It would be nice to cache those things so that they load faster, but an interface that changes can be confusing. I hate it when XP hides items and then I have to reveal all items to get to something simple like "open"
Re:You know, Fresco...doesn't ring a bell?
on
Fresco M1 Released
·
· Score: 1
Then you've only been reading slashdot for the last year or two, and you don't read the comments on threads about why X sucks because someone always mentions Berlin/Fresco.
You know those window shadows on OSX that everyone regards as a great way of showing windowing order? You need transparency for that, and while we have X's XRender we also have Berlin.
Transparency is also a big part of anti-aliased text. Some people like that.
Spinning window thingies isn't so important, but it shows the flexibility of Fresco. Although a window at a 45 degree turn isn't easy to use there's talk of using something like that to grab user attention. When an application needs your input rather than flashing on the toolbar or taking focus it could appear for a few seconds slightly transparent and rotating slowly - you know, like out of the Exorcist. Features like that are what's bring ing Hollywood to Linux, and I for one welcome it.
Hang on, I thought cheating was made more difficult on the network? Now they're doing basic security on a per-game basis?
I am correct again. MS effectively has stopped cheating, and you can't stand it. They have also stopped modd'd hardware running on thier network. Boo hoo for you.
Where did I ever say I agreed with cheating? Oh, that's right, you're fighting against a cliche of your own invention. Good one.
Trusted hardware, signed software, encrypted communications. Thats a pretty strong way to prevent tampering.
Perhaps you didn't read the article. The pretty strong way to prevent tampering, to prevent cheats, to prevent the untrusted player... it was by beaten by changing the serial number and the mac address.
Now, you must concentrate on this because this is the part so many people miss, the key item here is that this is how much Microsoft care about cheating.
Microsoft have to earn that trusted network, and they blew it again. As you say, SSL could have done it, but they didn't bother.
In Australia they said it should be illegal to sell modding chips for Xboxs. This is just one more way of PR to blur the lines between modders and cheaters.
But please, the evidence is clear. They don't care about the cheating. They would have done a better job. They care about modding.
People who PAY for the service are harmed when they pay for the service and Modders+Cheaters disrupt the service.
Again, you're quite happy to group modders and cheaters. The moral tones of each elude you.
Unless they run the connection through industry standard stuff like SSL which is trivial to implement. Which blows your theory out of the water.
There's no such thing as end-to-end encryption. SSL protects connections on the network, at a certain stage, and it does not offer the kind of security we're talking about here when we do not trust one party.
Actually, being able to play online was quite clear. Advertising is a contract. If I'm doing legal things with my Xbox and I can't use an advertised feature then that may be illega.
I'm not saying I'm right. I'm saying it's not so clear.
Usually when people type in all caps they consider themselves passionately responding to someone who disagrees with them. However, I have said it's their legal right. America can nuke the world, I can kick my cat, and that's all beside the point of whether it's right.
But if you do something they dont like, they can withold service.
What you are proposing is unlike any law on the planet. Eulas are not always legally enforceable, and they are always superseded by the law of the land. Microsoft haven't
I couldn't care less about cheaters. I couldn't care less about video games, or Xbox or anything like it.
Your post disagrees with you.
The fact is that there hasnt been a better way to enforce non-cheating. Any code can be modified with simple tools that enable cheating. The only way to prevent this is to use secure protocols, trusted hardware, and trusted software. That is what MS has done. Precisely. This method is very effective. Nothing else will be as effective. Period.
Any connection can be monitored. Say, for example, the connection between Microsoft and the Xbox. The data-stream can be modified with simple tools that enable cheating.
But yeah, you've certainly shown your true colours. You don't give a fuck if 2 out of those 4 uses are harmed. You think it's the price to pay for the harm done. You disgust me.
No one has to prove that. MS can ban anyone, for anytime, for any reason. Period.
Of course you're right here, but surely we're talking about whether it's right, not whether due to a carefully cast contract whether they can argue their case in the courts - right?
I'm simply saying that out of your 3 scenarios only 1 is wrong (remember, backups are legal in most places, so we have 4 scenarios, 2 of which should be allowed).
