Actually, how about letting me include the final "." at the end of my domain name, after the ".com"?
I grew up, at UCLA, learning all about early problems with the DNS system because when that final dot was not included, a mis-configured system would have all sorts of issues.
Or did you realize that there are names like ".com.edu", ".com.com", ".edu.com", and ".edu.edu" out there?
I'd say that Data's strength was more than enough to break computers.
Now, if you mean the concept of information expressed in a representable manner, I would point out that computers have to do work to do anything more than copy that data; and as soon as you have to manipulate the data, it can manipulate you back.
... I'm not doing a good job of describing this, sorry.
In some sense: any finite system that wants to operate on unknown data will have some case where the data fails to match the expectation. See "Music to break record players by" in "Godel Escher Bach", and similar issues.
What if the issue is that social networkers see a wider variety of people, and in the process see a clearer picture of just how messed up the world truly has become?
That picture is kinda depressing, if things really are stacked against ordinary people.
When it comes to working with servers and cloud storage, there's two different issues.
The first is just storing gobs and gobs of data. That should be considered solved.
Backblaze had to solve that. They got a really good, scalable, cheap system -- and they tell you how they did it, with enough information to replicate what they did. See their blogs: https://www.backblaze.com/blog... for how to make cheap storage _hardware_, and https://www.backblaze.com/blog... for how to design the storage "file system" to spread load around.
But data storage is only step one. You have to have the CPU power to search all that data. You have to have ways to read lots of data, and make it available for people to search through.
That's Google's specialty. They haven't shared everything that they've learned. Other than saying that when you get to their size, all old problems become new ones again, and old solutions need to be challenged/rethought.
How do you manage to replicate data across multiple data centers, such that you know how many copies of a file are still accessible, given that at that size, drive failures are a matter of rate rather than merely probably. How do you manage synchronized data writes when, even if the low-level data at a given site is a RAID that has low-level self correction, the high-level is 7 copies in 7 different data centers, and if you ever think you are down to 3 or fewer live copies you replicate new ones -- and still permit people to update and synchronize changes.
And that's before you even begin to look at processing all that data.
For Apple to be looking at this, they are basically saying, "we are becoming a significant fraction of Google's data/processing size, and starting to run into the same problems that Google had to solve".
I think it said something like, "Here I am, brain the size of a planet, and they want me to play a single human in a single match. Do they know what I am capable of? Do they know how the same thing, move after move, feels in all the diodes down the right side of my body?"
When I played, they were called type 1, type 1.5, and type 2.
Basically, the one that was max 4 of a kind, 60 card minimum (up from 40), none of a restricted high-power set, when high-powered (or high-damage creatures) cards cost a lot of mana -- that was slower than the more recent time I played.
One of the things that actually disappointed me the last time I played MTG was the prevalence of cards apparently designed with the intention of ending a game in under half a dozen turns. Maybe it's my rose tinted glasses but I don't remember that being as common when I played as a kid. The last game I played was with maybe half a dozen players each playing a different deck that angled for luck of the draw to win the game in three to five turns.
Yes, there was a bunch of crazy stuff in the first tournament, because it did not limit you to 4 of a kind, and the worst cards were crazy killer OP.
Mox's, for example: a zero cost spell that acts like a land, essentially. Big deal? Well, if you have enough of them that you can draw 3 or 4 on your opening hand, then yes. Channel, so you can turn your life points into extra mana, and pump a fireball at your opponent? Yes, but only if you have something to jumpstart you, like free mana.
Once all that was fixed, and you had revised/unlimited? Your "killer cards" generally cost 9 mana to play. Good deck building was 40% land. By your 4th turn, you've seen about 10 cards, and about 4 lands -- now you are only adding new lands every other turn. So getting 9 lands is about 15 turns.
What is the benefit of going second? One extra card. That extra card being an extra land doesn't help you until about turn 5, so the game has to last long enough to make up for that "I'm behind the first 5 turns".
