Sure, you can't forget your retinas, or lose your fingerprints. And good biometrics could, in theory, be extremely difficult or expensive to counterfeit.
However, if anyone ever *does* compromise your biometrics, what then?
You could have a society where access to so much is based on it (because it worked so well) and then all of a sudden, all the passwords are out in the open. Except that unlike a password list disclosure, you can't change your password!
Sure, probably no one will ever compromise your retinas, but what do you do if it *does* happen? You can't argue that it's not possible, and just because it isn't practical doesn't mean it won't ever be. You always must be able to change your password. Always!
the Fast Light window manager. It really is pretty fast and light. It also places the window decorations on the left side of the window rather than the top, taking advantage of the aspect ratio. It's nice.
I'll also second the Ion recomendation. The gimp is painful in it, but if you're programming mostly like I am, it is an absolute godsend.
Has anyone thought at all about the pronounciation of iQue? To my mind, it seems to compute to about `ick'. Some marketing guy was sleeping on that one...
Hold a second: I didn't think the native OSX interface was X-Windows. I may be wrong, but I always noted that my friend's iBook had the X server as a seperate application on the dock and all.
He said one implementation, XFree86, may be going away. Unmentioned was that it may be destined to be superceded by a fork, such as Keith Packard's, or one of the others.
Do you network all the boxes and just broadcast a remove code? And what do you do when some l33t hax0r starts sending his, unofficial, broadcasts on that network?
Or do you send out a tech every time someone hacks one box? Maybe eventually we just have techs camp out under the poles...
Actually, it's never been tried;) Seriously: I know people that consitently go over the limit without being ticketed.
The reason it might work for this is because good automated cameras could make it feasible to ticket *every* offender, unlike speeder's ratio of somewhere around 5 out of 1024. Or so.
I don't know where you are, but everyone here does 5 over. At least.
And yes, "because everyone is doing it" is a perfectly good excuse for speeding, because if I drive the speed limit than I am going slow enough compared to the regular traffic that I am a HAZARD.
Know the speed limit, and go 5 over (conditions permitting. Quit driving your SUV like a formula car in winter, but in the summer you're asking to get rear-ended by going 40 in a 55).
What you are effectively suggesting is that if we understood exactly how the brain worked, that a given person could be perfectly simulated, and that the same inputs would yield the same outputs.
This is flawed if one believes in quantum mechanics, which suggests that at the Planck level the behaviors of elementary particles is truely random. Building on that, the butterfly theorem would suggest that the minds behavior is fully unpredictable.
Much of the money that is ineffiently spent on space exploration could, in theory, be put to good use feeding the hungry (or, vastly more importantly, making them able to feed themselves).
Do you honestly think it will happen? I think, in America at least, that the money would just be dumped somewhere less promising, and that no money would actually truly help people.
A perfect government would use the money to solve its country's problems, and not on exploration. However, that 1: presumes that exploration will not yield a solution and 2: presumes that the government _can_ solve the problems.
Sitting on our asses down here won't solve the problems either. I truly think that the government cannot significantly impact our problems by hamstringing NASA.
I think that chasing the dream of space is at least as likely to solve our problems as the likely misuses of those funds.
Nothing good was ever won by staring. The sky is there, and it may not be going anywhere. There's a wealth of resources out there, and while it may not solve our problems, it also just might, and at least won't make them worse.
If you care about the project, you will do fine. The biggest problem is not technical. It is not of arguments, flames, and users. More commonly than any other reason for a project failing is that the author fails to maintain focus and follow-through.
It's *your* project. You keep it alive by making it the best, and keeping it that way.
I think it is interesting to note that here, the Q3Test was explicitly NOT a demo. It was truly a beta, in a way that many official, supported, released demos are unoficially betas.
I don't have any problem with companies running open betas. The problem is only when they start to release demo versions that are untested and buggy and then use *those* versions as an open beta. It's one thing when they *say* it's buggy and a test release, it's totally another when they say it's the product.
And good companies don't do it: iD's Q3Test was really a beta, and Blizzard releases genuinely good software, usually with closed betas.
