That's actually pretty sophisticated compared with just about any terror attack I can think of though, and more protective than you need to be. 9/11 was carried out with box cutters and seizing control of the plane. The IRA would just plant a bomb in a car. In Israel, terrorists blow up buses rather than planes.
I think it's more that it's really expensive than too regulated. To get a positive return on investment, the big aircraft companies need to sell hundreds of planes. You're investing billions before you get a penny back.
I rather liked the "this perpetual motion machine [Lisa] made today is a joke. It just keeps going faster and faster. Lisa, get in here! In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!"
The explanation was simply an explanation of the bill. It doesn't really need to be credited. And this is the sort of the Wikipedia is for - explaining and summarising sometimes fairly complex information for the layman. If the explanation credited Wikipedia it would distract from the explanation. It's not like he was claiming to have created this clever prose himself (unless I completely misunderstand the situation). He just wanted to share the knowledge.
The point is that this isn't anything like the Space shuttle (or even Vostok 1). It goes really high. The things we think of as spaceships also go really fast - a substantially greater engineering challenge. To say 100km is space is like saying any plane that can go 101 miles is capable of intercontinental flight (Malaga to Tangier). It's technically true but it's not going to get you from New York to Paris.
Well, typically this sort of thing has a test of reasonableness applied. Since someone clearly logged on without trouble, this is not adequately secured. WEP probably is. It's breakable but most people aren't going to go to the effort. The prosecution would need to demonstrate that it wasn't adequate to keep people out. There aren't enough people regularly breaking WEP for this to be an issue. If there were, and it was well known that there were, then he could presumably be fined.
Granted, you can sell open source software, but I bet the vast majority of OSS is given away freely. It would therefore not count as a sale.
Quite right. It only applies to actual "sale". In this case the software was explicitly sold for a particular purpose. The quite reasonable assumption seems to be that once you actually take money for something you are guaranteeing that it's suitable. So of course, if I sell someone else's piece of GPL code, I'm accepting full responsibility for it being suitable. If I've used it substantially myself and found no problems I may well be happy to take this responsibility.
As an example, doesn't the GPL state that the software comes with no warranty? I'd think that would free the creators from liability issues with regards to bugs or functionality.
The software mentioned in the article came with a similar disclaimer. It's not something to rely on and certainly wouldn't cover the vendor if it was sold.
You really are reading too much into what I said. I was just giving the networks the benefit of the doubt.
I mean if you think the networks' argument has no merit, then that's fair enough. I may even agree with you. The poster I replied to seemed to suggest that youTube should have zero obligation to ensure that their users use their service responsibly. I don't agree with that.
I want personal responsibility for the parents and corporate responsibility on the part of youTube. I never suggested that there should be legislation to make youTube legally responsible. Just pointing out that if their users are using their facilities to break the law, perhaps youtube should do something about this beyond their minimum legal requirement.
Gas stations aren't providing the venue for people stealing car radios from Walmart. Gas stations are not profiting from stolen car radios. Nor are a large quantity of a given gas station's customers (or in most cases, any at all) stealing car radios from Walmart. Nor could the gas station do anything to prevent the theft were they able to have a 100% accurate way of determining whether the customers were stealing radios.
Rainbow would be a tricky one though. DUP would most likely side with Conservative, and SDLP never would. Plaid Cymru and SNP could side with Conservative but I doubt either party would be willing to offer what they want (Conservative out of ideology, and Labour because that would lead to an independent England and they need Scotland And Wales). There are many situations where it would be down to the single seat parties.
Press release
Let's see - 1000 hours of video = 3.6 million seconds = 108 million frames (30fps). Not 104 billion.
The signature is just 76 bytes. But a "home class PC" is 3GHz according a to a footnote. Perhaps the reporter could have read the original press release.
This stores the difference in luminance between subregions of frames. No idea why this needs to be encoded in the video itself. Seems that all a pirate needs to do is tweak things adequately so the signature changes. And I don't quite see how detecting changes is a feature. Surely you're trying to detect things remaining the same...
A lot of the development work is design, basic gameplay code and assets. You don't actually spend that much programmer time dealing with the highly technical optimisation critical parts. The bulk of a typical game can be ported directly with few changes. It's difficult technical work, but only for a few skilled programmers.
Wii doesn't just have lower resolution. It has considerably lower physical RAM, slower CPU, different controller, and the 3D hardware uses a fixed pipeline rather than programmable shaders. So we need to redesign parts of the graphics engine, simplify the assets, change the game design, and shrink the levels.