This works just fine as long as the game play is slow.
Now, green has mana ramp (always has). In exchange for either focusing on weak units or specials, you can get that mana out faster -- but you'll be weak against cheap attacks. And cheap attacks will be weak against a blue or white turtle (walls / eventual big units) -- and that is weak to a mana ramp.
Surprisingly, once you got rid of the worst abusive cards, the original M:tG had a very nice rock/paper/scissors in deck building.
Out of the three major 60-card formats, the fastest is Legacy, which allows almost any card ever printed, followed by Modern, which allows only cards from 8th Edition and onwards, and which frequently bans cards that allow decks to reliably win before turn four. Standard, the slowest format, and the currently most-popular one, allows only cards from the past three blocks (effectively the past 18 months).
I attempted to get back into magic for M15. What I found was a core set of very high-powered fast cards if you could collect/buy enough, along with expansion after expansion of crazy increase in power, plus even if the base set was balanced, it wasn't balanced in regard to the previous set that was still in play -- and the combination of last generation's expansions plus this generation's expansions led to a lot of "win on turn 4" decks, and a huge cost in time, money, and study to learn what cards were out there, buying the cards you needed, or just go online and download the net's "top decks".
(By the way, I've got a lot of useless M:tG cards -- where can you sell them nowadays?)
Far more interesting would be to have a program for Codex.
Quick comparison 1. Each person starts with a very small deck (10 cards; there is no death from deck-out, you just shuffle and continue), and a very large sideboard (2 copies of each of 36 cards in three groups.) 2. Each turn until you have 10 "workers" (think mana sources), you must add two cards from your sideboard, and probably want to convert your worst hand card into a worker 3. Almost everything you do is a tradeoff of present resources vs future resources. For example, you draw 2 cards more than you discard; discard 3, draw 5 is normal. Bring out a lot of units and spells, and you might discard 1, draw 3 instead. 4. The starting bonus for player 2 is large enough that you would actually choose it fairly often. (+1 worker -- that's +1 gold per turn for the whole game, and 2 less forced adds to your deck).
Note that item 1 means that "building your deck" isn't the pre-game game with a meta-game of "what does the internet say are the best decks"; you have to choose how to react to your opponent's choices and openings.
Most deck builds will have a key strategy or two for winning which establishes a simple order of play. The only thing that really makes MTG difficult to play is the same factors that are at play in other card games where players hold a hand, namely luck of the draw and bluffing.
Actually, since the deck here is built as you go, there is no "single key strategy". There are some things that your opponent's cards won't be able to do, so there will be some things in your cards that will just never get used in this battle -- but of the remaining choices, there's a lot of choices to make.
Equally, since your whole "active play deck" is generally two turns or less of draws (typically in the 9 to 14 card range, with total draws in the 4-7 cards per turn range), luck is reduced -- you can add two of a wanted card before you shuffle, so you have a very good chance of getting one of them each time. Some colors can eliminate that luck -- purple can recover cards from their discard, green can get some specific animals directly, etc.
Interestingly, of the 6 colors, 3 are very similar to their magic colors (green, red, black); one is similar (blue; control/denial/illusion); one is not very similar (white), and one is... well, purple is past, present, and future -- and future is protoss from star craft. Unlike M:tG, mono-color is very playable -- each color has a complete set of options and potential actions.
After reading that paper, I'd like to bring up two different _concepts_.
1: An automated, autonomous tool (human control limited to turn on/turn off or other minimal intervention) 2: A tele-presence tool, or remotely controlled stand-in for an operator (human control dominating activity).
The issue here seems to be that the law wants to call both of these "robots" in different contexts.
The answer is simple: declare "robot" to be a vague and undefined legal term, and define two new legal terms for the two different concepts; then, re-write all laws that use "robot" based on the two new terms.
