The gamesave vulnerabilities allowed you to execute arbitrary code from the game to install the hack (you could also do so by hot-plugging the HDD so that you could access it unlocked). However, I believe it is the font vulnerability that allows it to boot 'hacked' each time without a hardware modification, even though the BIOS loads a signed kernel.
Sorry, I was pointing out the attack vector, not this exact vulnerability. A specially crafted font file on the original Xbox allowed for complete control of the system despite the fact that the BIOS would only boot a signed kernel. Given that fonts can be shipped inside PDF files, web pages, etc. now, the Xbox hack could have served as a good warning.
I've seen you post this in about four different places in this thread, and I agree with the sentiment. We're a rich nation and there is more than enough -- right now -- to make everyone quite comfortable. It would be nice.
The problem that I see is without all of those people being FORCED to work for their necessities, I don't think most of us would. I love my work (and I have a great job) but I still wouldn't bother getting up every morning if it weren't for the paycheck. A percentage of people would almost certainly go out and do anti-work -- that is, tear shit up instead of producing. So at that point, I suspect that productivity drops to such a degree that I don't think we would be able to provide for everyone -- everyone would simply get poorer and poorer as productivity dropped and more people were born.
I can't absolutely prove this without an alternate universe, but examples like the Soviet Union have proven to me fairly conclusively that capitalism works and communism doesn't. Obviously, there's an entire spectrum in between pure capitalism and pure communism (and I don't think anyone would want to live in pure capitalism!) but you do take some efficiency out of the system with every step away from capitalism.
I didn't say that. My implication was that the Soviet Union's economic system (communism) had the effect of making everyone poor, rather than nobody poor. I don't think this is in much dispute, but just for grins I found http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/macroeconomics/Data/HistoricalRealPerCapitaIncomeValues.xls . Take a look at the economic growth percentages of the former Soviet Union compared to almost any other industrialized country. Now look at the numbers after they shifted to a market-based economy. So no, they didn't start out rich -- but they sure avoided getting there!
I consider it very important to have a large pie with some unequal slices (although we should not allow them to become too unequal as that causes other problems). The Soviet solution was to have a very small pie -- which did not grow much -- but have equal slices all around. Would it be great to have a huge pie with equal pieces? Sure, but human nature doesn't seem to work that way.
I appreciate your concern. I was trying to be somewhat offensive, however -- perhaps childish, but you offended me, so I thought I'd try to offend you in return. I assume you would have preferred me to make my point in a different way? Because that was my point.
Look, you're welcome to your opinion on religion, I just wish you'd express it in a manner less likely to offend people. There are certain things -- religion, the way you raise your children, skin color -- which if criticized strongly can offend people very quickly. If you had instead said, "One of my problems with religion is that I think some religious leaders take advantage of less intelligent people," well, I would have agreed with you. I have that problem with religion also. Instead you chose to say that religion was full of idiots (and I realize that you did not state that EVERY SINGLE religious person was an idiot, but I was not evaluating your post as a categorical proposition -- I think it was reasonable for me to infer that you meant all religious people are idiots.)
The comparison is that both you and the idiot with the shirt are deliberately being offensive, but neither of you care. I'm not claiming that you want to kill anyone, or that you're wearing a shirt, or that you'd ever say the word "fag". I'm simply saying that, in my opinion, both of you are assholes for acting the way you do. Do you want to be "right" and offensive (just for fun, I suppose) or do you want to try to change someone else's opinion? If it's the latter, then you're not very good at it.
Dimitry V. Pospielovsky. A History of Soviet Atheism in Theory and Practice, and the Believer, vol 2: Soviet Anti-Religious Campaigns and Persecutions, St Martin's Press, New York (1988) p. 89
Although I must admit that: a) I haven't read this book, I'm only guessing from the title at what it contains. b) I would have to admit that people have probably started more wars and conflicts for religious reasons than for "atheistic" reasons, but you just said "Name a...". c) You might argue that persecutions and and "terror campaigns" are not "war" or "conflict" although I think you'd be nitpicking.
Well, of course I agree with you, even though I'm a knuckle-dragging idiot being embraced by religion!
The funny thing is that you don't care if you're being offensive, since you're "right". The even funnier thing is that this is exactly the same attitude as the asshole who runs around with the "kill all fags" shirt on.
Oh, please. What the fuck have YOU done for society? A whole lot less than Bill Gates, that's what. is he perfect? No, but you can hardly fault him for the good works he has done when you're probably sitting in your parents' basement.