Oh, sure. We do already stack them (10 years ago there were 20 or so layers of silicon, I imagine this has increased), but there's still a limit to transistors/volume. It extends Moore's law but Moore's law is still limited at some point, be it 30, hundreds or millions of years in the future.
Shelve it. Come up with another idea. A simple one where the development costs are tiny. Set up a company. Hire developers (You'll need at least a couple of programmers and artists). Develop a vertical slice. A single working level. Pitch that to publishers. If one of them likes it, they'll fund much of the rest of the development.
Once you've sold this, finish development on the game, get it published. You'll probably have made a net loss at this point but that's not a huge problem. You have institutional knowledge, and a friendly publisher. Get working on your game concept. Pitch that to publishers. If you last game was a success, the previous publishers are going to be interested. You can potentially make money from this one.
Big companies are pansies that just want to be safe and boring and comfortable,
I've worked on an original, highly rated game published by a major publisher (even won a "most original game" award). Nobody bought it. They produce boring unoriginal games because that what their customers want.
Given that Gamefly is losing millions here, relatively speaking, it's not going to be a major pain for them to answer these questions. It makes sense to be thorough.
Some of it I'm okay with. The computer gaining intelligence is obviously not going to happen but it's a good enough "what-if". Character-at-a-time chat looks better and not completely implausible.
I do have a problem with a lot of the virus stuff though, and easily guessable passwords. The former just means the story is incoherent because as far as the writers are concerned, they've suddenly got a magical problem with a magical solution. It lends itself to a deus ex machina. Easily guessable passwords are a deus ex machina.
In real world situations that's actually pretty good security. If you have physical access, then you can get pretty much anything you want anyway on most typical desktop systems.
Oh yes. Parallel processing is an option, but whether we go that route or one of the others, doesn't actually affect when Moore's law comes to an end, just what we do with it.
Slashdot Mirror
That's actually pretty sophisticated compared with just about any terror attack I can think of though, and more protective than you need to be. 9/11 was carried out with box cutters and seizing control of the plane. The IRA would just plant a bomb in a car. In Israel, terrorists blow up buses rather than planes.
I think it's more that it's really expensive than too regulated. To get a positive return on investment, the big aircraft companies need to sell hundreds of planes. You're investing billions before you get a penny back.
But why mention that when the inspiration for it had such a love affair with lasers?
Goldfinger is 46 years old. The Bond Cutting Laser was referencing serious cutting-edge tech at the time!
Oh, no, Mr. Bond. I expect you to die!
I rather liked the "this perpetual motion machine [Lisa] made today is a joke. It just keeps going faster and faster. Lisa, get in here! In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!"
Yes, it's sort of funny but no big deal.
The explanation was simply an explanation of the bill. It doesn't really need to be credited. And this is the sort of the Wikipedia is for - explaining and summarising sometimes fairly complex information for the layman. If the explanation credited Wikipedia it would distract from the explanation. It's not like he was claiming to have created this clever prose himself (unless I completely misunderstand the situation). He just wanted to share the knowledge.
The point is that this isn't anything like the Space shuttle (or even Vostok 1). It goes really high. The things we think of as spaceships also go really fast - a substantially greater engineering challenge. To say 100km is space is like saying any plane that can go 101 miles is capable of intercontinental flight (Malaga to Tangier). It's technically true but it's not going to get you from New York to Paris.
Well, typically this sort of thing has a test of reasonableness applied. Since someone clearly logged on without trouble, this is not adequately secured. WEP probably is. It's breakable but most people aren't going to go to the effort. The prosecution would need to demonstrate that it wasn't adequate to keep people out. There aren't enough people regularly breaking WEP for this to be an issue. If there were, and it was well known that there were, then he could presumably be fined.
Granted, you can sell open source software, but I bet the vast majority of OSS is given away freely. It would therefore not count as a sale.
Quite right. It only applies to actual "sale". In this case the software was explicitly sold for a particular purpose. The quite reasonable assumption seems to be that once you actually take money for something you are guaranteeing that it's suitable. So of course, if I sell someone else's piece of GPL code, I'm accepting full responsibility for it being suitable. If I've used it substantially myself and found no problems I may well be happy to take this responsibility.
As an example, doesn't the GPL state that the software comes with no warranty? I'd think that would free the creators from liability issues with regards to bugs or functionality.
The software mentioned in the article came with a similar disclaimer. It's not something to rely on and certainly wouldn't cover the vendor if it was sold.