Tor's problems: 1. Speed sucks. Since *ANY* node can be used in the pathway, your speed is limited to the upload speed of the slowest node you are using. Since you have no control by default over which nodes are used, you cannot prevent this.
Scarily, when I was playing/using Tor, the best results came from limiting my usage to only half a dozen nodes. Never mind the goal of security here.
The work-around: Use an IP-like system, where your stream is sent over many links, and re-assembled at the end. Even if one link is slow, it will only handle a few packets.
2. The goals are in conflict. Tor has *at least two different goals*. Goal #1: Prevent your neighbor/public lan/ISP from seeing what you are doing. This is as simple as a one-hop channel. Instead of talking to my destination, I talk to a single forwarder. Done. Goal #2: Prevent tracking. If I talk to a single forwarder, then a single node knows who I am, and who I am talking to. This can be prevented by a two-hop. Node #1 knows that a connection is going in from site H, and out to site 2, but doesn't know that H is the requesting host. Node #2 knows that it is talking to destination D, and host #1, but doesn't know who the requesting host is. "Perfect", right? Well, not if node 1 is doing the splitting. Goal #3: Provide real privacy. There's a good analysis that I don't have a link to showing that the two-hop is traceable. And if the first hop is splitting (instead of the host splitting), then the two hop doesn't have enough security. Basically, if I remember correctly: If you always change the entry and exit nodes, you will eventually have a pair controlled by an attacker, so you have to limit your switching of those. To prevent being tracked, you need a random third node in-between.
The more nodes? The slower the speed, and a different set of attacks being defended against. For most people? A single hop suffices. For those that want light security? Two hops. For those that want speed? Have multiple paths, and assembly at the end.
What kills Tor, beyond these, are things you, as a user, cannot control:
** Stupid websites that assume anything coming from a Tor node are attacks and delete them **.
I mean, **stupid**. I can actually log in, with name and password, and still get "Sorry, we don't accept hackers using Tor" type messages.
As long as sites are going to say "We can arbitrarily deny service to people who are concerned about privacy", then nothing will get fixed.
As far as "splitting" paths go? Here's what the Tor docs say: > You should split each connection over many paths. > > We don't currently think this is a good idea. You see, the attacks we're worried about are at the endpoints: the adversary watches Alice (or the first hop in the path) and Bob (or the last hop in the path) and learns that they are communicating.
Tor is concerned about the security of your communication. Tor is not concerned about the speed of your communication. As long as "Use the best possible security, regardless of speed cost" is the goal, then Tor will only be focused on people who need to best possible security -- namely, those who are taking actions against a government or large corporation.
Even on my Mac OS, running Minecraft, I see this. When Minecraft starts up, it opens a window, displays what ever is in the graphics memory, and then eventually clears it out and shows it's welcome window.
That graphics memory can be anything from screen rendering pieces, to other window data, etc.
I wonder if anything would survive a logout, and then someone else logging in?
Has this gotten my money? Not yet. I plan to watch the Darths and Droids version of this movie first.
Now, I'd like to discuss two things that were mentioned in Reddit. I'm not asking for spoilers, I just want to open up some wild mass guessing.
First, what is the likelyhood that episode 8 will reveal that the guy whose name translates to a type of fish will turn out to be Sith-lord Binks, having stayed in the background since Palpatine double-crossed him way back in episode 3 by promoting Doku instead of him.
Second, how likely is it that Luke -- and yes, I saw while skimming through that he is missing (or otherwise out of the way) at the start of the movie will turn out to have turned dark at the end of 6 (after all, Yoda made a prophecy about him, etc. -- all the pieces are there, he could just have been acting "good" with the goal of Father+Son ruling the galaxy... but darn it, daddy died. Hmm, maybe Luke + Binks as episode 8 lords?)
Yea, I know, but I said: Wild mass guessing.