And don't give me this "I donate a larger percentage of my wealth..." crap (although I seriously doubt that). Gates has given BILLIONS. Sometimes absolute numbers matter! To use an analogy, I'm sure all of the thirsty people in the world would pass around the one bottle of water you've bought, content that you've "tried your best", while Gates ships in tractor-trailers full.
Thank goodness we have philanthropists, although I don't know why they bother with armchair assholes like you around. However, if you're a billionaire who has given more to good causes than Bill Gates, then I sincerely apologize to you, and have at him.
a state with a defined territory -- check on which it exercises internal and external sovereignty -- check, Second Continental Congress until Articles of Confederation (ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_confederation) a permanent population -- check a government -- check and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states -- check, the capacity was certainly there although I don't know when it was exercised. It is also normally understood to be a state which is neither dependent on nor subject to any other power or state. -- the war was over that disagreement but the US's position was that it was not subject.
Obviously we're interpreting the definitions differently, but I still maintain it's the best date for the start of the US. I do understand it was signed on the 2nd, but it was made public on the 4th. Either way, as someone else pointed out, nobody's going to change now.:)
I assume that means that you have researched the ecological impact of this kind of mining before replying?
Care to fill us in on your results, or are you a hypocrite? And, if I may be egotistical for a moment, you're frankly not as funny of a hypocrite as me.
Well, presumably if you've done this you're a left-winger who wants to make the right-wingers look bad. What better way to make them look bad than to break bad news like this and then watch people's reactions? If you're lucky you might see someone saying something idiotic, without having a man die.
Yours is funny but wouldn't be particularly believable. Sadly, a presidential assassination is believable, since we've had several (and more attempts). Fortunately this didn't seem to cause too much harm -- however I suspect that somehow a lot of people will get the message that "all Fox News watchers want Obama dead" out of it, even though it the person who posted it probably wasn't a Fox News watcher.:)
By your reasoning, if England still maintained to this day that the US was part of England, the US still wouldn't be a country?
On July 4, 1776, a group of people claimed that they were a separate nation, no longer governed by England, and began acting that way. For various reasons, nobody was able to prove them wrong, so that's the best date to claim as the US's birthday -- even if other countries didn't immediately recognize it. It wasn't as thought the US actually came out of a woman's birth canal, so I'm afraid you're going to have to accept some loss of literalism on the term "birthday".
So... let's never do anything, since it could have some ecological impact.:rollseyes:
I mean, the mindset that anything humans do is, by default, evil to the environment is annoying. Dredging the ocean floor might be awful for the environment -- or it might be the most environmentally friendly way to obtain these materials that we need for a modern lifestyle. I don't know the answer without doing some research, but I'm willing to bet quite a bit that you didn't know the answer before posting your kneejerk comment. Having posted my own kneejerk comment, I will now go look it up.:)
Really? You don't think punishment is a deterrent? We should simply explain to rapists that it is impolite to stick their penises into unwilling women? I mean, we certainly can't do "bad things" to them by locking them up. I'm sure that the appropriate application of reason will solve this problem without force or punishment.
Punishment works as a deterrent for any human capable of understanding cause and effect, and capable of understanding that a certain effect is not desirable to him/her. This isn't everyone, but it encompasses most humans over the age of two. It is also not an absolute bar to action, but it is a deterrent.
I wish I had mod points. I believe global warming is real to some extent, but I have yet to see many falsifiable predictions from the global warming religion. Well, ones that weren't falsified the next year. My Magic 8-ball has a better record, frankly.
Look, if everything is as certain as can be, why can't we predict a warming trend that will match up with both historical models plus the next few years? I'm sure it has been done a number of times, but if there are 1000000 models out there at least a few are going to get lucky. Show me the one consensus model that the rest of you are watching.
Yes, we clearly have a problem we need to deal with, but it's hard to know just what to do when you don't have a very idea of where we are heading except "warmer".
And don't get me started on the folks who just want to "do something" without being honest about the consequences. "We need to stop burning fossil fuels, but I don't like nuclear, and I'm not willing to admit that we have to reduce our standard of living and pay more for electricity. I want solar and wind to work, so therefore they will."
49% of the comments will be from people who would not use this service and cannot understand why anyone else would want to ever act differently than they do.
49% of the comments will be from people who would love to use this service and cannot understand why anyone else would want to ever act differently than they do.
The remaining 2% might be vaguely useful, or they may be dumb like this one.
Slashdot Mirror
That's hilarious! Only on slashdot could I get a reply on a topic about "insane" by someone named "bat shit". Thanks, you made my day with that!
News flash, professors can be just as crazy as other humans.
The gamesave vulnerabilities allowed you to execute arbitrary code from the game to install the hack (you could also do so by hot-plugging the HDD so that you could access it unlocked). However, I believe it is the font vulnerability that allows it to boot 'hacked' each time without a hardware modification, even though the BIOS loads a signed kernel.
