Joe Script Kiddie can't write code for an X-Box. Yet.
There's also not much to gain since Joe Home User won't be putting anything on the X-Box that JSK would want.
The virus would also have to wedge itself permanently into the system. Otherwise a simple press of the reset button and *poof* cured.
What do you do when your gaming system acts up?
Reset. Console don't get viruses because it's (virtually) impossible by design to make any permanent effects. All Nintendo systems are immune because the system doesn't depend on writable media. Worst that could happen is that your memory card gets fried. But that doesn't affect any of your games or the system itself.
Paypal is 2.2% + $0.30 USD to 2.9% + $0.30 USD. The higher rate is for foreign transactions.
Unless you have a personal account in which case it's free (but you can't take credit card payments). The only way BitPass beats PayPal is under $2.35 for a transaction. For a $5 transaction I pay about 41 cents to PayPal where I'd be charged 75 cents for BitPass.
I don't like micropayments and although I could save all of 19 cents in fees per $1 account, there's no way I'm going to use two on-line payment companies for my site. Especially since the next tier of my subscription is $4 in which case PayPal is cheaper. I charge for a time period of unlimited access. Not per file or other such garbage that people are attempting to do micropayments for.
I'm with Penny-Arcade on this one. If what you're selling isn't worth paying at least a dollar for, then don't sell it.
I'm not going to pay you a quarter to read your comic but if it's good I might pay you $5 to get access to all the old comics for a year.
A quarter is an annoyance. Five bucks is a real amount of money which people will pay for quality merchandise.
If I want to make a 3D game, I can use OpenGL or DirectX. However, I have little clue how exactly telling OpenGL to put a quad with various features on the screen actually gets it on the screen with those features. For all I care it's magic. It just works. OpenGL and DirectX are my lowest levels of abstraction for 3D graphics currently. There's also DarkBASIC et al for those who don't want to go even that far down.
If I want to make a 3D API like OpenGL or DirectX, I need to dig down deeper to understand how graphics cards work in order ot get any realistic amount of speed. Consoles tend to have fewer levels of abstraction.
This is how it works in every area. You have the people on top who have little to no abstraction. They know exactly how every little thing fits together. And they get paid accordingly. The people on the bottom just give you your burger. And are paid accordingly. They don't care how the meat or buns or whatever got there or where the money goes aside from their pay.
I can imagine that like all things, computers are going to reach a level of complexity that's just flat out absurd. Hobbyists work on kit planes but it takes years of training to properly maintain a Boeing 747. As the complexity of planes went up, the requirements for getting hired to work on them also went up.
However as usual, there will be a handful of geniouses that understand everything who write abstraction layer unpon abstraction layer until a level is reached that it doesn't take a genious to get a polygon on a screen.
All that will change is the amount of education you'll need to be able to function at a certain level.
Planes are one thing but it used to be that to fix a computer you had to hunt for a vacuum tube or whatnot that was out and replace it. These days, if a computer breaks, within 5 minutes you can determine the problem then throw out the defective part and buy a new one with little training. It's actually gotten easier to maintain PCs. I don't have to try to find and then fix a transistor in the northbridge. I just throw the MB out and get a new one.
So yes, you do need to know assembler for certain positions to earn a certain pay. But, there will always be other entry levels that don't require that level of knowledge. It's up to the individual to choose what level they want to strive for.
In conclusion, dumb, not well thought out article.
That's like being part of a dream world, a real world and a spiritual world. And nobody on the planet has any notion of three planes of existance.
Considering Neo saw the machine world as Source, it quite obviously wasn't "real." So yes, the "matrix in a matrix" was the correct view. After all, they asked it a number of times, how can a "program" exist in the "real" world. It can't.
The problem is that people like CowboyNeal were expecting more plugs to be pulled. That's not what "matrix in a matrix" is.
The third plane of existance isn't explored in the Matrix but by Neo's eyes it's quite obvious it's there. The reason it isn't explored is because The Matrix was exploring inevitability. The architect gave Neo two doors which is the definition of a false dilemma. Both doors led to the same conclusion.
Taking out the source, Neo would have died as he's a part of it and the Matrix would be rebuilt anyway. The second door, he ends up dead and the Matrix still exists. All roads lead to the same destination.
"While it is indeed possible, there is no reason to believe that it is true, since it has no real bearing on the story."
It has quite a bit to do with the story. It explains why Neo always fails no matter which path he choses. He's trying to escape from the wrong plane of existance. He consistantly fails to see the false dillema presented to him. Maybe the point is that death is the only way to escape. That's been the tried and true method for most religions.
What I would like to see, is not another Matrix movie but simply the Wachowski bros explaining what philosophy they were using. Basically, how do THEY understand it. What was their motivation. What did they intend to be symbolic and what did it represent?
The oracle flat out said that Neo was part of the source. That is why he could control the machines and the "Real World" of the machines was seen by Neo as source code.
If it's source code, it's not real. The Matrix left it open as to whether it's possible to escape the source (he had previously chosen to destroy the source where this time everyone just lives in peace with it) but it leaves a very deterministic feel. No matter which door he choses he can't get rid of the machines.
But that's the big question: can't a program that was given a purpose (no free will) infect a human who has choice and completely go against it's design?
So far the answer is "no." Neo did exactly what he was designed to do. Even if he did take a slighly askew path to get to his inevitable conclusion. Since he was part of the source, taking out the source would have resulted in his death as well. And we all know the cycle continues when he choses that door. In his current interation the path "allowed" for the cycle to start again.
The architect gave Neo a classical false dillema. He gave two doors, two choices, but if they are ever to truly win there must be at least one more door that the architect fails to mention. Most obviously, killing the architect.
Since the architect isn't human, it's inevitable as it's his purpose and he's still in control.
Does it completely cut off the notion of free will? No. But only because it never claims it can "never" happen that the humans will truly succeed.
It's because he's part of the source. It's understandable why you'd miss the two lines of dialog where he asks the question you asked and the oracle gives the answer I just gave you considering how every explaination was just a side note between action and reaction shots.
And since he's part of the source, the "real" world (where the escaped humans hang out) isn't really the real world since he can only control what the source controls. Point for "matrix in a matrix" theorists.
I think what's mildly ironic is that the reason people hated Vanilla Sky is because the last 15 minutes they pretended the audience was full of morons and explained everything.