You really are reading too much into what I said. I was just giving the networks the benefit of the doubt.
I mean if you think the networks' argument has no merit, then that's fair enough. I may even agree with you. The poster I replied to seemed to suggest that youTube should have zero obligation to ensure that their users use their service responsibly. I don't agree with that.
When did I call for legislation of any sort?
I want personal responsibility for the parents and corporate responsibility on the part of youTube. I never suggested that there should be legislation to make youTube legally responsible. Just pointing out that if their users are using their facilities to break the law, perhaps youtube should do something about this beyond their minimum legal requirement.
Nope. But I am the kind of guy who thinks a kid's parents should have some responsibility for how their kid behaves.
It's nothing like that at all.
Gas stations aren't providing the venue for people stealing car radios from Walmart. Gas stations are not profiting from stolen car radios. Nor are a large quantity of a given gas station's customers (or in most cases, any at all) stealing car radios from Walmart. Nor could the gas station do anything to prevent the theft were they able to have a 100% accurate way of determining whether the customers were stealing radios.
To be fair, all they're asking the ISPs to do is police their own users.
If you're providing a hangout for lawbreakers, is it really too much to ask that you take at least some measures to reduce the harm to others?
Rainbow would be a tricky one though. DUP would most likely side with Conservative, and SDLP never would. Plaid Cymru and SNP could side with Conservative but I doubt either party would be willing to offer what they want (Conservative out of ideology, and Labour because that would lead to an independent England and they need Scotland And Wales). There are many situations where it would be down to the single seat parties.
Press release Let's see - 1000 hours of video = 3.6 million seconds = 108 million frames (30fps). Not 104 billion.
The signature is just 76 bytes. But a "home class PC" is 3GHz according a to a footnote. Perhaps the reporter could have read the original press release.
This stores the difference in luminance between subregions of frames. No idea why this needs to be encoded in the video itself. Seems that all a pirate needs to do is tweak things adequately so the signature changes. And I don't quite see how detecting changes is a feature. Surely you're trying to detect things remaining the same...
A lot of the development work is design, basic gameplay code and assets. You don't actually spend that much programmer time dealing with the highly technical optimisation critical parts. The bulk of a typical game can be ported directly with few changes. It's difficult technical work, but only for a few skilled programmers.
Wii doesn't just have lower resolution. It has considerably lower physical RAM, slower CPU, different controller, and the 3D hardware uses a fixed pipeline rather than programmable shaders. So we need to redesign parts of the graphics engine, simplify the assets, change the game design, and shrink the levels.
Oh, sure. We do already stack them (10 years ago there were 20 or so layers of silicon, I imagine this has increased), but there's still a limit to transistors/volume. It extends Moore's law but Moore's law is still limited at some point, be it 30, hundreds or millions of years in the future.
Shelve it. Come up with another idea. A simple one where the development costs are tiny. Set up a company. Hire developers (You'll need at least a couple of programmers and artists). Develop a vertical slice. A single working level. Pitch that to publishers. If one of them likes it, they'll fund much of the rest of the development.
Once you've sold this, finish development on the game, get it published. You'll probably have made a net loss at this point but that's not a huge problem. You have institutional knowledge, and a friendly publisher. Get working on your game concept. Pitch that to publishers. If you last game was a success, the previous publishers are going to be interested. You can potentially make money from this one.
Big companies are pansies that just want to be safe and boring and comfortable,
I've worked on an original, highly rated game published by a major publisher (even won a "most original game" award). Nobody bought it. They produce boring unoriginal games because that what their customers want.
Given that Gamefly is losing millions here, relatively speaking, it's not going to be a major pain for them to answer these questions. It makes sense to be thorough.
Be used to browse TVTropes.
Wouldn't be surprised if there was a page with all of that lot.
Some of it I'm okay with. The computer gaining intelligence is obviously not going to happen but it's a good enough "what-if". Character-at-a-time chat looks better and not completely implausible.
I do have a problem with a lot of the virus stuff though, and easily guessable passwords. The former just means the story is incoherent because as far as the writers are concerned, they've suddenly got a magical problem with a magical solution. It lends itself to a deus ex machina. Easily guessable passwords are a deus ex machina.
Well, more perfectly adequate than pretty good...
In real world situations that's actually pretty good security. If you have physical access, then you can get pretty much anything you want anyway on most typical desktop systems.
Oh yes. Parallel processing is an option, but whether we go that route or one of the others, doesn't actually affect when Moore's law comes to an end, just what we do with it.