Sorry, I was pointing out the attack vector, not this exact vulnerability. A specially crafted font file on the original Xbox allowed for complete control of the system despite the fact that the BIOS would only boot a signed kernel. Given that fonts can be shipped inside PDF files, web pages, etc. now, the Xbox hack could have served as a good warning.
Isn't this how people hacked the original xbox so many years ago (a font vulnerability)? It's not like they haven't been warned...
I've seen you post this in about four different places in this thread, and I agree with the sentiment. We're a rich nation and there is more than enough -- right now -- to make everyone quite comfortable. It would be nice.
The problem that I see is without all of those people being FORCED to work for their necessities, I don't think most of us would. I love my work (and I have a great job) but I still wouldn't bother getting up every morning if it weren't for the paycheck. A percentage of people would almost certainly go out and do anti-work -- that is, tear shit up instead of producing. So at that point, I suspect that productivity drops to such a degree that I don't think we would be able to provide for everyone -- everyone would simply get poorer and poorer as productivity dropped and more people were born.
I can't absolutely prove this without an alternate universe, but examples like the Soviet Union have proven to me fairly conclusively that capitalism works and communism doesn't. Obviously, there's an entire spectrum in between pure capitalism and pure communism (and I don't think anyone would want to live in pure capitalism!) but you do take some efficiency out of the system with every step away from capitalism.
I didn't say that. My implication was that the Soviet Union's economic system (communism) had the effect of making everyone poor, rather than nobody poor. I don't think this is in much dispute, but just for grins I found http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/macroeconomics/Data/HistoricalRealPerCapitaIncomeValues.xls . Take a look at the economic growth percentages of the former Soviet Union compared to almost any other industrialized country. Now look at the numbers after they shifted to a market-based economy. So no, they didn't start out rich -- but they sure avoided getting there!
I consider it very important to have a large pie with some unequal slices (although we should not allow them to become too unequal as that causes other problems). The Soviet solution was to have a very small pie -- which did not grow much -- but have equal slices all around. Would it be great to have a huge pie with equal pieces? Sure, but human nature doesn't seem to work that way.
The corollary is that while everyone can't be rich, with a little work, almost everyone CAN be poor. Reference the Soviet Union.
I appreciate your concern. I was trying to be somewhat offensive, however -- perhaps childish, but you offended me, so I thought I'd try to offend you in return. I assume you would have preferred me to make my point in a different way? Because that was my point.
Look, you're welcome to your opinion on religion, I just wish you'd express it in a manner less likely to offend people. There are certain things -- religion, the way you raise your children, skin color -- which if criticized strongly can offend people very quickly. If you had instead said, "One of my problems with religion is that I think some religious leaders take advantage of less intelligent people," well, I would have agreed with you. I have that problem with religion also. Instead you chose to say that religion was full of idiots (and I realize that you did not state that EVERY SINGLE religious person was an idiot, but I was not evaluating your post as a categorical proposition -- I think it was reasonable for me to infer that you meant all religious people are idiots.)
The comparison is that both you and the idiot with the shirt are deliberately being offensive, but neither of you care. I'm not claiming that you want to kill anyone, or that you're wearing a shirt, or that you'd ever say the word "fag". I'm simply saying that, in my opinion, both of you are assholes for acting the way you do. Do you want to be "right" and offensive (just for fun, I suppose) or do you want to try to change someone else's opinion? If it's the latter, then you're not very good at it.
Dimitry V. Pospielovsky. A History of Soviet Atheism in Theory and Practice, and the Believer, vol 2: Soviet Anti-Religious Campaigns and Persecutions, St Martin's Press, New York (1988) p. 89
Although I must admit that:
a) I haven't read this book, I'm only guessing from the title at what it contains.
b) I would have to admit that people have probably started more wars and conflicts for religious reasons than for "atheistic" reasons, but you just said "Name a...".
c) You might argue that persecutions and and "terror campaigns" are not "war" or "conflict" although I think you'd be nitpicking.
Well, of course I agree with you, even though I'm a knuckle-dragging idiot being embraced by religion!
The funny thing is that you don't care if you're being offensive, since you're "right". The even funnier thing is that this is exactly the same attitude as the asshole who runs around with the "kill all fags" shirt on.
Yeah, try that and see if it works.
Oh, please. What the fuck have YOU done for society? A whole lot less than Bill Gates, that's what. is he perfect? No, but you can hardly fault him for the good works he has done when you're probably sitting in your parents' basement.
