Whatever he is trying to do, if they get the trademark, they can either sue no-one, or sue everyone using the MAME name to point to the M.A.M.E. emulator. Therefore, there is potential for abuse.
I think he should either create a non-profit that is supported by M.A.M.E. programmers and community, or drop the idea. Also, I think that any other company making consoles will be succesful suing UltraCade for unfair business practices if UltraCade pretends to be the supplier of the M.A.M.E. emulator while it isn't.
I'll probably be kicked from slashdot, since I violated its code of conduct by actually reading the article, but since when is a java parseInt Exception an SQL Injection opportunity?
In fact, the parseInt may protect the SQL from being manipulated. Likewise with the script tag injection. He tries it, it doesn't work. Admittely there is no nice errors message, but it still doesn't work.
So this means that finally I can plug in two Radeon Y-NOT-8M cards consuming 100 Watts each without buying a new special power supply. So who says there ain't no progress and that history is bound to repeat itself?
The US on the other hand will have to reinvent itself completely in only a couple years. Even cities will have to be rebuilt from the ground up (try doing that 100 mile daily commute in a world where gasoline is 10x more expensive than it is today). They will have to build extensive public transportation systems that do not exist right now. And all this right at the time the foreign debt crisis hits.
You forgot that the US backup plan is to be the last badass nation on the world with access to oil reserves. This means when the crisis hits, the US will accuse the rest of the world to be uneducated people who believe in nonsense like greenhouse gases and evolution, while it is clear to everyone that the universal designer, God, is punishing us for our sins, like not using windows2040 and not paying for software patents, thus withholding money from the US that the Creator intended to be there. Clearly, such behavior warrants a declaration of War, or maybe the USA will come to Europe to assist it in its War between Atheism, Anarchism and Religion.
It still piracy, because he didn't buy the game he cracked.
What I'm saying is, its ok to me(but no the Law) if you crack a game that you bought, but not this tricking. The trick might work legally with goods, but not with copyrighted stuff.
I don't know about religious, but was definitely worth upgrading from Windows 1.0 to Windows 3.1.
Not for me, since upgrading from 1.0 to 3.1 broke the screen layout of the program I had for 1.0, since the st^D^Dguys at Microsoft hadn't bothered to include the old fonts from 1.0 in 3.1
Nevertheless, the possibilities are endless what could happen when you locked a bunch of roombas, some cardea segway-style bots, some aibos and and some humanoid robots in your house.
Emergent behaviour means the group could end up behaving in a systematic, apparently intelligent original way that had not been programmed into a single of them.
It doesn't mean they'd gang up to punish you for abusing them, though.
Yes, ok so that is how it is described in the US law, but in other countries the words "height of invention" are being used to describe much the same thing. So I keep up my argument.
No, it is the C code itself. It would also be insecure if you ran it on a C interpreter, although exploits might work differently.
I wouldn't say C++ is insecure by design, since C++ at least allows you to "easily" add high-level data management constructs to the language, so that means at least in C++ you can write safer code, if you want.
C is not safe because it does not allow safe string and vector types, and you cannot even add these without either sacrificing speed or writing weird code.
I don't even want to go into how you can cast any pointer into anything you want.
btw. How secure is Goslings emacs operating system shell ?;-)
Patents would be ok, if they were inventive as required by the law. Unfortunately, there is no way on Earth to measure or judge inventiveness, so all a patent examiner can do is to judge whether the application is novel. Something which any patent application can do as long as it mixes in some new technology, like computers or the internet.
To make things worse, many software patents usually don't come with a useful description of how to actually do stuff, which is sad, since software can be documented by the sourcecode and printed.
If you use a ROT-13 bookmarklet (google for it, maybe at E2), you will find that the parent is correct.
Does anyone else find it funny that the army includes a table of the probability of english letters, i.e. di-and trigraphs in the document? What are they planning on, war with the British;-)
I guess you'd have to hit ctrl, or shift while pressing the mouse in order to lower terrain(or raise). Kind of weird to require the user to use the keyboard to modify mouse input. I imagine this would be a pain to use for a someone who had lost his left arm, or who was paralyzed on one side.