Matrix: Revolutions didn't do that. They gave short stark answers which answered the questions but in a way that left it open for interpretation.
What did Agent Smith do the the Oracle? You get all of 3 seconds of seeing her lying on the ground where the Agent Smith that took on Neo used to be standing. Sure they could have gone into extensive dialog about why he needed her to defeat Neo OR they could leave it open.
They did that with everything. The answers are all there. They just don't spell it out for you. If they had they'd just be wasting time repeating Matrix 1 and 2.
Personally, my theory is that they knew all the neat questions and how to "show" them as is good story telling but couldn't "show" the answers even if they really knew them. That's the standard problem with philosophy. Most of the great writters have a brilliant ability to ask deep questions in interesting ways but they never give you an answer. They just send you back down the mountain to seek it out yourself.
I'll definitly be picking up the DVD when it comes out. I think people went in with a mindset that is was all action and "sucked" and so, like you, weren't paying attention when answers where offered.
Reloaded was the same way. I went in for the action and picked up much more detail when I got the DVD and watched it more closely.
The Bandwidth Fairy has been assumed to exist for years now by the masses of people who refuse to look at any form of advertisment. They either think the sites can magically keep running or they're just leeches that assume if one host dies another will come along anyway.
Which is fine.
"unless you can actually point to a particular website with that model, that is succeeding."
FilePlanet, SomethingAwful, CNN, GameSpot, ad nauseum realized long ago that ads can only cover so much revenue as they've been reduced to the effectiveness of Spam. And so they successfully switched to another business model that's been tried and true for centuries; charge the customers.
If customers don't want to be sponsered by major companies then they can sponser themselves.
I've never even bothered with seriously trying to make money with ads. I tried setting up a non annoying system of text based ads which got plenty of click thrus but no revenue. After awhile I could barely use my own internet connection to surf the internet my server was so busy. But no money.
I switched to an "All Access Pass" system and Voila! Money comes in and my bandwidth is restored. My server now runs with colocation instead of out of house.
Ads are now used simply for exposure. I don't get paid to post them and I only post ads for sites/companies I have personal experience with and like. I may eventually charge but it's really a non issue. Ads don't pay the bills. Paying customers do and blocking htaccess popups isn't going to get you free content.
My rule for decided what is and isn't free is very simple: does it take up lots of bandwidth? If not, then it's free. If it does, it's set up for paid access only.
Many site owners would rather let their site die and go into debt than charge the customers for even a portion of their site. Personally, I have far more of a problem with being a corporate whore. So really, site owners need to pick their poision and recognize the pros and cons of whatever they choose and take into consideration what they're trying to sell.
Doesn't go over well with business people. I do programming as a profession. However, when the 1.3.x line is flawless it's hard to convince myself it's worth my time to tackle this problem. Considering how many people have downloaded and rely on the 2.0 line, I wonder how many have the skill or motivation to fix such a glaring and simplistic flaw that should never have existed.
Especially considering someone did take the time to write a logging module that works and Apache still refuses to make it the standard, insisting instead to link to the default, "approved," known to be broken one.
By telling me to "fix it myself" he was basically telling everyone to ignore the fact that Apache is ignoring already existing fixes and needlessly reinvent the wheel themselves.
I'd actually be happier not knowing the fix existed. Apache's actions would make more sense (and be more acceptible) because I could pretend it was a complicated issue still in progress.
That fix should be standard. Obviously Apache knows about the problem but even when someone fixes it for them (so writting a fix myself as someone else suggested is a worthless pursuit to try to actually fix the problem) they continue to insist on ignoring the problem and linking by default to a known broken module that they refuse to fix. And on top of that, they fail to properly document the workaround.
Most web-site owners are more interested in running their business than dicking around with source code. Even if they knew how to even begin looking for the problem spot. I opted to revert back to 1.3.x since it's solid.
This reflects very poorly on Apache in regards to their attitude about bugs. Especially considering this shouldn't have been broken from the first 2.0 release.
"We know about it, but we don't care to fix our default logging module" is pretty sad.
It's nice to know a workaround exists but when something as simple as logging can't get an official fix it does very little to instill confidence in the product.
Maybe I'll give 2.0 another try later with my personal server but the server my business runs on will be sticking with 1.3. It works great and so I can just focus on running the business and writting source code for a job instead of reinventing fixes for a wheel that's been known to be broken for a very long time.
Eventually the scammers would figure out what numbers were red-flagged and not use them. All they would need is a CC account and they'd be right on top of the fake numbers just like every other customer.
I got a very official looking e-mail from "PayPal" asking for all my information. Then I noticed the URL and that my password wasn't getting asteriked and typed in "howwouldyouliketogotoprison" in the entry fields and hit submit. I also e-mailed PayPal and within minutes the site was gone. I doubt I was the first to report it.
Credit Card companies already have a solid way of dealing with crime. You watch your statement and if something is fishy you report it. What you have is a statement summary. The CC company has far more information at their disposal as companies that take cards have to submit lots of info to get an account.
The CC company can get just as much information a week or two after the fact as they can "during" the committing of the crime. It's not like they can call up the place that's taking the card and say "hold that customer." Especially since most CC fraud is committed through on-line shops.
Some moron years ago bought more e-mail space at Yahoo with my CC. I called up Yahoo and asked them to tell me if that purchase was applied to my account. No. And when was the last time I bought something on Yahoo for my account? "Over a year ago." And it was for hosting. I never had to pay a dime and the charges were reversed quickly. Since they bought themselves a personal account tracking down who did it would be trivial. And wouldn't even matter since it's non physical property. Yahoo just needed to cancel the account my CC was used on and everyone that matters is happy.
I learned at Mervyn's that major credit card companies tend to eat the cost of the fraud. The customer gets their money back and the store the fraud occured at gets their money. Which actually works out better since now the CC company is the only entity taking on the crook. Instead of (not) being sued a million times by all the victims, they're sued and jailed for one massive crime.
The employee probably thought it was a great idea, told his supervisor, and his supervisor walked him through their tried and true method and explained why your method was flawed.
I used Apache 2.0.47 for all of a day before I decided to never use the 2.0.x line again. Apparently when a partial transfer is requested, Apache 2.0.47 logs the full amount requested. Not what was actually transfered. I ended up showing over 10GB of transfer in a single day on a 256Kbit DSL line. Which if you do the math is only physically capable of about 2.5GB a day.