I hope that they realize that they won't be allowed to do something like this again; given that, it follows logically that they won't throw good money after bad. They may look for an equally offensive idea that *doesn't* violate everything good in the world (and therefore wouldn't get them sued), but I don't think they'll try this one again.
THat doesn't matter. At all. How much space is on the drive? How much does the *OS* say is on the drive?
If the box for my hard drive says 40 gig, then the OS should read an unformatted capacity of 40 gig. I don't give a shit what a gigabyte is, but when my hard drive was advertized at 37.5 gigapoopflorps, it had damn well have every single one of those damned whatsits-is. So fuck your 90%.
Only $300 for this amazing 4 seater*! One of the fastest cars on the road with a maximum speed of 284 miles/hour*! And the best gas mileage too! Over 30 miles to the gallon!
* 1 person is 0.5 humans * 1 mile/hour is 0.5 feet per second * 1 mile is 10000 feet
I don't care if they change the labeling on the package: that isn't what the units mean. Units are standard for a reason! Your software has *always* measured in 1024-blocks, and your hard drive did too before marketingspeak took over.
Every language feature has use. Pointers, references, pointers to pointers, pointers to functions, reflection, OO, templates, multiple inheritance, interfaces, enforced contracts, garbage collection, manual resource management, virtual machine, native execution.
All these features have uses. There is always 5 cases for every single one where it's *much* easier to implement while using it.
Now abandon backwards compatibility and think up reasonable syntax. I don't know if it's possible to do an elegant language with all that, but if it is, I think we should have one. Every other language lacks some of the above features. I would like to see a langauge that really had everything.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm an obsessive pedant. And I don't give a flaming lizard tail, either.
Doom does not have a railgun!!! id Software's first game with a railgun was Quake 2 (unless you count unofficial mods).
Ack! I nearly choked when I read the original post.
Welcome to Slashdot 8-}
Sure, you can't forget your retinas, or lose your fingerprints. And good biometrics could, in theory, be extremely difficult or expensive to counterfeit.
However, if anyone ever *does* compromise your biometrics, what then?
You could have a society where access to so much is based on it (because it worked so well) and then all of a sudden, all the passwords are out in the open. Except that unlike a password list disclosure, you can't change your password!
Sure, probably no one will ever compromise your retinas, but what do you do if it *does* happen? You can't argue that it's not possible, and just because it isn't practical doesn't mean it won't ever be. You always must be able to change your password. Always!
The gnu servers too, not too long previous, iirc.
the Fast Light window manager. It really is pretty fast and light. It also places the window decorations on the left side of the window rather than the top, taking advantage of the aspect ratio. It's nice.
I'll also second the Ion recomendation. The gimp is painful in it, but if you're programming mostly like I am, it is an absolute godsend.
Kryptonite!
turing test?
Has anyone thought at all about the pronounciation of iQue? To my mind, it seems to compute to about `ick'. Some marketing guy was sleeping on that one...
(que != cue && que != queue)
Whatever.
Hold a second: I didn't think the native OSX interface was X-Windows. I may be wrong, but I always noted that my friend's iBook had the X server as a seperate application on the dock and all.
Anyone know for sure?
But he never said X was going away ;)
He said one implementation, XFree86, may be going away. Unmentioned was that it may be destined to be superceded by a fork, such as Keith Packard's, or one of the others.
How do you remove the key?
Do you network all the boxes and just broadcast a remove code? And what do you do when some l33t hax0r starts sending his, unofficial, broadcasts on that network?
Or do you send out a tech every time someone hacks one box? Maybe eventually we just have techs camp out under the poles...
> Doesn't work for speeding, does it?
;) Seriously: I know people that consitently go over the limit without being ticketed.
Actually, it's never been tried
The reason it might work for this is because good automated cameras could make it feasible to ticket *every* offender, unlike speeder's ratio of somewhere around 5 out of 1024. Or so.
I don't know where you are, but everyone here does 5 over. At least.
And yes, "because everyone is doing it" is a perfectly good excuse for speeding, because if I drive the speed limit than I am going slow enough compared to the regular traffic that I am a HAZARD.
Know the speed limit, and go 5 over (conditions permitting. Quit driving your SUV like a formula car in winter, but in the summer you're asking to get rear-ended by going 40 in a 55).
