouldn't even try to convince her to use something like vi, that can't even "format text to a given width" in and of itself.
It's a different philosophy, because it suits her needs better.
You (and I) prefer many small utilities that work together. She prefers a single large app. Neither approach is necessarily "better", just different.
So, perhaps you "cannot accept that many of the "features" in (say) MS Word belong in a word processor."
I think that with the "collective intake of breath", he is alluding to the fact that so many people use them, that if a bug is at all serious, it could cause headaches for quite a number of people.
(And of course, the fact that a lot of people use them infers that they're fairly good.) -- - Sean
> If I'm not mistaken, www.freshmeat.net has dynamic mirroring already up and working.
That seems to be the case. I always get rerouted to mirrors.on.ca.freshmeat.net, and I've definitely never told it to do that!
> Helps out a lot on peak traffic hours.
Yes and no. The main problem with it is that when the mirror is down (as happens occasionally), there is no (obvious) way to get around the mirror and hit the main freshmeat site. It always reroutes me to the (downed) mirror, no matter what. Pain in the ass when that happens. -- - Sean
Slashdot Mirror
I don't believe that was an "anti-game comment"... I think it was a valid point (and no it's not me who said it, but I pretty much agree).
The point being that everyone is trying to come out with newer, flashier, funkier games, that require more and more newer and more expensive hardware.
And let's be honest, folks. This isn't really necessary.
For the "hardcore gamers", then yes, I can see the point. But I am not a "hardcore gamer" or whatever term you prefer. And, I gather, neither is the person you were responding to.
I like games; I often even like half-decent graphics. But I would prefer games that are playable without the funky sound cards, 3d accelerators and so on...
Whatever happened to stuff like Civilization (whose graphics are more than acceptable, and which runs just fine on a 286)? Or Daggerfall (ditto, except a 486)?
These are brilliant games, not requiring anything above what the user probably already had in their computer.
I guess that's the point of this rant... I don't mind high requirements, as long as I don't have to buy anything extra. I have no use for either a sound card or a 3d accelerator, outside of games. So I don't particularly want to buy this equipment, if that is the only thing I use it for.
Sure, I don't mind some games requiring one or the other, but these days, it seems like every game in existence requires both.
And for someone who wants to play the occasional game, but doesn't play a lot, and wouldn't get much use out of the extra hardware, that sucks.
--
- Sean
> Pardon my ignorance, but since when did hardcore linux ppl use PowerPC?
Pardon my rudeness, but who the hell cares?
What difference does it make whether or not a person fits the description of "hardcore linux ppl"?
If anything, the PPC should have more games ported to it than the Alpha. Remember, we're talking games here, not server software or something. If I want to run a server that needs good reliablility and on hardware that can take a pounding, I'll use an Alpha.
If I want a desktop machine that will run games, and such, I'll go for the (cheaper and) more widespread option of either 80x86 or PowerPC.
The Alpha is precisely the wrong platform to port games to first.
(Disclaimer as such: I run x86, so I have no real stake in any decision that's made.)
--
- Sean
o.0
I think there would be a number of people that would take exception to your assertion that "people on the math end of the cryptography game, or any one else doing abstract algo stuff" can't be considered to be hackers.
I think they have just as much claim to the name as anyone else here. Of course some more than others, but that's just the point...
Hacking is a mindset; it has nothing whatsoever to do with some specific ability.
To be a coder, you have to be able to code.
To be a hacker, you have to have an innate curiosity about the world around you and how it works. Whether that is restricted to the computer world, or whether it encompasses the physical, mental, natural or electronical (or any other) worlds...
It so happens that most "computer hackers", as a result of this curiosity, want to find out how the computers work; what makes 'em tick... and this in turn leads to an ability to at least understand (if not write) code.
But it's not a requirement.
Don't get your causes mixed up with your effects.
Hacking most definitely does not rely on an ability to code... or an ability to do anything else for that matter.
It is a mindset.
And a "mathematician" (your term) who has the correct mindset, would be just as much a hacker as I (a coder) am... probably moreso.