I looked at my logs and determined that a couple AOL users were trying to get a rather large file
Requests MB KB Bytes. All that transfer supposedly happened in about a day.
I notified bug-track but apparently such a simple problem (which doesn't exist in the 1.3.x line) isn't worth addressing.
After all, who actually uses the Apache 2.0.x logs to monitor transfer? Hopefully not any hosting companies because the customers are going to get royally screwed.
in many places. Your state may vary. As long as no one takes a cut of the pool for any reason, they're normally legal. I must be all or nothing for everyone.
All they need is IR capable cameras and it'll be very obvious who changed the signal. It'd be like pointing a flashlight out your window. If it's a problem at an intersection that's causing traffic jams and accidents you can bet they'll be catching people.
That and I don't think there will be a shortage of people pointing fingers. Change a light with lots of people around and you just pissed off everyone in the opposite flow of traffic. Radar jammers are inconspicuous and don't affect anyone but the cops.
That's a standard thing on (good) mail servers. Mercury Mail uses it. EZMts uses it. You log in with your POP account which validates your IP. You then have a window to send e-mail from that IP address using the account e-mail address you logged into the pop3 account as. You can't log in to POP as BOB and then send mail as STEVE. Or log in to POP on IP 192.168.0.2 and then send e-mail on 192.168.0.3.
It's the standard method to prevent unauthorized relaying, implemented and on by default in legitimate mail servers. If you need a seperate daemon to handle POP before SMTP, your mail server is garbage. It's such a trivial thing to implement.
POP3 writes username and IP to file upon successful login (you can even encrypt it if you care) with start time.
SMTP checks the file when an e-mail attempt comes in to see if the IP, username combo is in the file and if the timeout hasn't occured. If it has, it clears the entry.
is no less healthy than making a sandwich at home. Although the other thing that Subway mentions is the fact that Jared *walked* quite a ways to get to Subway. Exercise plus eating healthy (which sandwiches like Subway serve are) equals weight loss.
Yes, the exercise is mentioned in the ads. Maybe not as much now but that was huge at the beginning with Jared leading a group of power walking dieters to Subway.
It's not borderline. It's common sense. They also make sure to point out which sandwiches have the least fat. It's not a blanket campaign pretending everything they serve is equally healthy.
It's not like other fast food chains that make money by selling you grease.
It's pretty sad how determined people are to blame other people for their problems and if they can get money out of it, all the better.
will never be used in a professional market because it refuses to cater to even the most "basic" features like CMYK. If you're doing professional print work CMYK is an absolute requirement. It is practically a science to get from the monitor to a printer in the quality that is demanded by professionals. GIMP has failed to beckon to the call. Ever. It came out before Photoshop and has failed to be anything that a professional would want to use.
Considering how badly Photoshop is pirated it doesn't shock me at all either that they've gone to product activation. Stop bitching to Adobe and start condeming people who pirate software.
I currently use GIMP and it blows. It's awkward to use for even the most basic things. And whose idea was it to hardcode a maximum brush size? Or maximum anything for that matter? This may come as a shock but 200 pixels is not enough for everyone. You cannot use a slider to define brush attributes. You need more control than that.
As soon as I get the money I'm moving to Photoshop and I don't care what kind of DRM it has. I formated my PC and had to "deal" with Office telling me I had to call MS and get a confirmation code and it wasn't a big deal.
I'm not about to yell at Adobe for protecting their assets. They've put up with rampant piracy for years. I think we can handle a little inconvienence. It's hardly their fault this is what it's come to.
You don't define the "max" needed. You define the "min." Special effects studios, researchers, scientists, THEY and many others define the "max" needed and it's never enough. We can always find reasons to need to process more data faster.
If all you need is a word processor then great. But you can't simulate complex weather paterns on a K6-II in anyone's lifetime.
"and my tienda-de-descuentos K6-II still crunches the stuff faster than I could ever desire."
I have a friend who upgraded his system to top of the line and loves it because simulations that used to take days now take hours which means he can do better and more research.
"And prolly there's not too much activity in technologically improving RAM either."
Apparently you missed it when DDR came out and the Dual DDR found on graphics cards that will probably make it's way into PCs eventually to replace the current DDR. And who knows, an even faster memory may be developed before then skipping that stage.
You may be content with old tech but many people could use a speed boost to get their work done faster.
Gattaca's whole point is that somehow genetics can make you more or less qualified for a position and that's Wrong(tm).
But wait. Genetics determine our skills and our tolerance for a job situation. Good luck joining NASA and getting a ride in a shuttle if you have a heart condition. Is that unfair discrimation? No. It's recognizing a "flaw" in your genetics that could kill you and ruin a mission. If you could genetically fix that "flaw" you should be qualified if nothing else was preventing it.
I remember back not more than a hundred years ago we wouldn't hire people because they were black or whatever. Now we have laws against that. But wait. We still have positions that are filled based on skin color, sex, religion ad nauseum. Mostly entertainment roles but also covert missions in the government. Sorry, whitey but you're not going to be infiltrating an Iraqi group any time soon. Bill Cosby made a point of having an all African American crew and cast while bringing on a variety of nationalities as guests.
The only reason Gattaca isn't just a story about racial discrimination is because It Could Happen To You(tm). Techically it's a pretty silly movie considering we've established anti-discrimination laws for decades now. It's not a new issue other than a "new" way to discriminate. People are only afraid because someone might be able to pay money to get more qualified for a position genetically and want a way to cry foul for no justifiable reason.
You know what, if I get lasik and all other things being equal, I have much better eyesight than you, I'm rightfully more qualified to fly a fighter jet than you.
What's the difference between being born with eagle eyes and getting surgery?
None. If you can buy yourself a bigger brain, awesome, take the job doing super smart stuff that other people wouldn't be able to do. I don't care if nature discriminates against you and gives you a genious IQ or if your bank account allows it, you've got an asset.
Our anti-discrimation laws should be sumed up as:
"You may not refuse to hire someone based on qualities that will not affect their performance in the position they are seeking."
And that's it. And if someone buys a big giant head and gets a position over you because they are smarter and more qualified, you can whine to a judge on a case by case basis instead of pretending that some blanket statement law is going to solve anything.