(I think Binks as Sithlord would make a great plotline; I don't know if that's what will happen. Luke having turned bad at the end of 6, and hiding it from those near him at first, only to get away to found his own Evil Inc.? Until I found out that he starts this movie off in hiding, I didn't think that was possible. Err, did I just say "No, that's impossble"?)
Quick summary: Drunken Fist martial arts, highly successful even when the odds are against him, waves his hand before people agree with him, so low-keyed that people under-estimate him (so no one pays too much attention, letting him be out of the spotlight).
At the start of the trilogy? He's helping the good guys. By the end? He's working with Palpatine.
Every aspect of the pacing puts him as the foil to Luke or Yoda from the original trilogy. He's just not looking for attention.
Our regulatory clients We work with Consumers, ISPs and Governments all over the world
So, this is a box that reads all my data sent upstream, and reports to the USA government...
What does the privacy policy say?
It may however become necessary - by law, legal process, litigation, and/or requests from public and governmental authorities within or outside your country of residence
So, by request from governmental authorities outside your country of residence...
That is no privacy at all. Seriously. This could easily be an NSA operation in disguise -- heck, no wonder they can just give this box away for free.
Seriously, if pages are annoying then there are 10.000 others to choose from. These guys need another business model..
The problem is, I'm not looking for web pages. I'm looking for specific content.
There may be hundreds of millions of other pages, but how many Schlock Mercenary's are there? How many antipope.org's are there?
Charlie Stross's personal/author blog? Sure, there are other authors with blogs. I happen to like what he has to say. Web comics? Yea, I've got a list of things I read. And there's stuff that I don't read.
Nothing else is an exact match for Irregular Web Comics, or Schlock Mercenary, or Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality, or....
There are things that can do a partial substitution. There's a bunch of lego comics; there are other decent story comics. And there's my personal choice for "best of the bunch".
What do a lot of these sites have in common? Oddly, now that I think about it, they make money by selling merchandise/books, not by selling ads on-screen. Hmm.
You clearly are not aware of how bad a no-bid procurement process can get. Sadly I've seen it in action and let's say it would put third world countries to shame.
Then again, there are rare times when no-bid contracts work just fine. Start at http://www.schlockmercenary.co..., and read the next 6 pages...
Why would you even WANT to have 20 browser windows open in 1995??
Well, on my NeXT slab, on the original WWW software, I would have lots of windows open. Every link opened in a new browser. I could easily move around, go back, see where I was, etc. Responsiveness was very, very high. Pages were simple, and presented information -- not trying to sell ads by downloading code from other sites without any peer review.
What do you mean, modern windowing systems have huge overhead per window? What do you mean, modern websites won't work if you interact with multiple windows in the same session?
Seriously, Springfield is where 5 states come together in a 5-sided point accumulation, and a bullet in a straight line goes through 4 of them. Continuity? Sheesh.
So who writes these javascript specifications, anyways? Who is at fault for leaking privacy data to a commercial entity without approval -- the commercial entity for asking for the data, the business that makes and distributes the browser without care for leaking data, or what?
And why is it that there is no "User is under 13" mode in the browsers?
Cookies aren't even required anymore for tracking. Data can be stored in local storage, global storage, indexed DB, even in your web history...
You left out "Lets get a list of all your browser extensions, in the order they are registered to the browser". That turns out to be amazingly specific for any person that is concerned about privacy.
So, I use a normal cookie with a 10 year expiration, and a list of your browser extensions. No extensions? Cookie. Privacy minded person? List of what you are doing. What privacy?
Does anyone know a firefox extension that prevents sites from querying the firefox extensions?
So what ever happened to "save the random state at shutdown, and restore the random state at startup"? That, I thought, was standard behavior as of about a decade ago.
If that wasn't enough, then every so often (no more than once a day or so), grab 1K of random bytes from random.org, and add it to the pool at a slow and steady rate (when/dev/random would block, for example); refill that buffer when empty if enough time has passed.