Microsoft has a moral right to prevent genuine pirated software, and they have the right to stop cheats. They don't have a moral right to stop Xbox Linux or backups, and furthermore Xbox Linux isn't illegal.
Sooner or later you need to realise Microsoft's game. Because they group the illegal and the legal but undesirable uses together ("who would really want to do that anyway?") they aim to stop non authorised and yet valid choices. I'm quite angry at that. I'm not angry at the idea of hitting down on cheaters - but as each game is signed by the author it wouldn't be hard to detect game modifications. Do you really think this was the best they could do? Do you really think this has anything to do with cheating? Do you really think they couldn't have thought out a better and more accurate way to only detect game modifications?
No, they're trying make it so that if you run Linux you can't access their gaming network. You either take it all Microsoft's way, or you have none at all.
This has been their method all along. Here we have cheats and Linux users in the same boat - and how we hate cheaters!
IF you mod your Xbox it becomes possible to cheat.
Come on now, I asked people to prove it. How is cheating any more possible with a modded Xbox? It's not like a toggle button comes up when you've got a modded box.
What rights? What negociation? What document? Was it made clear to me that my legal use of my Xbox would prevent me from using the advertised Xbox coming-feature of online games?
Not true. You can trust the majority of hosts and therefore trust some users more than others.
That said, there are other ways of discovering the real file. Currently fakers don't bother to show the correct filesize, so at a glance they can be seen as different. If they binded the claimed size to the download size no one could fake sizes or else you'd get a broken download that even a porn spamer couldn't use to redirect.
If the outage was related to a mistake on your part, I would think you would be a least morally obligated to correct it. Otherwise, what's to stop someone from hosing the entire network and then quitting?
I kind of agree, but when the quality of work hasn't been defined it's not clear whose responsibility mistakes are. For example, if an employer paid me to set up a LAN, and I recommended that I spend more time testing, but they didn't give me that time and got me to work on something else, then I wouldn't consider myself responsible for the quality of work should it fail. If they gave me the time so that I could test and therefore trust the work I had done then I would be responsible.
Someone can't just point me around doing one day jobs on work that requires a week and hold me to the quality of the job.
This is quite possibly the best comment I have ever read on Slashdot this week. People who know computers all too frequently help others without getting any compensation (not neccessarily money). This person obviously wasn't a friend, and the sucker is feeling sucked.
No, I'm not kidding. I can't stand the interface of Photoshop, so therefore I can't stand the interface of The Gimp. All those windows are just awkward. I don't have an separate windows for my webbrowsing and my navigation bar and my toolbar - why are graphics programs so different? At least PSP gets that right. They align the toolbars along the sides of the window like every other application. It's simpler and easier to use. Even Macromedia Dreamweaver that did copy Adobe in it's a-million-and-one floating windows now aligns it to the side within the single window. Can the GIMP do this?
"If it were a science, you will get it right the first time...right??" you wouldn't get the same result each time because the audience is usually different and so your needs changes which might affect the interface. So the procedure is the same (the science of usability) but you follow an evolution of the interface, as you say.
Slashdot Mirror
It would be nice to cache those things so that they load faster, but an interface that changes can be confusing. I hate it when XP hides items and then I have to reveal all items to get to something simple like "open"
Then you've only been reading slashdot for the last year or two, and you don't read the comments on threads about why X sucks because someone always mentions Berlin/Fresco.
I knight thee Sir AC of Alpha Channel.
Transparency is also a big part of anti-aliased text. Some people like that.
Spinning window thingies isn't so important, but it shows the flexibility of Fresco. Although a window at a 45 degree turn isn't easy to use there's talk of using something like that to grab user attention. When an application needs your input rather than flashing on the toolbar or taking focus it could appear for a few seconds slightly transparent and rotating slowly - you know, like out of the Exorcist. Features like that are what's bring ing Hollywood to Linux, and I for one welcome it.
That John Markoff? As in Free Kevin Markoff? inter-ma-resting.
Where did I ever say I agreed with cheating? Oh, that's right, you're fighting against a cliche of your own invention. Good one.
Now, you must concentrate on this because this is the part so many people miss, the key item here is that this is how much Microsoft care about cheating.