There are plenty of beautiful, smart, socialable people who do every imaginable job on the planet. Changing genetics does NOT change the heart. Just because you're beautiful and can act doesn't mean you're going to be a movie star. You may want to be a teacher or any other number of positions.
So really, genetic modifications doesn't change anything at all. Gattaca was an interesting movie but it was far from innovative or insightful when you really sit down and contemplate the world we live in.
have been refusing to say the pledge or participate in holiday parties since forever.
What makes their children so special that they can refuse to say the pledge?
I find it highly ironic that religious people who are often claimed to be mindless sheep can manage to raise their children to stand out from the crowd while parents of those who claim to be freethinkers are petrified of their children being anything but sheep and following the crowd.
Stop whining about conspiracy theories to brainwash your children and spend more time instilling a backbone in them. I don't bitch to the school everytime some teacher goes on about evolution.
Personally I don't care either way. I just find it funny. The dad who was fighting against the pledge "for his little girl" apparently is raising a little girl who actually LIKES to say it. Maybe you should take a moment and ask your children what they think before shooting your mouth off and telling everyone what you think they think.
I'd like to just change my plan and get a new phone but AT&T thinks they can extend the contract just for increasing my plan. I'm trying to give them more money and apparently that's not good enough. Screw that. I've been a slave to their company for a year, I'll decide if I want to use their service or not.
Since they're being retarded, I'm going to switch companies and make money on the cell phone again through Amazon. Last time I got $100. $80 phone with $180 worth of rebates. If I have to extend my contract I might as well get as much money out of the deal as possible.
Henry Ford was building and selling HIS OWN cars HE CREATED.
If the RIAA were trying to squish independent artists because they were making and selling music cheaper than they were then it would be a valid comparison.
Last I checked the RIAA is NOT suing people for buying independent music.
They're suing people who pirate THEIR music.
Big GIANT legal difference. If I started copying and selling/giving away copies of HalfLife 2 in plain sight for the whole world to see, I'd be sued/thrown in jail faster than I could blink.
The RIAA is going about it the wrong way but they are perfectly in their rights to sue people who pirate their things. Do you think Valve is just going to slap the wrist of the person who stole their source code?
Every digital media company on the face of the planet has taken down/sued warez site owners at one time or another. P2P has just made it easier and more socially acceptible to do and the RIAA isn't about to just sit back to take it. I wouldn't expect them to. No other company that's been in their position has.
There is no way to prevent piracy 100%. Nintendo has come the closest by maintaining a strick control over their system and their media. Both of which are far too proprietary to replicate in a reasonable amount of time. It took a very long time for an N64 emulator to come out and none of them are all that great. Sony went with standard sized media and opened themselves up wide for easy pirating with Bleem.
I agree that trying to "copyprotect" audio, video and text is a pointless pursuit but I think it's time to drop the "suing their own customers" bullshit.
No store gives a shit how many times you've bought something. If you steal from them, you'll be hauled off. Name one company that wants thieves for customers. Just because I buy X albums doesn't grant me Y free ones just because I can get away with it.
Heavy handed and extreme, yes. Wrong. No. If you download illegal media you are a pirate and you make yourself a target of litigation. Whining that you're a "customer" won't fly with any competent judge.
is pointless. Yes, there is quite a selection of weapons to kill people with in Postal 2 but the number of ways you can kill a person is horribly limited. Basically you can take their head off, make them urinate on themselves, fry them or just shoot them and watch them bleed.
Contrast that to Carmageddon where you could knock any limb off and watch them scream and hop around on one leg or whatever besides knocking their head off. Plus you could smash yours and other vehicals up by crashing or using a variety of creative ways in a wide variety of realistic ways. Fenders falling off, sides being dented, etc.
So not only was Postal 2 pointlessly violent but its level of violence was pathetic compared to other titles.
If you want hilarious violence, profanity and great gameplay, Conker's Bad Fur Day is the top choice. What other game allows you to turn into a bat and drop guanao on fleeing mice and then drop them into spinning spikes of death? It's creative, entertaining and not violent for the sake of being violence.
I could go on with other examples to contrast what a pile of crap Postal 2 was compared to them in every area including the violence but I won't.
Actually, he accidently landed on his sister while bouncing down the stairs after going to the restroom. The stairs spiral up so not seeing his sister laying on them at the bottom was entirely possible. The physical evidence also doens't support the WWE moves version.
The original story he gave about the WWE moves was because he felt it was better sounding than admitting his clumsyness is what killed her. Apprently he felt so bad about what actually happened, he decided to stick to the worse sounding story all the way to prison. The parents of both are now trying to get the sentence reduced.
Both stories were predicated with "accidently" it was just a matter of what he "accidently" did that resulted in her death. It wasn't a malicious act like the media at the time made it out to be.
Even though what actually happened in no way supports the above posters point, this story will probably be repeated as much as the Spilled Coffee Lawsuit.
One would hope people would realize that there are enough VALID cases that once a case is shown to be invalid to show a point, it would be dropped.
The issue is not "what" something is. It's "should I charge for it, and if so, how much?" I wouldn't call some of the so called "modern art" anything but crap (which ironically is sometimes used to make it). Whatever the end result of this little program is, if someone enjoys it and you get something in return (fame, money, personal satisfaction or all three) then that's all that matters.
As far as the "what" is concerned there are only two options: tangible and intangible. Tangible things are covered by property laws. Intangible by IP laws.
This is article brought to you by a philosophy major who couldn't get a job.
"What is music?"
There is no universal answer to that. I would consider it patterned rythmic noise. Banging on on a garbage can some would call noise although they can be used to create patterned rythms that won't get the contents of your intrument thrown at you.
Turning an image (or anything for that matter) into random sounds I wouldn't consider music. But then, maybe some starving philosophers would if someone were to pay them enough to argue their case. Or maybe just a starving programmer who needs a gimmic he can sell to make a few bucks.
Slashdot Mirror
Joe Script Kiddie can't write code for an X-Box. Yet.
There's also not much to gain since Joe Home User won't be putting anything on the X-Box that JSK would want.
The virus would also have to wedge itself permanently into the system. Otherwise a simple press of the reset button and *poof* cured.
What do you do when your gaming system acts up?