Not that the old Windows wasn't guilty of that too, in order to force it to show the "open with" option. I seem to remember this is gone in XP.
I'm talking about populous 1(2) by the way, later versions might not require you to raise and lower terrain as much.
Well I guess you could work around that by using raise/lower keys on the keyboard, but it doesn't quite feel as much like a video game if you can't use the mouse except for pointing. Hey, I got an idea: why not advocate the NO-BUTTON MOUSE because it is even less confusing for users?
The worst kind of troll is definitely when you argue your point, post, then take a walk and change your mind about the topic and discover that your post makes the perfect troll..
Whether the ions in the solar wind worked as an attractive force towards the rest of the galaxy would depend on whether they had enough energy to move out that far. If they had enough energy, then at least that would give me an opening to advocate pushing gravity again, which by the way is also a cool thing to simulate on a zBox.
I kind of like the idea of building a 10-lightyears long particle accelerator to create a babyuniverse by concentrating energy(10^28eV) in one spot. And then inject android nanobots into it.
Although I guess it'd be very hard to aim at that dist'
Why not have pushing gravity instead of dark matter? It is an easier concept and might lead to similar equations anyway. And what is negative matter? Can't we just have the Pauli exclusion principle for short distances, and billard-style pushing gravity based on the impetus and exclusion for long distances causing the effect of an atttractive force?
All your disappointments will be adressed once Robosapiens runs Linux.
It also says Robosapiens2 can sway, so it might be physically able to turn the human way.
Re:folding@home seti@home - is it that good
on
New and Improved SETI
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Well, I like folding at home too, but I wonder whether there aren't easier ways to produce a molecule that matches another molecule that you want to stop.
For example, subject a molecule generator such as: a (modifed) bacteria, to radiation to cause mutation, then selectively breed the bacteria that match best. I must admit, lots of loose ends in my idea, but you might be able to work in parallel if done right.
I think you wanted to say patching another system is OK when the other system is attacking your system and is causing damage or high server load. Sorto self-defense.
A "worm" however, does not restrict itself to systems that attacked you. So it is a bad idea to use. Also, the attacking worm usually causes high load at the infected end, not the attacked end, at least one instance of the worm. So the argument about damage done might not hold here.
.. the (transparent) glasses ARE the battlefield computer..
Isn't this "Quantum Darwinism" nonsense?
on
Subatomic Darwinism
·
· Score: 1
Isn't this "Quantum Darwinism" nonsense? I'm sure the idea can be put to good use, despite of being nonsense or at least blatantly obvious. I believe at least in the way that it is put forward it is nothing new:
It doesn't really explain anything about quantum mechanics. It just explains that multiple overservers can obtain measurement on a "big" quantum system like a gold bar. These measurements will just agree enough so that observers can agree on a reality. But this doesn't mean that suddenly the measurement become more "accurate" than quantum theory accounts for. There still will be in inaccuracies in time and in which part of the object is measured.
It would be more accurate to view it from the point of view of the many-worlds-interpretation: only if two observers acquire measurements from an object that the laws of physics allow for, then these two observers share the same universe. No "darwinism", just good old selection which already has a name "collapse of the quantum wave".
Clearly, if a "big" object is observed often enough by two different observers, then the state of the object will to 99.999999% be collapsed, but will immediately become a wave state again when there are no measurements (like no heat, no exchange of photons). There is an equivalent in some programming languages, it is called "lazy evaluation": a wave is only collapsed when the information needs to be fixed.
This would make a very cool feature for a stratey game/chess analysis engine. But I digress.
IMHO "lazy evaluation" is a much better name than the halfbodyparted mixing of two catchwords, which will only result in misunderstandings. And of course, discussion. Discussion is good. I guess:)
Slashdot Mirror
Whatever he is trying to do, if they get the trademark, they can either sue no-one, or sue everyone using the MAME name to point to the M.A.M.E. emulator. Therefore, there is potential for abuse.