Yes, that basically means 1K bytes, or 8K bits, of entropy only for/dev/random, that would not be visible to/dev/urandom. People using urandom are basically saying that they don't need the really good numbers, right?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, how about letting me include the final "." at the end of my domain name, after the ".com"?
I grew up, at UCLA, learning all about early problems with the DNS system because when that final dot was not included, a mis-configured system would have all sorts of issues.
Or did you realize that there are names like ".com.edu", ".com.com", ".edu.com", and ".edu.edu" out there?
Data cannot break computers.
I'd say that Data's strength was more than enough to break computers.
Now, if you mean the concept of information expressed in a representable manner, I would point out that computers have to do work to do anything more than copy that data; and as soon as you have to manipulate the data, it can manipulate you back.
In some sense: any finite system that wants to operate on unknown data will have some case where the data fails to match the expectation. See "Music to break record players by" in "Godel Escher Bach", and similar issues.
What if the issue is that social networkers see a wider variety of people, and in the process see a clearer picture of just how messed up the world truly has become?
That picture is kinda depressing, if things really are stacked against ordinary people.
When it comes to working with servers and cloud storage, there's two different issues.
The first is just storing gobs and gobs of data. That should be considered solved.
Backblaze had to solve that. They got a really good, scalable, cheap system -- and they tell you how they did it, with enough information to replicate what they did. See their blogs: https://www.backblaze.com/blog... for how to make cheap storage _hardware_, and https://www.backblaze.com/blog... for how to design the storage "file system" to spread load around.
But data storage is only step one. You have to have the CPU power to search all that data. You have to have ways to read lots of data, and make it available for people to search through.
That's Google's specialty. They haven't shared everything that they've learned. Other than saying that when you get to their size, all old problems become new ones again, and old solutions need to be challenged/rethought.
How do you manage to replicate data across multiple data centers, such that you know how many copies of a file are still accessible, given that at that size, drive failures are a matter of rate rather than merely probably. How do you manage synchronized data writes when, even if the low-level data at a given site is a RAID that has low-level self correction, the high-level is 7 copies in 7 different data centers, and if you ever think you are down to 3 or fewer live copies you replicate new ones -- and still permit people to update and synchronize changes.
And that's before you even begin to look at processing all that data.
For Apple to be looking at this, they are basically saying, "we are becoming a significant fraction of Google's data/processing size, and starting to run into the same problems that Google had to solve".
I think it said something like,
"Here I am, brain the size of a planet, and they want me to play a single human in a single match. Do they know what I am capable of? Do they know how the same thing, move after move, feels in all the diodes down the right side of my body?"
When I played, they were called type 1, type 1.5, and type 2.
Basically, the one that was max 4 of a kind, 60 card minimum (up from 40), none of a restricted high-power set, when high-powered (or high-damage creatures) cards cost a lot of mana -- that was slower than the more recent time I played.
Yes, there was a bunch of crazy stuff in the first tournament, because it did not limit you to 4 of a kind, and the worst cards were crazy killer OP.
Mox's, for example: a zero cost spell that acts like a land, essentially. Big deal? Well, if you have enough of them that you can draw 3 or 4 on your opening hand, then yes. Channel, so you can turn your life points into extra mana, and pump a fireball at your opponent? Yes, but only if you have something to jumpstart you, like free mana.
Once all that was fixed, and you had revised/unlimited? Your "killer cards" generally cost 9 mana to play. Good deck building was 40% land. By your 4th turn, you've seen about 10 cards, and about 4 lands -- now you are only adding new lands every other turn. So getting 9 lands is about 15 turns.
What is the benefit of going second? One extra card. That extra card being an extra land doesn't help you until about turn 5, so the game has to last long enough to make up for that "I'm behind the first 5 turns".
This works just fine as long as the game play is slow.