Reset. Console don't get viruses because it's (virtually) impossible by design to make any permanent effects. All Nintendo systems are immune because the system doesn't depend on writable media. Worst that could happen is that your memory card gets fried. But that doesn't affect any of your games or the system itself.
Ben
Paypal is 2.2% + $0.30 USD to 2.9% + $0.30 USD. The higher rate is for foreign transactions.
Unless you have a personal account in which case it's free (but you can't take credit card payments). The only way BitPass beats PayPal is under $2.35 for a transaction. For a $5 transaction I pay about 41 cents to PayPal where I'd be charged 75 cents for BitPass.
I don't like micropayments and although I could save all of 19 cents in fees per $1 account, there's no way I'm going to use two on-line payment companies for my site. Especially since the next tier of my subscription is $4 in which case PayPal is cheaper. I charge for a time period of unlimited access. Not per file or other such garbage that people are attempting to do micropayments for.
I'm with Penny-Arcade on this one. If what you're selling isn't worth paying at least a dollar for, then don't sell it.
I'm not going to pay you a quarter to read your comic but if it's good I might pay you $5 to get access to all the old comics for a year.
A quarter is an annoyance. Five bucks is a real amount of money which people will pay for quality merchandise.
Ben
If I want to make a 3D game, I can use OpenGL or DirectX. However, I have little clue how exactly telling OpenGL to put a quad with various features on the screen actually gets it on the screen with those features. For all I care it's magic. It just works. OpenGL and DirectX are my lowest levels of abstraction for 3D graphics currently. There's also DarkBASIC et al for those who don't want to go even that far down.
If I want to make a 3D API like OpenGL or DirectX, I need to dig down deeper to understand how graphics cards work in order ot get any realistic amount of speed. Consoles tend to have fewer levels of abstraction.
This is how it works in every area. You have the people on top who have little to no abstraction. They know exactly how every little thing fits together. And they get paid accordingly. The people on the bottom just give you your burger. And are paid accordingly. They don't care how the meat or buns or whatever got there or where the money goes aside from their pay.
I can imagine that like all things, computers are going to reach a level of complexity that's just flat out absurd. Hobbyists work on kit planes but it takes years of training to properly maintain a Boeing 747. As the complexity of planes went up, the requirements for getting hired to work on them also went up.
However as usual, there will be a handful of geniouses that understand everything who write abstraction layer unpon abstraction layer until a level is reached that it doesn't take a genious to get a polygon on a screen.
All that will change is the amount of education you'll need to be able to function at a certain level.
Planes are one thing but it used to be that to fix a computer you had to hunt for a vacuum tube or whatnot that was out and replace it. These days, if a computer breaks, within 5 minutes you can determine the problem then throw out the defective part and buy a new one with little training. It's actually gotten easier to maintain PCs. I don't have to try to find and then fix a transistor in the northbridge. I just throw the MB out and get a new one.
So yes, you do need to know assembler for certain positions to earn a certain pay. But, there will always be other entry levels that don't require that level of knowledge. It's up to the individual to choose what level they want to strive for.
In conclusion, dumb, not well thought out article.
Ben
That's like being part of a dream world, a real world and a spiritual world. And nobody on the planet has any notion of three planes of existance.
Considering Neo saw the machine world as Source, it quite obviously wasn't "real." So yes, the "matrix in a matrix" was the correct view. After all, they asked it a number of times, how can a "program" exist in the "real" world. It can't.
The problem is that people like CowboyNeal were expecting more plugs to be pulled. That's not what "matrix in a matrix" is.
The third plane of existance isn't explored in the Matrix but by Neo's eyes it's quite obvious it's there. The reason it isn't explored is because The Matrix was exploring inevitability. The architect gave Neo two doors which is the definition of a false dilemma. Both doors led to the same conclusion.
Taking out the source, Neo would have died as he's a part of it and the Matrix would be rebuilt anyway. The second door, he ends up dead and the Matrix still exists. All roads lead to the same destination.
"While it is indeed possible, there is no reason to believe that it is true, since it has no real bearing on the story."
It has quite a bit to do with the story. It explains why Neo always fails no matter which path he choses. He's trying to escape from the wrong plane of existance. He consistantly fails to see the false dillema presented to him. Maybe the point is that death is the only way to escape. That's been the tried and true method for most religions.
What I would like to see, is not another Matrix movie but simply the Wachowski bros explaining what philosophy they were using. Basically, how do THEY understand it. What was their motivation. What did they intend to be symbolic and what did it represent?
Ben
The oracle flat out said that Neo was part of the source. That is why he could control the machines and the "Real World" of the machines was seen by Neo as source code.
If it's source code, it's not real. The Matrix left it open as to whether it's possible to escape the source (he had previously chosen to destroy the source where this time everyone just lives in peace with it) but it leaves a very deterministic feel. No matter which door he choses he can't get rid of the machines.
But that's the big question: can't a program that was given a purpose (no free will) infect a human who has choice and completely go against it's design?
So far the answer is "no." Neo did exactly what he was designed to do. Even if he did take a slighly askew path to get to his inevitable conclusion. Since he was part of the source, taking out the source would have resulted in his death as well. And we all know the cycle continues when he choses that door. In his current interation the path "allowed" for the cycle to start again.
The architect gave Neo a classical false dillema. He gave two doors, two choices, but if they are ever to truly win there must be at least one more door that the architect fails to mention. Most obviously, killing the architect.
Since the architect isn't human, it's inevitable as it's his purpose and he's still in control.
Does it completely cut off the notion of free will? No. But only because it never claims it can "never" happen that the humans will truly succeed.
They've just failed seven times.
Ben
It's because he's part of the source. It's understandable why you'd miss the two lines of dialog where he asks the question you asked and the oracle gives the answer I just gave you considering how every explaination was just a side note between action and reaction shots.
And since he's part of the source, the "real" world (where the escaped humans hang out) isn't really the real world since he can only control what the source controls. Point for "matrix in a matrix" theorists.
I think what's mildly ironic is that the reason people hated Vanilla Sky is because the last 15 minutes they pretended the audience was full of morons and explained everything.
Matrix: Revolutions didn't do that. They gave short stark answers which answered the questions but in a way that left it open for interpretation.
What did Agent Smith do the the Oracle? You get all of 3 seconds of seeing her lying on the ground where the Agent Smith that took on Neo used to be standing. Sure they could have gone into extensive dialog about why he needed her to defeat Neo OR they could leave it open.