I think he should either create a non-profit that is supported by M.A.M.E. programmers and community, or drop the idea. Also, I think that any other company making consoles will be succesful suing UltraCade for unfair business practices if UltraCade pretends to be the supplier of the M.A.M.E. emulator while it isn't.
I'll probably be kicked from slashdot, since I violated its code of conduct by actually reading the article, but since when is a java parseInt Exception an SQL Injection opportunity?
In fact, the parseInt may protect the SQL from being manipulated. Likewise with the script tag injection. He tries it, it doesn't work. Admittely there is no nice errors message, but it still doesn't work.
This is just a tailgating article.
So this means that finally I can plug in two Radeon Y-NOT-8M cards consuming 100 Watts each without buying a new special power supply. So who says there ain't no progress and that history is bound to repeat itself?
The US on the other hand will have to reinvent itself completely in only a couple years. Even cities will have to be rebuilt from the ground up (try doing that 100 mile daily commute in a world where gasoline is 10x more expensive than it is today). They will have to build extensive public transportation systems that do not exist right now. And all this right at the time the foreign debt crisis hits.
You forgot that the US backup plan is to be the last badass nation on the world with access to oil reserves. This means when the crisis hits, the US will accuse the rest of the world to be uneducated people who believe in nonsense like greenhouse gases and evolution, while it is clear to everyone that the universal designer, God, is punishing us for our sins, like not using windows2040 and not paying for software patents, thus withholding money from the US that the Creator intended to be there. Clearly, such behavior warrants a declaration of War, or maybe the USA will come to Europe to assist it in its War between Atheism, Anarchism and Religion.
It still piracy, because he didn't buy the game he cracked.
What I'm saying is, its ok to me(but no the Law) if you crack a game that you bought, but not this tricking. The trick might work legally with goods, but not with copyrighted stuff.
I don't know about religious, but was definitely worth upgrading from Windows 1.0 to Windows 3.1.
Not for me, since upgrading from 1.0 to 3.1 broke the screen layout of the program I had for 1.0, since the st^D^Dguys at Microsoft hadn't bothered to include the old fonts from 1.0 in 3.1Sure there are nude skins for Americas Army, how else would you stage an Abu Ghraib style prisoner pyramid?
.."
"Videogames don't hurt people, it is people
Well, yea, the romba just hit the door.
Nevertheless, the possibilities are endless what could happen when you locked a bunch of roombas, some cardea segway-style bots, some aibos and and some humanoid robots in your house.
Emergent behaviour means the group could end up behaving in a systematic, apparently intelligent original way that had not been programmed into a single of them.
It doesn't mean they'd gang up to punish you for abusing them, though.
Yes, ok so that is how it is described in the US law, but in other countries the words "height of invention" are being used to describe much the same thing. So I keep up my argument.
No, it is the C code itself. It would also be insecure if you ran it on a C interpreter, although exploits might work differently.
I wouldn't say C++ is insecure by design, since C++ at least allows you to "easily" add high-level data management constructs to the language, so that means at least in C++ you can write safer code, if you want.
C is not safe because it does not allow safe string and vector types, and you cannot even add these without either sacrificing speed or writing weird code.
I don't even want to go into how you can cast any pointer into anything you want.
btw. How secure is Goslings emacs operating system shell ? ;-)
Patents would be ok, if they were inventive as required by the law. Unfortunately, there is no way on Earth to measure or judge inventiveness, so all a patent examiner can do is to judge whether the application is novel. Something which any patent application can do as long as it mixes in some new technology, like computers or the internet.
To make things worse, many software patents usually don't come with a useful description of how to actually do stuff, which is sad, since software can be documented by the sourcecode and printed.
Well I have one such blacklist installed, and I must say it is awfully big, it takes minutes to open the "restricted Zone" settings in ie.
I'm not sure the concept works.
If you use a ROT-13 bookmarklet (google for it, maybe at E2), you will find that the parent is correct.