And don't give me this "I donate a larger percentage of my wealth..." crap (although I seriously doubt that). Gates has given BILLIONS. Sometimes absolute numbers matter! To use an analogy, I'm sure all of the thirsty people in the world would pass around the one bottle of water you've bought, content that you've "tried your best", while Gates ships in tractor-trailers full.
Thank goodness we have philanthropists, although I don't know why they bother with armchair assholes like you around. However, if you're a billionaire who has given more to good causes than Bill Gates, then I sincerely apologize to you, and have at him.
Where's the "-1, didn't get that the Internet existed before the 90's" button?
> This time is different. Really different.
That's what they said last time.
Well, let's use your definition.
a state with a defined territory -- check
on which it exercises internal and external sovereignty -- check, Second Continental Congress until Articles of Confederation (ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_confederation)
a permanent population -- check
a government -- check
and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states -- check, the capacity was certainly there although I don't know when it was exercised.
It is also normally understood to be a state which is neither dependent on nor subject to any other power or state. -- the war was over that disagreement but the US's position was that it was not subject.
Obviously we're interpreting the definitions differently, but I still maintain it's the best date for the start of the US. I do understand it was signed on the 2nd, but it was made public on the 4th. Either way, as someone else pointed out, nobody's going to change now. :)
I assume that means that you have researched the ecological impact of this kind of mining before replying?
Care to fill us in on your results, or are you a hypocrite? And, if I may be egotistical for a moment, you're frankly not as funny of a hypocrite as me.
Well, presumably if you've done this you're a left-winger who wants to make the right-wingers look bad. What better way to make them look bad than to break bad news like this and then watch people's reactions? If you're lucky you might see someone saying something idiotic, without having a man die.
Yours is funny but wouldn't be particularly believable. Sadly, a presidential assassination is believable, since we've had several (and more attempts). Fortunately this didn't seem to cause too much harm -- however I suspect that somehow a lot of people will get the message that "all Fox News watchers want Obama dead" out of it, even though it the person who posted it probably wasn't a Fox News watcher. :)
By your reasoning, if England still maintained to this day that the US was part of England, the US still wouldn't be a country?
On July 4, 1776, a group of people claimed that they were a separate nation, no longer governed by England, and began acting that way. For various reasons, nobody was able to prove them wrong, so that's the best date to claim as the US's birthday -- even if other countries didn't immediately recognize it. It wasn't as thought the US actually came out of a woman's birth canal, so I'm afraid you're going to have to accept some loss of literalism on the term "birthday".
So... let's never do anything, since it could have some ecological impact. :rollseyes:
I mean, the mindset that anything humans do is, by default, evil to the environment is annoying. Dredging the ocean floor might be awful for the environment -- or it might be the most environmentally friendly way to obtain these materials that we need for a modern lifestyle. I don't know the answer without doing some research, but I'm willing to bet quite a bit that you didn't know the answer before posting your kneejerk comment. Having posted my own kneejerk comment, I will now go look it up. :)
It must really piss you off that capitalism works so well. :)
Really? You don't think punishment is a deterrent? We should simply explain to rapists that it is impolite to stick their penises into unwilling women? I mean, we certainly can't do "bad things" to them by locking them up. I'm sure that the appropriate application of reason will solve this problem without force or punishment.
Punishment works as a deterrent for any human capable of understanding cause and effect, and capable of understanding that a certain effect is not desirable to him/her. This isn't everyone, but it encompasses most humans over the age of two. It is also not an absolute bar to action, but it is a deterrent.
I wish I had mod points. I believe global warming is real to some extent, but I have yet to see many falsifiable predictions from the global warming religion. Well, ones that weren't falsified the next year. My Magic 8-ball has a better record, frankly.
Look, if everything is as certain as can be, why can't we predict a warming trend that will match up with both historical models plus the next few years? I'm sure it has been done a number of times, but if there are 1000000 models out there at least a few are going to get lucky. Show me the one consensus model that the rest of you are watching.
Yes, we clearly have a problem we need to deal with, but it's hard to know just what to do when you don't have a very idea of where we are heading except "warmer".
And don't get me started on the folks who just want to "do something" without being honest about the consequences. "We need to stop burning fossil fuels, but I don't like nuclear, and I'm not willing to admit that we have to reduce our standard of living and pay more for electricity. I want solar and wind to work, so therefore they will."
49% of the comments will be from people who would not use this service and cannot understand why anyone else would want to ever act differently than they do.
49% of the comments will be from people who would love to use this service and cannot understand why anyone else would want to ever act differently than they do.
The remaining 2% might be vaguely useful, or they may be dumb like this one.
Wow, this is absolute rubbish. Citation, please?