They did that with everything. The answers are all there. They just don't spell it out for you. If they had they'd just be wasting time repeating Matrix 1 and 2.
Personally, my theory is that they knew all the neat questions and how to "show" them as is good story telling but couldn't "show" the answers even if they really knew them. That's the standard problem with philosophy. Most of the great writters have a brilliant ability to ask deep questions in interesting ways but they never give you an answer. They just send you back down the mountain to seek it out yourself.
I'll definitly be picking up the DVD when it comes out. I think people went in with a mindset that is was all action and "sucked" and so, like you, weren't paying attention when answers where offered.
Reloaded was the same way. I went in for the action and picked up much more detail when I got the DVD and watched it more closely.
Ben
The Bandwidth Fairy has been assumed to exist for years now by the masses of people who refuse to look at any form of advertisment. They either think the sites can magically keep running or they're just leeches that assume if one host dies another will come along anyway.
Which is fine.
"unless you can actually point to a particular website with that model, that is succeeding."
FilePlanet, SomethingAwful, CNN, GameSpot, ad nauseum realized long ago that ads can only cover so much revenue as they've been reduced to the effectiveness of Spam. And so they successfully switched to another business model that's been tried and true for centuries; charge the customers.
If customers don't want to be sponsered by major companies then they can sponser themselves.
I've never even bothered with seriously trying to make money with ads. I tried setting up a non annoying system of text based ads which got plenty of click thrus but no revenue. After awhile I could barely use my own internet connection to surf the internet my server was so busy. But no money.
I switched to an "All Access Pass" system and Voila! Money comes in and my bandwidth is restored. My server now runs with colocation instead of out of house.
Ads are now used simply for exposure. I don't get paid to post them and I only post ads for sites/companies I have personal experience with and like. I may eventually charge but it's really a non issue. Ads don't pay the bills. Paying customers do and blocking htaccess popups isn't going to get you free content.
My rule for decided what is and isn't free is very simple: does it take up lots of bandwidth? If not, then it's free. If it does, it's set up for paid access only.
Many site owners would rather let their site die and go into debt than charge the customers for even a portion of their site. Personally, I have far more of a problem with being a corporate whore. So really, site owners need to pick their poision and recognize the pros and cons of whatever they choose and take into consideration what they're trying to sell.
Ben
Doesn't go over well with business people. I do programming as a profession. However, when the 1.3.x line is flawless it's hard to convince myself it's worth my time to tackle this problem. Considering how many people have downloaded and rely on the 2.0 line, I wonder how many have the skill or motivation to fix such a glaring and simplistic flaw that should never have existed.
Especially considering someone did take the time to write a logging module that works and Apache still refuses to make it the standard, insisting instead to link to the default, "approved," known to be broken one.
By telling me to "fix it myself" he was basically telling everyone to ignore the fact that Apache is ignoring already existing fixes and needlessly reinvent the wheel themselves.
I'd actually be happier not knowing the fix existed. Apache's actions would make more sense (and be more acceptible) because I could pretend it was a complicated issue still in progress.
Ben
That fix should be standard. Obviously Apache knows about the problem but even when someone fixes it for them (so writting a fix myself as someone else suggested is a worthless pursuit to try to actually fix the problem) they continue to insist on ignoring the problem and linking by default to a known broken module that they refuse to fix. And on top of that, they fail to properly document the workaround.
Most web-site owners are more interested in running their business than dicking around with source code. Even if they knew how to even begin looking for the problem spot. I opted to revert back to 1.3.x since it's solid.
This reflects very poorly on Apache in regards to their attitude about bugs. Especially considering this shouldn't have been broken from the first 2.0 release.
"We know about it, but we don't care to fix our default logging module" is pretty sad.
It's nice to know a workaround exists but when something as simple as logging can't get an official fix it does very little to instill confidence in the product.
Maybe I'll give 2.0 another try later with my personal server but the server my business runs on will be sticking with 1.3. It works great and so I can just focus on running the business and writting source code for a job instead of reinventing fixes for a wheel that's been known to be broken for a very long time.
Ben
Eventually the scammers would figure out what numbers were red-flagged and not use them. All they would need is a CC account and they'd be right on top of the fake numbers just like every other customer.
I got a very official looking e-mail from "PayPal" asking for all my information. Then I noticed the URL and that my password wasn't getting asteriked and typed in "howwouldyouliketogotoprison" in the entry fields and hit submit. I also e-mailed PayPal and within minutes the site was gone. I doubt I was the first to report it.
Credit Card companies already have a solid way of dealing with crime. You watch your statement and if something is fishy you report it. What you have is a statement summary. The CC company has far more information at their disposal as companies that take cards have to submit lots of info to get an account.
The CC company can get just as much information a week or two after the fact as they can "during" the committing of the crime. It's not like they can call up the place that's taking the card and say "hold that customer." Especially since most CC fraud is committed through on-line shops.
Some moron years ago bought more e-mail space at Yahoo with my CC. I called up Yahoo and asked them to tell me if that purchase was applied to my account. No. And when was the last time I bought something on Yahoo for my account? "Over a year ago." And it was for hosting. I never had to pay a dime and the charges were reversed quickly. Since they bought themselves a personal account tracking down who did it would be trivial. And wouldn't even matter since it's non physical property. Yahoo just needed to cancel the account my CC was used on and everyone that matters is happy.
I learned at Mervyn's that major credit card companies tend to eat the cost of the fraud. The customer gets their money back and the store the fraud occured at gets their money. Which actually works out better since now the CC company is the only entity taking on the crook. Instead of (not) being sued a million times by all the victims, they're sued and jailed for one massive crime.
The employee probably thought it was a great idea, told his supervisor, and his supervisor walked him through their tried and true method and explained why your method was flawed.
Ben
I used Apache 2.0.47 for all of a day before I decided to never use the 2.0.x line again. Apparently when a partial transfer is requested, Apache 2.0.47 logs the full amount requested. Not what was actually transfered. I ended up showing over 10GB of transfer in a single day on a 256Kbit DSL line. Which if you do the math is only physically capable of about 2.5GB a day.
