Open Sourcing CDE? Seriously? Would have possibly made a difference in 1998. But now? Except for historical interest, there's no point.
Was a so-so environment on HP-UX back in the day. Gloriously ugly.
Unfortunately, some companies only see Open Source as a way to gain good will or prestige by releasing code that's no longer of value to them. It's better than nothing, but it's entirely missing the main goals of both the Free Software and Open Source movements.
Indeed, OpenGL and Direct3D are direct competitors, not OpenGL and DirectX. One Free, cross-platform alternative to DirectX used by many games for both 2D and OpenGL-based 3D graphics is SDL
Having implemented OAuth1.0 and 2.0 services for communicating with various platforms, I was amazed at the lack of any security in Oauth 2.0. As mentioned by others, it completely relies on SSL/TLS, which is itself somewhat broken. From what I have gathered, it's simpler. That's about it. Actually, I prefer OAuth 1.0 and have modeled many of my own APIs after it.
TLS is not broken at all. Using it properly can be difficult. This, as well as lack of redundant security mechanisms is the reason Eran Hammer didn't like relying on TLS solely. If you think TLS is broken, you may be confusing it with the public key infrastructure everyone uses for HTTPS. The problems with poorly run signing authorities are not fundamentally technological but administrative. Outside of accessing public HTTPS sites with a browser, you can take more control over the certificates and policies used for TLS authentication.
Most of the games on Steam will be DirectX, not OpenGL.
And many of those DirectX games work already (at least partially) using Wine. In many cases, it will probably be easier for a developer to get the game working with Wine and/or Winelib than to completely replace all DirectX calls with OpenGL ones. That said, I still don't understand why OpenGL isn't the norm since game development is more cross-platform than it was in the 90s.
I sincerely hope you're joking. Flattened breasts are a pain and very uncomfortable. If you want to be at your best while on the field, it's not the best way to do it.
Unlike many surrounding posts, I'm not joking. However, I'm no expert either, having no experience with wearing either body armor or female breasts. I can only speculate and hope that the described design efforts would include a lot of practical testing with real soldiers.
Interesting that they can write a whole article on redesigning body armor for women and there's not a single reference to tatas.
Are the main differences really torso length, should width, and waist size? Do chesticles not really factor into the redesign? Or are the authors just being polite and not highlighting jugs as a factor?
I think the most likely explanation is that most woman's breasts aren't that significant to comfort in armor. The problematic areas mentioned mostly seem to be where the edges of the armor put pressure on the body and there aren't any edges near the middle of the chest. As others have pointed out, your favorite RPG's armor design has little to do with reality.
In Valve are serious about gaming on a linux base, it can't be at the ground zero of current Intel GFX. Well, it can - but I won't be the slightest bit interested.
Well Valve can't be serious about Windows gaming either, because even their most recent games still run pretty well on Intel graphics.
Valve seems to understand better than many game developers that pretty frames that take a lot of GPU power to render do not necessarily make good games.
What kind of bullshit logic is that? Something is broken, everyone hates it, so let's put all our efforts in making the alternatives better? How about contributing to PHP and fixing what you're bitching about instead of, well, bitching about it? You know, it's open-source and all.
PHP is a terrible language because of the way it was designed. More accurately, it wasn't designed. Each version improves things here and there, but the basic problem can't be fixed incrementally. There have been far superior languages available, such as Python and Ruby, for many years. AFAICT, the only disadvantage such superior languages have compared with PHP is the lack of a ubiquitous web framework which allows someone to casually start throwing code at a web server and have pages start showing up.
Better languages have upmteen web frameworks, but none are provided by default, while PHP is both a language and web framework in one. If a single decent framework, such as Django or Rails, were to become ubiquitous the way PHP is, that would solve most of the problem.
a scientific approach to why we keep doing this "lets fight a war every 4 years in the middle east" baloney. Some have speculated its a doctrine incepted by the former president carter, others say its driven simply by the military industrial complex, but im really curious to see if anyone can come up with a reason why we have to erect a punching bag like clockwork each presidency. both sides might bicker on finances and the budget, but both bob their heads in agreeance each time an expensive protracted excursion into war comes along without much dissonance.