What you are effectively suggesting is that if we understood exactly how the brain worked, that a given person could be perfectly simulated, and that the same inputs would yield the same outputs.
This is flawed if one believes in quantum mechanics, which suggests that at the Planck level the behaviors of elementary particles is truely random. Building on that, the butterfly theorem would suggest that the minds behavior is fully unpredictable.
Much of the money that is ineffiently spent on space exploration could, in theory, be put to good use feeding the hungry (or, vastly more importantly, making them able to feed themselves).
Do you honestly think it will happen? I think, in America at least, that the money would just be dumped somewhere less promising, and that no money would actually truly help people.
A perfect government would use the money to solve its country's problems, and not on exploration. However, that 1: presumes that exploration will not yield a solution and 2: presumes that the government _can_ solve the problems.
Sitting on our asses down here won't solve the problems either. I truly think that the government cannot significantly impact our problems by hamstringing NASA.
I think that chasing the dream of space is at least as likely to solve our problems as the likely misuses of those funds.
Nothing good was ever won by staring. The sky is there, and it may not be going anywhere. There's a wealth of resources out there, and while it may not solve our problems, it also just might, and at least won't make them worse.
We'll know when we get there.
Care.
If you care about the project, you will do fine. The biggest problem is not technical. It is not of arguments, flames, and users. More commonly than any other reason for a project failing is that the author fails to maintain focus and follow-through.
It's *your* project. You keep it alive by making it the best, and keeping it that way.
I think it is interesting to note that here, the Q3Test was explicitly NOT a demo. It was truly a beta, in a way that many official, supported, released demos are unoficially betas.
I don't have any problem with companies running open betas. The problem is only when they start to release demo versions that are untested and buggy and then use *those* versions as an open beta. It's one thing when they *say* it's buggy and a test release, it's totally another when they say it's the product.
And good companies don't do it: iD's Q3Test was really a beta, and Blizzard releases genuinely good software, usually with closed betas.
I hope that they realize that they won't be allowed to do something like this again; given that, it follows logically that they won't throw good money after bad. They may look for an equally offensive idea that *doesn't* violate everything good in the world (and therefore wouldn't get them sued), but I don't think they'll try this one again.
THat doesn't matter. At all. How much space is on the drive? How much does the *OS* say is on the drive?
If the box for my hard drive says 40 gig, then the OS should read an unformatted capacity of 40 gig. I don't give a shit what a gigabyte is, but when my hard drive was advertized at 37.5 gigapoopflorps, it had damn well have every single one of those damned whatsits-is. So fuck your 90%.
I got a great car for sale!
Only $300 for this amazing 4 seater*! One of the fastest cars on the road with a maximum speed of 284 miles/hour*! And the best gas mileage too! Over 30 miles to the gallon!
* 1 person is 0.5 humans
* 1 mile/hour is 0.5 feet per second
* 1 mile is 10000 feet
I don't care if they change the labeling on the package: that isn't what the units mean. Units are standard for a reason! Your software has *always* measured in 1024-blocks, and your hard drive did too before marketingspeak took over.
Why would it have to be at the poles? I can't see any reason whatsoever for that restriction.
Every language feature has use. Pointers, references, pointers to pointers, pointers to functions, reflection, OO, templates, multiple inheritance, interfaces, enforced contracts, garbage collection, manual resource management, virtual machine, native execution.
All these features have uses. There is always 5 cases for every single one where it's *much* easier to implement while using it.
Now abandon backwards compatibility and think up reasonable syntax. I don't know if it's possible to do an elegant language with all that, but if it is, I think we should have one. Every other language lacks some of the above features. I would like to see a langauge that really had everything.
... if you call the tail a leg?
Four. Calling the tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."
- Abraham Lincoln
Nuff said.
The metaphone algorithm addresses many of the shortcomings of soundex... why are they not using it?
but, it works 8-}
Alright, karma burn time:
who cares? No offense to the Evil author, it's a good WM, I've used it. But it's existence isn't news. It's been listed on Freshmeat for *years*.
Does slashdot now do OSS project announcements? I have a few I may like to promote on slashdot.
Or is the X topic really that starved for news?
No offense, and Kudos to the EvilWM team, but still!