I looked at my logs and determined that a couple AOL users were trying to get a rather large file
aca9bd40.ipt.aol.com 655 6689 1004 310
acc4e74f.ipt.aol.com 1014 5412 521 148
ac8bd972.ipt.aol.com 140 1565 534 745
Requests MB KB Bytes. All that transfer supposedly happened in about a day.
I notified bug-track but apparently such a simple problem (which doesn't exist in the 1.3.x line) isn't worth addressing.
After all, who actually uses the Apache 2.0.x logs to monitor transfer? Hopefully not any hosting companies because the customers are going to get royally screwed.
Ben
in many places. Your state may vary. As long as no one takes a cut of the pool for any reason, they're normally legal. I must be all or nothing for everyone.
All they need is IR capable cameras and it'll be very obvious who changed the signal. It'd be like pointing a flashlight out your window. If it's a problem at an intersection that's causing traffic jams and accidents you can bet they'll be catching people.
That and I don't think there will be a shortage of people pointing fingers. Change a light with lots of people around and you just pissed off everyone in the opposite flow of traffic. Radar jammers are inconspicuous and don't affect anyone but the cops.
That's a standard thing on (good) mail servers. Mercury Mail uses it. EZMts uses it. You log in with your POP account which validates your IP. You then have a window to send e-mail from that IP address using the account e-mail address you logged into the pop3 account as. You can't log in to POP as BOB and then send mail as STEVE. Or log in to POP on IP 192.168.0.2 and then send e-mail on 192.168.0.3.
It's the standard method to prevent unauthorized relaying, implemented and on by default in legitimate mail servers. If you need a seperate daemon to handle POP before SMTP, your mail server is garbage. It's such a trivial thing to implement.
POP3 writes username and IP to file upon successful login (you can even encrypt it if you care) with start time.
SMTP checks the file when an e-mail attempt comes in to see if the IP, username combo is in the file and if the timeout hasn't occured. If it has, it clears the entry.
That's it.
Ben
is no less healthy than making a sandwich at home. Although the other thing that Subway mentions is the fact that Jared *walked* quite a ways to get to Subway. Exercise plus eating healthy (which sandwiches like Subway serve are) equals weight loss.
Yes, the exercise is mentioned in the ads. Maybe not as much now but that was huge at the beginning with Jared leading a group of power walking dieters to Subway.
It's not borderline. It's common sense. They also make sure to point out which sandwiches have the least fat. It's not a blanket campaign pretending everything they serve is equally healthy.
It's not like other fast food chains that make money by selling you grease.
It's pretty sad how determined people are to blame other people for their problems and if they can get money out of it, all the better.
Ben
will never be used in a professional market because it refuses to cater to even the most "basic" features like CMYK. If you're doing professional print work CMYK is an absolute requirement. It is practically a science to get from the monitor to a printer in the quality that is demanded by professionals. GIMP has failed to beckon to the call. Ever. It came out before Photoshop and has failed to be anything that a professional would want to use.
Considering how badly Photoshop is pirated it doesn't shock me at all either that they've gone to product activation. Stop bitching to Adobe and start condeming people who pirate software.
I currently use GIMP and it blows. It's awkward to use for even the most basic things. And whose idea was it to hardcode a maximum brush size? Or maximum anything for that matter? This may come as a shock but 200 pixels is not enough for everyone. You cannot use a slider to define brush attributes. You need more control than that.
As soon as I get the money I'm moving to Photoshop and I don't care what kind of DRM it has. I formated my PC and had to "deal" with Office telling me I had to call MS and get a confirmation code and it wasn't a big deal.
I'm not about to yell at Adobe for protecting their assets. They've put up with rampant piracy for years. I think we can handle a little inconvienence. It's hardly their fault this is what it's come to.
Ben
ought to be good enough for anyone."
Says you.
You don't define the "max" needed. You define the "min." Special effects studios, researchers, scientists, THEY and many others define the "max" needed and it's never enough. We can always find reasons to need to process more data faster.
If all you need is a word processor then great. But you can't simulate complex weather paterns on a K6-II in anyone's lifetime.
"and my tienda-de-descuentos K6-II still crunches the stuff faster than I could ever desire."
I have a friend who upgraded his system to top of the line and loves it because simulations that used to take days now take hours which means he can do better and more research.
"And prolly there's not too much activity in technologically improving RAM either."
Apparently you missed it when DDR came out and the Dual DDR found on graphics cards that will probably make it's way into PCs eventually to replace the current DDR. And who knows, an even faster memory may be developed before then skipping that stage.
You may be content with old tech but many people could use a speed boost to get their work done faster.
Gattaca's whole point is that somehow genetics can make you more or less qualified for a position and that's Wrong(tm).
But wait. Genetics determine our skills and our tolerance for a job situation. Good luck joining NASA and getting a ride in a shuttle if you have a heart condition. Is that unfair discrimation? No. It's recognizing a "flaw" in your genetics that could kill you and ruin a mission. If you could genetically fix that "flaw" you should be qualified if nothing else was preventing it.
I remember back not more than a hundred years ago we wouldn't hire people because they were black or whatever. Now we have laws against that. But wait. We still have positions that are filled based on skin color, sex, religion ad nauseum. Mostly entertainment roles but also covert missions in the government. Sorry, whitey but you're not going to be infiltrating an Iraqi group any time soon. Bill Cosby made a point of having an all African American crew and cast while bringing on a variety of nationalities as guests.
The only reason Gattaca isn't just a story about racial discrimination is because It Could Happen To You(tm). Techically it's a pretty silly movie considering we've established anti-discrimination laws for decades now. It's not a new issue other than a "new" way to discriminate. People are only afraid because someone might be able to pay money to get more qualified for a position genetically and want a way to cry foul for no justifiable reason.
You know what, if I get lasik and all other things being equal, I have much better eyesight than you, I'm rightfully more qualified to fly a fighter jet than you.
What's the difference between being born with eagle eyes and getting surgery?
None. If you can buy yourself a bigger brain, awesome, take the job doing super smart stuff that other people wouldn't be able to do. I don't care if nature discriminates against you and gives you a genious IQ or if your bank account allows it, you've got an asset.
Our anti-discrimation laws should be sumed up as:
"You may not refuse to hire someone based on qualities that will not affect their performance in the position they are seeking."
And that's it. And if someone buys a big giant head and gets a position over you because they are smarter and more qualified, you can whine to a judge on a case by case basis instead of pretending that some blanket statement law is going to solve anything.