The fact that the united states needlessly and violently attacks the middle east whenever it sees fit was something that Osama Bin Laden and Anwar al Awlaki touched upon. OBL actually had the nerve to insist we stop doing it as a condition upon which he would stop attacking america. It was a very reasonable request; a negotiated ceasefire.
Nothing doing so it seems. We partner up with the only nation in the region that seems to vitriolically hate iran and start coming up with the same clever chicanery we used to sabotage gas well computer control systems in soviet russia. Israel is a state sponsor of terrorism and hasnt signed any of the nuclear treaties we're shoving toward iran, but they havent made it into anyones axis of evil. Why do they get to have nuclear power and iran, a much larger state by population alone, doesnt?
You sounded halfway reasonable until the third paragraph. To say that Israel is "the only nation in the region that seems to vitriolically hate iran" is hilariously lazy revisionist history. Are you forgetting the Iran-Iraq war? How about the fact that Iranian leaders frequently call for the destruction of Israel and actively support groups that were created for this goal. The Saudis fear Iranian power almost as much as the Israelis.
Of course it's not fair that some states are allowed to have nuclear power and weapons and some aren't. The Isrealis have certainly been too eager to attack pre-emptively sometimes. It is that tendency that causes me to fear that the US will be sucked into yet another pointless war. However, few other states have had more reason to distrust their neighbors. They have expanded territory several times when neighboring states underestimated their ability to defend themselves. I think the US-Israelis collaboration on the likes of Stuxnet was reckless at best and reduces the chance for real diplomacy but to single out Israel as the sole agressor is just stupid.
The school bully uses this same method. They invariably go to jail or end up in a shit job. Soon, perhaps, the world will react against this menace.
"The world" is not a unified entity and will not react against injustice any more than it has in the past. However, as a US citizen, I am quite concerned that this will be one of the things that provokes Iran to retaliate against Israel or some other ally and suck us into yet another stupid war.
"As America and others start the world's first undeclared cyber-wars, dangerous precedents are being set that this type of warfare is without consequences. Such ideas could not be further from from truth."
Oh please. The French have been doing this kind of thing since before the United States even had a name for it. It's called industrial espionage, and they're so good at it that the executives of major companies are frequently told to never use the fax machines in hotels, or the phones, or the internet (unless it is an encrypted VPN), because the French government aggressively works to steal industrial secrets from other countries and provide it to their own businesses. People think because you add the word "Internet" to a social problem, that suddenly makes it new and special... le sigh.
All the internet did was make it faster and more efficient; Which is (wait for it) what computers in general do to socioeconomic processes.
Even if you had anything to back up these claims, a state obtaining information from companies for economic gain would not be anything like a state secretly destroying part of another state's energy infrastructure and/or weapons program. How significant would it be if it was revealed that the French government had destroyed Russian gas drilling equipment or the Japanese government had sabotaged North Korean missiles?
I guess the Maryland Democrats who run this city experienced catharsis after viewing the destruction of a nuclear holocaust, and decided to no longer be part of any weapon manufacturing business.
You might be insightful if the Maryland Democrats had actually decided to no longer be part of any weapon manufacturing business. However, they apparently had nothing against high explosives, chemical or even biological weapons. They made policy based on viewing a fictional account of a nuclear holocaust and completely ignored historical holocausts accomplished without nuclear weapons such as the vast majority of destruction during WWII.
If I was in that town I'd be pushing for it's repeal. Just like I pushed for getting rid of the ban on selling alcohol to indians in my old town. Yes, the law called them Indians.