--
- Sean
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/h acker-howto.html
--
- Sean
Hunh.
:-)
I'm glad you think getting shot at is a joke!
--
- Sean
The fat I have.
Being turned into a penguin, on the other hand...
Where's Erwin when you need him? ( http://www.userfriendly.org/static/ )
--
- Sean
Umm... it's not possible for you to buy stuff at the supermarket, or whatever, and bring it in to work?
That's what I do...
--
- Sean
Please... do hammer one out.
:-)
As for technical detail, I would prefer (dunno about anyone else) it to be detailed enough that nothing is lost in the "dumbing down". More than that, if you think it provides a useful insight, include it, but I don't want to wade through too much that I really don't have much applicable use for. If anything starts getting really technical, still include it, if you think appropriate, but perhaps a URL pointing to a site that might help a layman (me) to decipher it, would be appropriate.
Again, I only speak for myself
--
- Sean
Hmm... dunno what that means for me...
I just moved out recently (a couple weeks ago). Except that my mom was never the "you haven't had enough to eat" type, but rather the "you've had way too much already! No more!" type.
I'm already 50lbs or so overweight, and now, without that element of control...
--
- Sean
OS/2.
Of course, that's now dead (rest in peace).
--
- Sean
Dankeschön!
Yup... seems to be working... and I can manglefish the text.
--
- Sean
That's sort-of implemented already.
/. to filter everything out that is marked as "offensive", that would allow you greater control, rather than the current 2 options of setting it to -1 and seeing everything, including this garbage, or setting to 0 (or higher) and missing out on stuff that is perhaps offtopic, but not distasteful...
:-)
That is, I think that's what CmdrTaco had in mind with the qualitative (as opposed to quantitative) ratings (aka: "Flamebait", "Offtopic", "Troll", etc...)
There are 2 things that should be done to improve this, however.
1. There should be more categories. The fact that this was marked as "Troll" indicates that there is no category such as "offensive". Perhaps (probably), posts should be able to have more than one descriptive rating applied to them (ie: this one was both offtopic and offensive).
2. You should be able to set your filter by these categories, instead of only by number. Currently, all you can do is set a numeric threshold (which is obviously set at -1). But if you could set
(Of course, then we just have to trust then moderators to categorize the posts adequately...
--
- Sean
IBM did have a "copy" of the Windows (16 bit), and later Win32s API set in Win-OS/2. But not because they were mirroring the MS API.
Rather, the reason was that originally, IBM and Microsoft developed OS/2 jointly. Win-OS/2 is and was in fact a fully-functional direct copy of Windows itself.
When MS quit the partnership, part of the remaining agreements were that IBM had the rights to the Windows source code for a couple of more years. This allowed them to implement the Win32s API in successive versions of Win-OS/2.
But, by the time Win95 rolled around, that agreement had expired, and IBM no longer had any access to the Windows source. They did not, and never did have any interest in emulating the API, so without the source, they simply didn't include it.
It was not that they couldn't keep up with the pace, but rather that it wasn't their intention to try.
--
- Sean
Ummm... excuse me, but who ever said they had any interest at all in Open-Source?
/. that they have any interest in open sourcing / giving out their programs, or in helping the Free Un*x community...
It's quite possible they have their own interests in making this proprietary, and selling it... I seem to recall the article saying something about embedded systems... maybe that's the market they're going after for the $$...
Then again, maybe not, but don't assume that just because the article is posted here on
After all, Trumpet Winsock was shareware, and definitely proprietary...
--
- Sean
I've never met an X11 problem that Ctrl-Alt-BkSpc didn't solve :-)
...and even those are rare...
--
- Sean
According to the "conventional wisdom" (aka: manuals published by MS), the NT Kernel consists of:
kernel32.dll
gdi32.dll
user32.dll
Exactly how far you trust that is up to you. On my (NT4) machine, those files add up to 852k.
(Just my random $.02)
--
- Sean
No, not troll.
Humour. Sarcasm. Funny.
Laugh, man! Get a life!