There are plenty of beautiful, smart, socialable people who do every imaginable job on the planet. Changing genetics does NOT change the heart. Just because you're beautiful and can act doesn't mean you're going to be a movie star. You may want to be a teacher or any other number of positions.
So really, genetic modifications doesn't change anything at all. Gattaca was an interesting movie but it was far from innovative or insightful when you really sit down and contemplate the world we live in.
havn't said the pledge since forever. Why not ask them why they can refuse to be sheep and others kids "have no choice?"
If you can't instill in your kid enough of a spine to not say the pledge then imagine what other things they won't have the spine to say no to.
Ben
have been refusing to say the pledge or participate in holiday parties since forever.
What makes their children so special that they can refuse to say the pledge?
I find it highly ironic that religious people who are often claimed to be mindless sheep can manage to raise their children to stand out from the crowd while parents of those who claim to be freethinkers are petrified of their children being anything but sheep and following the crowd.
Stop whining about conspiracy theories to brainwash your children and spend more time instilling a backbone in them. I don't bitch to the school everytime some teacher goes on about evolution.
Personally I don't care either way. I just find it funny. The dad who was fighting against the pledge "for his little girl" apparently is raising a little girl who actually LIKES to say it. Maybe you should take a moment and ask your children what they think before shooting your mouth off and telling everyone what you think they think.
Ben
I'd like to just change my plan and get a new phone but AT&T thinks they can extend the contract just for increasing my plan. I'm trying to give them more money and apparently that's not good enough. Screw that. I've been a slave to their company for a year, I'll decide if I want to use their service or not.
Since they're being retarded, I'm going to switch companies and make money on the cell phone again through Amazon. Last time I got $100. $80 phone with $180 worth of rebates. If I have to extend my contract I might as well get as much money out of the deal as possible.
My current contract conviently expires in Nov.
Ben
Henry Ford was building and selling HIS OWN cars HE CREATED.
If the RIAA were trying to squish independent artists because they were making and selling music cheaper than they were then it would be a valid comparison.
Last I checked the RIAA is NOT suing people for buying independent music.
They're suing people who pirate THEIR music.
Big GIANT legal difference. If I started copying and selling/giving away copies of HalfLife 2 in plain sight for the whole world to see, I'd be sued/thrown in jail faster than I could blink.
The RIAA is going about it the wrong way but they are perfectly in their rights to sue people who pirate their things. Do you think Valve is just going to slap the wrist of the person who stole their source code?
Every digital media company on the face of the planet has taken down/sued warez site owners at one time or another. P2P has just made it easier and more socially acceptible to do and the RIAA isn't about to just sit back to take it. I wouldn't expect them to. No other company that's been in their position has.
There is no way to prevent piracy 100%. Nintendo has come the closest by maintaining a strick control over their system and their media. Both of which are far too proprietary to replicate in a reasonable amount of time. It took a very long time for an N64 emulator to come out and none of them are all that great. Sony went with standard sized media and opened themselves up wide for easy pirating with Bleem.
I agree that trying to "copyprotect" audio, video and text is a pointless pursuit but I think it's time to drop the "suing their own customers" bullshit.
No store gives a shit how many times you've bought something. If you steal from them, you'll be hauled off. Name one company that wants thieves for customers. Just because I buy X albums doesn't grant me Y free ones just because I can get away with it.
Heavy handed and extreme, yes. Wrong. No. If you download illegal media you are a pirate and you make yourself a target of litigation. Whining that you're a "customer" won't fly with any competent judge.
Ben
Like Library of Congresses
I want my 100 LoC drive.
Ben
is pointless. Yes, there is quite a selection of weapons to kill people with in Postal 2 but the number of ways you can kill a person is horribly limited. Basically you can take their head off, make them urinate on themselves, fry them or just shoot them and watch them bleed.
Contrast that to Carmageddon where you could knock any limb off and watch them scream and hop around on one leg or whatever besides knocking their head off. Plus you could smash yours and other vehicals up by crashing or using a variety of creative ways in a wide variety of realistic ways. Fenders falling off, sides being dented, etc.
So not only was Postal 2 pointlessly violent but its level of violence was pathetic compared to other titles.
If you want hilarious violence, profanity and great gameplay, Conker's Bad Fur Day is the top choice. What other game allows you to turn into a bat and drop guanao on fleeing mice and then drop them into spinning spikes of death? It's creative, entertaining and not violent for the sake of being violence.
I could go on with other examples to contrast what a pile of crap Postal 2 was compared to them in every area including the violence but I won't.
Ben
Actually, he accidently landed on his sister while bouncing down the stairs after going to the restroom. The stairs spiral up so not seeing his sister laying on them at the bottom was entirely possible. The physical evidence also doens't support the WWE moves version.
The original story he gave about the WWE moves was because he felt it was better sounding than admitting his clumsyness is what killed her. Apprently he felt so bad about what actually happened, he decided to stick to the worse sounding story all the way to prison. The parents of both are now trying to get the sentence reduced.
Both stories were predicated with "accidently" it was just a matter of what he "accidently" did that resulted in her death. It wasn't a malicious act like the media at the time made it out to be.
Even though what actually happened in no way supports the above posters point, this story will probably be repeated as much as the Spilled Coffee Lawsuit.
One would hope people would realize that there are enough VALID cases that once a case is shown to be invalid to show a point, it would be dropped.
Ben
The issue is not "what" something is. It's "should I charge for it, and if so, how much?" I wouldn't call some of the so called "modern art" anything but crap (which ironically is sometimes used to make it). Whatever the end result of this little program is, if someone enjoys it and you get something in return (fame, money, personal satisfaction or all three) then that's all that matters.
As far as the "what" is concerned there are only two options: tangible and intangible. Tangible things are covered by property laws. Intangible by IP laws.
This is article brought to you by a philosophy major who couldn't get a job.
"What is music?"
There is no universal answer to that. I would consider it patterned rythmic noise. Banging on on a garbage can some would call noise although they can be used to create patterned rythms that won't get the contents of your intrument thrown at you.
Turning an image (or anything for that matter) into random sounds I wouldn't consider music. But then, maybe some starving philosophers would if someone were to pay them enough to argue their case. Or maybe just a starving programmer who needs a gimmic he can sell to make a few bucks.
Ben