Some immigrants from the Asian subcontinent must be pretty confused that they are singled out for the ban when their Pakistani neighbors are not. Of course, maybe the lawmakers realized that most Pakistanis are Muslims and therefore not supposed to drink alcohol.
You speak of CISC vs. RISC as if it's in the past. However, that's exactly the competition that is now heating up in the form of x86 vs. ARM. ARM and other RISC designs have dominated in power efficiency for many years. Now, Intel is attempting some serious competition with a low power x86 design. Neither RISC or CISC has won or lost and it seems the competition is only going to get more intense.
If you've gotten to the point where you think that if something such as a game can be used by a military, it must be evil, you'd better just go live in a cave somewhere. If you participate in society at all, you're implicitly accepting the validity of some government, the purpose of which is to protect its people. Objecting to the way government uses the military does not justify characterizing the military itself as evil.
the US was the second lowest in the OECD in terms of evolution acceptance, with just 14% saying "definitely true" and a third saying "absolutely false" (as a side note, Iceland, where I live, is #1 in terms of acceptance - whoo!)
Until the public can come to grips with the basic tenets of science, yes, America is lagging way behind.
No particular facts, such as those about evolution, are "basic tenets of science." Science is an approach and set of processes and tools for discovering and proving facts. I do not wish to make any statement about the truth of the facts you refer to, but I do know that the vast majority of people surveyed do not have the capability of testing them directly using scientific techniques. That common opinions about those facts are different between Iceland and the US is a cultural difference and doesn't necessarily indicate that Icelanders know more about the nature of science even if their opinion happens to be right since at some level they are simply believing what they're told.
Every few years we have people trying to legislate science out of the class room because it conflicts with their vision of religion. Of course our science classes are messed up, people have a vested interest in them being so. Frankly, much of what is taught is not even science. Anyone who comes out of high school thinking that science is about facts has been done a disservice.
And on the science vs religion front. Religion has rewritten itself often to adjust to realities that science has postulated. Science has never changed based on belief. So as a betting man, my money is on science. But as a scientist, I accept the possibility that I could be wrong.
I'm sure what you're describing does happen but I think cultural misconceptions about science are deeper than that. In particular, I think there's a very deep misconception that science is a bunch of immutable facts arrived at by a rigid process. In fact, I think that misconception is what drives most of the perceived conflict between science and religion.
Depending on what you mean by "belief," it may be accurate to say "Science has never changed based on belief." However, you can't claim science hasn't changed. Rather, scientific understanding of many things is constantly changing. A recent segment on Science Friday challenges several common misconceptions about the nature of science better than I ever could.
It is believed that having more democracies around will ultimately increase world stability because democracies loath going to war and the voting public sees it as a last resort solution. Well, so far the biggest democracy in the west seems to have a giant boner for secret drone wars. Well, its executive branch at least, the public doesn't need to hear know about it in details, those informations are classified you see, national security and all.
That did apply to the US until about 1950 since Congress took its job of deciding when to go to war seriously. The US was very reluctant to get involved in WWI and WWII and had to ramp up production of all kinds of war materials to be effective. From 1945 on, the US has maintained the ability to fight another world war continuously. No one should be surprised that the temptation to misuse that power has often proved too much for Presidents.
You're absolutely right. All the claims that the US is a warlike country are false because we haven't been at war since 1945. Pay no attention to the police actions in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Slashdot Mirror
Open Sourcing CDE? Seriously? Would have possibly made a difference in 1998. But now? Except for historical interest, there's no point.
Was a so-so environment on HP-UX back in the day. Gloriously ugly.
Unfortunately, some companies only see Open Source as a way to gain good will or prestige by releasing code that's no longer of value to them. It's better than nothing, but it's entirely missing the main goals of both the Free Software and Open Source movements.
DirectX has the advantage of other features built in. OpenGL is just graphics. DirectX also does audio and manages controller input.
Low, there are several Open source API's that offer these other features, and some that bundle them with OpenGL, but it isn't as standardized.
I use LWJGL personally.