--
- Sean
> ensuring that 99% of all successful NT attacks will have the uniform signature of a BO2K installation to accompany them...
You forget, mon ami, that cDc is releasing the source. That means that people are free to modify the program as they desire (a phonomenon very familiar to us of the Free Software/Open Source persuasion).
Who's to say what "signature" these modified BO2K variants will have? Who's to say how identifiable they will be?
--
- Sean
Whoooeee! The stuff people come up with!
/. at -1, I'd never get to read all these absorbing and fascinating insights into the world!
Just imagine, if I wasn't surfing
(LOL!)
--
- Sean
"In Excel 7.0 open a blank sheet and use your arrow keys to get to the 95'th row, highlight the entire row by clicking to the left of columnA and then hit TAB to col. B, then go to help about Excel and hold down Shift+Ctrl and click on tech supt. This should give you a doom like window. arrow keys move you around and d,c look up and down. if you turn away from the stairs and type EXCELKFA the wall will disappear and you can go into a room with pictures of the developers."
--
- Sean
> I'm much happier with the UNIX way of having small applications that do just enough.
Bingo!. You prefer the "many small utils that do one thing and do it well" approach over the "one big app that does everything" approach.
Realize that not everyone prefers things this way. I also like this way of doing things, but my mother (for example) does not.
I use her as an example often, because she is a "typical" (is there such a thing?) PC user. She teaches chemistry at college level, and uses MS-Word to make up her exams, MS-Excel to keep track of her students' marks, etc... and Netscape to surf the web. She logs in to her AIX account and uses Pine to get her mail, and is quite happy.
She has no interest in using any apps other than those 5 I just mentioned (Word, Excel, Netscape, Pine, (VT-Terminal)).
Even just using MS-Word to make up an exam, if she has to ermbed a molecular diagram or something in the document, she will use Word's built-in "MS-Draw" thingie (even though it sucks rocks); she will use the equation editor extensively and all the rest (actually, she uses a lot of the built-in features).
And you know what happens if she needs to embed an image that is more complex than the MS-Draw sub-applet can handle?
I head for the hills -- fast!
The amount of complaining and grousing she will do at having to use a different program to draw the image, then import it back into her document is more than I, for one, care to handle.
She's not stupid, she is quite capable of doing it. But she doesn't want to. She wants to be able to open a single application (MS-Word), and create everything she needs -- from scratch, if needs be, then print it out, without ever having to use another program.
And most of the time, Word allows her to do this. Which is why she's happy with it. And why I wouldn't even try to convince her to use something like vi, that can't even "format text to a given width" in and of itself.
It's a different philosophy, because it suits her needs better.
You (and I) prefer many small utilities that work together. She prefers a single large app. Neither approach is necessarily "better", just different.
So, perhaps you "cannot accept that many of the "features" in (say) MS Word belong in a word processor."
I can.
--
- Sean
I think that with the "collective intake of breath", he is alluding to the fact that so many people use them, that if a bug is at all serious, it could cause headaches for quite a number of people.
(And of course, the fact that a lot of people use them infers that they're fairly good.)
--
- Sean
Wow! Someone sure needs to wake up and smell the coffee!
:-)
You figure that no-one can get into a US university without good grades?
Uh-huh. Next, you'll be saying that you can't become an NBA basketball player if you're black!
--
- Sean
Umm... I'd think it'd be more along the lines of:
/) | awk {print $1}`;
...of course, keep in mind that that would end up getting rid of a lot of your howto's, not to mention more than a few manpages...
:-)
rm -rf `grep -i 'esr' $(find
--
- Sean
> If I'm not mistaken, www.freshmeat.net has dynamic mirroring already up and working.
That seems to be the case. I always get rerouted to mirrors.on.ca.freshmeat.net, and I've definitely never told it to do that!
> Helps out a lot on peak traffic hours.
Yes and no. The main problem with it is that when the mirror is down (as happens occasionally), there is no (obvious) way to get around the mirror and hit the main freshmeat site. It always reroutes me to the (downed) mirror, no matter what. Pain in the ass when that happens.
--
- Sean