Microsoft have to earn that trusted network, and they blew it again. As you say, SSL could have done it, but they didn't bother.
In Australia they said it should be illegal to sell modding chips for Xboxs. This is just one more way of PR to blur the lines between modders and cheaters.
But please, the evidence is clear. They don't care about the cheating. They would have done a better job. They care about modding.
There's no such thing as end-to-end encryption. SSL protects connections on the network, at a certain stage, and it does not offer the kind of security we're talking about here when we do not trust one party.
Actually, being able to play online was quite clear. Advertising is a contract. If I'm doing legal things with my Xbox and I can't use an advertised feature then that may be illega.
I'm not saying I'm right. I'm saying it's not so clear.
What you are proposing is unlike any law on the planet. Eulas are not always legally enforceable, and they are always superseded by the law of the land. Microsoft haven't
Your post disagrees with you.
Any connection can be monitored. Say, for example, the connection between Microsoft and the Xbox. The data-stream can be modified with simple tools that enable cheating.
But yeah, you've certainly shown your true colours. You don't give a fuck if 2 out of those 4 uses are harmed. You think it's the price to pay for the harm done. You disgust me.
I'm simply saying that out of your 3 scenarios only 1 is wrong (remember, backups are legal in most places, so we have 4 scenarios, 2 of which should be allowed).
Microsoft has a moral right to prevent genuine pirated software, and they have the right to stop cheats. They don't have a moral right to stop Xbox Linux or backups, and furthermore Xbox Linux isn't illegal.
Sooner or later you need to realise Microsoft's game. Because they group the illegal and the legal but undesirable uses together ("who would really want to do that anyway?") they aim to stop non authorised and yet valid choices. I'm quite angry at that. I'm not angry at the idea of hitting down on cheaters - but as each game is signed by the author it wouldn't be hard to detect game modifications. Do you really think this was the best they could do? Do you really think this has anything to do with cheating? Do you really think they couldn't have thought out a better and more accurate way to only detect game modifications?
No, they're trying make it so that if you run Linux you can't access their gaming network. You either take it all Microsoft's way, or you have none at all.
This has been their method all along. Here we have cheats and Linux users in the same boat - and how we hate cheaters!
What rights? What negociation? What document? Was it made clear to me that my legal use of my Xbox would prevent me from using the advertised Xbox coming-feature of online games?
When I bought an Xbox it was promised that online gaming was coming, and that was part of the reason for my purchase.
I'm all for stopping cheating. This has nothing to do with that.
Hell. Yes. This needs to go front page with some analysis of what can and can't be accepted.
Just in case anyone was wondering whether the FBI were getting this guy all wrong here's Bobby Fischer's radio call-in on 9/11 applauding the terrorists [mp3] [Newspaper report on Bobby Fischer's 9/11 radio call].
That said, there are other ways of discovering the real file. Currently fakers don't bother to show the correct filesize, so at a glance they can be seen as different. If they binded the claimed size to the download size no one could fake sizes or else you'd get a broken download that even a porn spamer couldn't use to redirect.
Someone can't just point me around doing one day jobs on work that requires a week and hold me to the quality of the job.
I knight thee Sir Archeopterix.
No, I'm not kidding. I can't stand the interface of Photoshop, so therefore I can't stand the interface of The Gimp. All those windows are just awkward. I don't have an separate windows for my webbrowsing and my navigation bar and my toolbar - why are graphics programs so different? At least PSP gets that right. They align the toolbars along the sides of the window like every other application. It's simpler and easier to use. Even Macromedia Dreamweaver that did copy Adobe in it's a-million-and-one floating windows now aligns it to the side within the single window. Can the GIMP do this?
Er... ASP.NET w3c DOM validation controls that override proprietary crap
Well, is there a guide to the types of input that we should use certain validation schemes on?
(the Microsoft ASP.NET validation stuff uses proprietary DOM - but there is a DOM version now that works in Mozilla)
"If it were a science, you will get it right the first time...right??" you wouldn't get the same result each time because the audience is usually different and so your needs changes which might affect the interface. So the procedure is the same (the science of usability) but you follow an evolution of the interface, as you say.