Indeed, OpenGL and Direct3D are direct competitors, not OpenGL and DirectX. One Free, cross-platform alternative to DirectX used by many games for both 2D and OpenGL-based 3D graphics is SDL
Having implemented OAuth1.0 and 2.0 services for communicating with various platforms, I was amazed at the lack of any security in Oauth 2.0. As mentioned by others, it completely relies on SSL/TLS, which is itself somewhat broken. From what I have gathered, it's simpler. That's about it. Actually, I prefer OAuth 1.0 and have modeled many of my own APIs after it.
TLS is not broken at all. Using it properly can be difficult. This, as well as lack of redundant security mechanisms is the reason Eran Hammer didn't like relying on TLS solely. If you think TLS is broken, you may be confusing it with the public key infrastructure everyone uses for HTTPS. The problems with poorly run signing authorities are not fundamentally technological but administrative. Outside of accessing public HTTPS sites with a browser, you can take more control over the certificates and policies used for TLS authentication.
Eran Hammer seems to be saying that OAuth 1 is "good enough" and few will benefit from OAuth 2.
Most of the games on Steam will be DirectX, not OpenGL.
And many of those DirectX games work already (at least partially) using Wine. In many cases, it will probably be easier for a developer to get the game working with Wine and/or Winelib than to completely replace all DirectX calls with OpenGL ones. That said, I still don't understand why OpenGL isn't the norm since game development is more cross-platform than it was in the 90s.
I sincerely hope you're joking. Flattened breasts are a pain and very uncomfortable. If you want to be at your best while on the field, it's not the best way to do it.
Unlike many surrounding posts, I'm not joking. However, I'm no expert either, having no experience with wearing either body armor or female breasts. I can only speculate and hope that the described design efforts would include a lot of practical testing with real soldiers.
Interesting that they can write a whole article on redesigning body armor for women and there's not a single reference to tatas.
Are the main differences really torso length, should width, and waist size? Do chesticles not really factor into the redesign? Or are the authors just being polite and not highlighting jugs as a factor?
I think the most likely explanation is that most woman's breasts aren't that significant to comfort in armor. The problematic areas mentioned mostly seem to be where the edges of the armor put pressure on the body and there aren't any edges near the middle of the chest. As others have pointed out, your favorite RPG's armor design has little to do with reality.
In Valve are serious about gaming on a linux base, it can't be at the ground zero of current Intel GFX. Well, it can - but I won't be the slightest bit interested.
Well Valve can't be serious about Windows gaming either, because even their most recent games still run pretty well on Intel graphics.
Valve seems to understand better than many game developers that pretty frames that take a lot of GPU power to render do not necessarily make good games.
What kind of bullshit logic is that? Something is broken, everyone hates it, so let's put all our efforts in making the alternatives better? How about contributing to PHP and fixing what you're bitching about instead of, well, bitching about it? You know, it's open-source and all.
PHP is a terrible language because of the way it was designed. More accurately, it wasn't designed. Each version improves things here and there, but the basic problem can't be fixed incrementally. There have been far superior languages available, such as Python and Ruby, for many years. AFAICT, the only disadvantage such superior languages have compared with PHP is the lack of a ubiquitous web framework which allows someone to casually start throwing code at a web server and have pages start showing up.
Better languages have upmteen web frameworks, but none are provided by default, while PHP is both a language and web framework in one. If a single decent framework, such as Django or Rails, were to become ubiquitous the way PHP is, that would solve most of the problem.
a scientific approach to why we keep doing this "lets fight a war every 4 years in the middle east" baloney. Some have speculated its a doctrine incepted by the former president carter, others say its driven simply by the military industrial complex, but im really curious to see if anyone can come up with a reason why we have to erect a punching bag like clockwork each presidency. both sides might bicker on finances and the budget, but both bob their heads in agreeance each time an expensive protracted excursion into war comes along without much dissonance.