;-)
Does anyone else find it funny that the army includes a table of the probability of english letters, i.e. di-and trigraphs in the document? What are they planning on, war with the British
The benefits of javascript are:
Downsides:
I'd like someone to make a variant of the above game btw. as I state at the end of the description :)
I guess you'd have to hit ctrl, or shift while pressing the mouse in order to lower terrain(or raise). Kind of weird to require the user to use the keyboard to modify mouse input. I imagine this would be a pain to use for a someone who had lost his left arm, or who was paralyzed on one side.
Not that the old Windows wasn't guilty of that too, in order to force it to show the "open with" option. I seem to remember this is gone in XP.
I'm talking about populous 1(2) by the way, later versions might not require you to raise and lower terrain as much.
Well I guess you could work around that by using raise/lower keys on the keyboard, but it doesn't quite feel as much like a video game if you can't use the mouse except for pointing. Hey, I got an idea: why not advocate the NO-BUTTON MOUSE because it is even less confusing for users?
The worst kind of troll is definitely when you argue your point, post, then take a walk and change your mind about the topic and discover that your post makes the perfect troll..
Whether the ions in the solar wind worked as an attractive force towards the rest of the galaxy would depend on whether they had enough energy to move out that far. If they had enough energy, then at least that would give me an opening to advocate pushing gravity again, which by the way is also a cool thing to simulate on a zBox.
Although I guess it'd be very hard to aim at that dist'
Why not have pushing gravity instead of dark matter? It is an easier concept and might lead to similar equations anyway. And what is negative matter? Can't we just have the Pauli exclusion principle for short distances, and billard-style pushing gravity based on the impetus and exclusion for long distances causing the effect of an atttractive force?
I'm just more concerned that gaming does not blur my mind THE RIGHT WAY.
Seems they felt the slashdot effect :-P
All your disappointments will be adressed once Robosapiens runs Linux.
It also says Robosapiens2 can sway, so it might be physically able to turn the human way.
Well, I like folding at home too, but I wonder whether there aren't easier ways to produce a molecule that matches another molecule that you want to stop.
For example, subject a molecule generator such as: a (modifed) bacteria, to radiation to cause mutation, then selectively breed the bacteria that match best. I must admit, lots of loose ends in my idea, but you might be able to work in parallel if done right.
I think you wanted to say patching another system is OK when the other system is attacking your system and is causing damage or high server load. Sorto self-defense.
A "worm" however, does not restrict itself to systems that attacked you. So it is a bad idea to use. Also, the attacking worm usually causes high load at the infected end, not the attacked end, at least one instance of the worm. So the argument about damage done might not hold here.
.. the (transparent) glasses ARE the battlefield computer..
Isn't this "Quantum Darwinism" nonsense? I'm sure the idea can be put to good use, despite of being nonsense or at least blatantly obvious. I believe at least in the way that it is put forward it is nothing new:
:)
It doesn't really explain anything about quantum mechanics. It just explains that multiple overservers can obtain measurement on a "big" quantum system like a gold bar. These measurements will just agree enough so that observers can agree on a reality. But this doesn't mean that suddenly the measurement become more "accurate" than quantum theory accounts for. There still will be in inaccuracies in time and in which part of the object is measured.
It would be more accurate to view it from the point of view of the many-worlds-interpretation: only if two observers acquire measurements from an object that the laws of physics allow for, then these two observers share the same universe. No "darwinism", just good old selection which already has a name "collapse of the quantum wave".
Clearly, if a "big" object is observed often enough by two different observers, then the state of the object will to 99.999999% be collapsed, but will immediately become a wave state again when there are no measurements (like no heat, no exchange of photons). There is an equivalent in some programming languages, it is called "lazy evaluation": a wave is only collapsed when the information needs to be fixed.
This would make a very cool feature for a stratey game/chess analysis engine. But I digress.
IMHO "lazy evaluation" is a much better name than the halfbodyparted mixing of two catchwords, which will only result in misunderstandings. And of course, discussion. Discussion is good. I guess