The fact that the united states needlessly and violently attacks the middle east whenever it sees fit was something that Osama Bin Laden and Anwar al Awlaki touched upon. OBL actually had the nerve to insist we stop doing it as a condition upon which he would stop attacking america. It was a very reasonable request; a negotiated ceasefire.
Nothing doing so it seems. We partner up with the only nation in the region that seems to vitriolically hate iran and start coming up with the same clever chicanery we used to sabotage gas well computer control systems in soviet russia. Israel is a state sponsor of terrorism and hasnt signed any of the nuclear treaties we're shoving toward iran, but they havent made it into anyones axis of evil. Why do they get to have nuclear power and iran, a much larger state by population alone, doesnt?
You sounded halfway reasonable until the third paragraph. To say that Israel is "the only nation in the region that seems to vitriolically hate iran" is hilariously lazy revisionist history. Are you forgetting the Iran-Iraq war? How about the fact that Iranian leaders frequently call for the destruction of Israel and actively support groups that were created for this goal. The Saudis fear Iranian power almost as much as the Israelis.
Of course it's not fair that some states are allowed to have nuclear power and weapons and some aren't. The Isrealis have certainly been too eager to attack pre-emptively sometimes. It is that tendency that causes me to fear that the US will be sucked into yet another pointless war. However, few other states have had more reason to distrust their neighbors. They have expanded territory several times when neighboring states underestimated their ability to defend themselves. I think the US-Israelis collaboration on the likes of Stuxnet was reckless at best and reduces the chance for real diplomacy but to single out Israel as the sole agressor is just stupid.
"Cyber-war" relies on the victim deliberately choosing to connect systems to the internet which should not be connected.
Fuck shit up and build some "herd immunity".
You seem to have missed the part where Stuxnet was planted on site at Natanz. None of the critical systems were connected to the Internet.
The school bully uses this same method. They invariably go to jail or end up in a shit job. Soon, perhaps, the world will react against this menace.
"The world" is not a unified entity and will not react against injustice any more than it has in the past. However, as a US citizen, I am quite concerned that this will be one of the things that provokes Iran to retaliate against Israel or some other ally and suck us into yet another stupid war.
"As America and others start the world's first undeclared cyber-wars, dangerous precedents are being set that this type of warfare is without consequences. Such ideas could not be further from from truth."
Oh please. The French have been doing this kind of thing since before the United States even had a name for it. It's called industrial espionage, and they're so good at it that the executives of major companies are frequently told to never use the fax machines in hotels, or the phones, or the internet (unless it is an encrypted VPN), because the French government aggressively works to steal industrial secrets from other countries and provide it to their own businesses. People think because you add the word "Internet" to a social problem, that suddenly makes it new and special... le sigh.
All the internet did was make it faster and more efficient; Which is (wait for it) what computers in general do to socioeconomic processes.
Even if you had anything to back up these claims, a state obtaining information from companies for economic gain would not be anything like a state secretly destroying part of another state's energy infrastructure and/or weapons program. How significant would it be if it was revealed that the French government had destroyed Russian gas drilling equipment or the Japanese government had sabotaged North Korean missiles?
Takoma Park has long been a center for the Seventh Day Adventist Church, and 7DAs tend to be pacifists.
If you're a pacifist, you're against all weapons of war, not just the ones that have only been used twice.
I guess the Maryland Democrats who run this city experienced catharsis after viewing the destruction of a nuclear holocaust, and decided to no longer be part of any weapon manufacturing business.
You might be insightful if the Maryland Democrats had actually decided to no longer be part of any weapon manufacturing business. However, they apparently had nothing against high explosives, chemical or even biological weapons. They made policy based on viewing a fictional account of a nuclear holocaust and completely ignored historical holocausts accomplished without nuclear weapons such as the vast majority of destruction during WWII.
Not to mention -and has been since at least 1983.
If I was in that town I'd be pushing for it's repeal. Just like I pushed for getting rid of the ban on selling alcohol to indians in my old town. Yes, the law called them Indians.
Some immigrants from the Asian subcontinent must be pretty confused that they are singled out for the ban when their Pakistani neighbors are not. Of course, maybe the lawmakers realized that most Pakistanis are Muslims and therefore not supposed to drink alcohol.
You speak of CISC vs. RISC as if it's in the past. However, that's exactly the competition that is now heating up in the form of x86 vs. ARM. ARM and other RISC designs have dominated in power efficiency for many years. Now, Intel is attempting some serious competition with a low power x86 design. Neither RISC or CISC has won or lost and it seems the competition is only going to get more intense.
I stopped reading before I even finished the title.
I'm assuming even the biggest idiots on this site (like myself) know better than to listen to anything that spews from that "news" site.
That's really fair and balanced of you. I eagerly await your list of approved news sources as I wouldn't want to be biased.
It's not very socially conscious to promote proprietary software and patent-encumbered video codecs.
If you've gotten to the point where you think that if something such as a game can be used by a military, it must be evil, you'd better just go live in a cave somewhere. If you participate in society at all, you're implicitly accepting the validity of some government, the purpose of which is to protect its people. Objecting to the way government uses the military does not justify characterizing the military itself as evil.
the US was the second lowest in the OECD in terms of evolution acceptance, with just 14% saying "definitely true" and a third saying "absolutely false" (as a side note, Iceland, where I live, is #1 in terms of acceptance - whoo!)
Until the public can come to grips with the basic tenets of science, yes, America is lagging way behind.
No particular facts, such as those about evolution, are "basic tenets of science." Science is an approach and set of processes and tools for discovering and proving facts. I do not wish to make any statement about the truth of the facts you refer to, but I do know that the vast majority of people surveyed do not have the capability of testing them directly using scientific techniques. That common opinions about those facts are different between Iceland and the US is a cultural difference and doesn't necessarily indicate that Icelanders know more about the nature of science even if their opinion happens to be right since at some level they are simply believing what they're told.
Every few years we have people trying to legislate science out of the class room because it conflicts with their vision of religion. Of course our science classes are messed up, people have a vested interest in them being so. Frankly, much of what is taught is not even science. Anyone who comes out of high school thinking that science is about facts has been done a disservice.
And on the science vs religion front. Religion has rewritten itself often to adjust to realities that science has postulated. Science has never changed based on belief. So as a betting man, my money is on science. But as a scientist, I accept the possibility that I could be wrong.
I'm sure what you're describing does happen but I think cultural misconceptions about science are deeper than that. In particular, I think there's a very deep misconception that science is a bunch of immutable facts arrived at by a rigid process. In fact, I think that misconception is what drives most of the perceived conflict between science and religion.
Depending on what you mean by "belief," it may be accurate to say "Science has never changed based on belief." However, you can't claim science hasn't changed. Rather, scientific understanding of many things is constantly changing. A recent segment on Science Friday challenges several common misconceptions about the nature of science better than I ever could.
It is believed that having more democracies around will ultimately increase world stability because democracies loath going to war and the voting public sees it as a last resort solution. Well, so far the biggest democracy in the west seems to have a giant boner for secret drone wars. Well, its executive branch at least, the public doesn't need to hear know about it in details, those informations are classified you see, national security and all.
That did apply to the US until about 1950 since Congress took its job of deciding when to go to war seriously. The US was very reluctant to get involved in WWI and WWII and had to ramp up production of all kinds of war materials to be effective. From 1945 on, the US has maintained the ability to fight another world war continuously. No one should be surprised that the temptation to misuse that power has often proved too much for Presidents.
Wrong. It takes an act of congress to declare war.
You're absolutely right. All the claims that the US is a warlike country are false because we haven't been at war since 1945. Pay no attention to the police actions in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Iranians already sound pretty paranoid and this may be enough to push them over the edge.