Now, green has mana ramp (always has). In exchange for either focusing on weak units or specials, you can get that mana out faster -- but you'll be weak against cheap attacks. And cheap attacks will be weak against a blue or white turtle (walls / eventual big units) -- and that is weak to a mana ramp.
Surprisingly, once you got rid of the worst abusive cards, the original M:tG had a very nice rock/paper/scissors in deck building.
I attempted to get back into magic for M15. What I found was a core set of very high-powered fast cards if you could collect/buy enough, along with expansion after expansion of crazy increase in power, plus even if the base set was balanced, it wasn't balanced in regard to the previous set that was still in play -- and the combination of last generation's expansions plus this generation's expansions led to a lot of "win on turn 4" decks, and a huge cost in time, money, and study to learn what cards were out there, buying the cards you needed, or just go online and download the net's "top decks".
(By the way, I've got a lot of useless M:tG cards -- where can you sell them nowadays?)
Far more interesting would be to have a program for Codex.
Quick comparison
1. Each person starts with a very small deck (10 cards; there is no death from deck-out, you just shuffle and continue), and a very large sideboard (2 copies of each of 36 cards in three groups.)
2. Each turn until you have 10 "workers" (think mana sources), you must add two cards from your sideboard, and probably want to convert your worst hand card into a worker
3. Almost everything you do is a tradeoff of present resources vs future resources. For example, you draw 2 cards more than you discard; discard 3, draw 5 is normal. Bring out a lot of units and spells, and you might discard 1, draw 3 instead.
4. The starting bonus for player 2 is large enough that you would actually choose it fairly often. (+1 worker -- that's +1 gold per turn for the whole game, and 2 less forced adds to your deck).
Note that item 1 means that "building your deck" isn't the pre-game game with a meta-game of "what does the internet say are the best decks"; you have to choose how to react to your opponent's choices and openings.
Actually, since the deck here is built as you go, there is no "single key strategy". There are some things that your opponent's cards won't be able to do, so there will be some things in your cards that will just never get used in this battle -- but of the remaining choices, there's a lot of choices to make.
Equally, since your whole "active play deck" is generally two turns or less of draws (typically in the 9 to 14 card range, with total draws in the 4-7 cards per turn range), luck is reduced -- you can add two of a wanted card before you shuffle, so you have a very good chance of getting one of them each time. Some colors can eliminate that luck -- purple can recover cards from their discard, green can get some specific animals directly, etc.
Interestingly, of the 6 colors, 3 are very similar to their magic colors (green, red, black); one is similar (blue; control/denial/illusion); one is not very similar (white), and one is ... well, purple is past, present, and future -- and future is protoss from star craft. Unlike M:tG, mono-color is very playable -- each color has a complete set of options and potential actions.
(It's also not collectable -- https://www.kickstarter.com/pr... Kickstarter has ended, but you can order on backerkit).
After reading that paper, I'd like to bring up two different _concepts_.
1: An automated, autonomous tool (human control limited to turn on/turn off or other minimal intervention)
2: A tele-presence tool, or remotely controlled stand-in for an operator (human control dominating activity).
The issue here seems to be that the law wants to call both of these "robots" in different contexts.
The answer is simple: declare "robot" to be a vague and undefined legal term, and define two new legal terms for the two different concepts; then, re-write all laws that use "robot" based on the two new terms.
Is that too simple?
Tor's problem is not hidden services.
Tor's problems:
1. Speed sucks. Since *ANY* node can be used in the pathway, your speed is limited to the upload speed of the slowest node you are using. Since you have no control by default over which nodes are used, you cannot prevent this.
Scarily, when I was playing/using Tor, the best results came from limiting my usage to only half a dozen nodes. Never mind the goal of security here.
The work-around: Use an IP-like system, where your stream is sent over many links, and re-assembled at the end. Even if one link is slow, it will only handle a few packets.
2. The goals are in conflict. Tor has *at least two different goals*.
Goal #1: Prevent your neighbor/public lan/ISP from seeing what you are doing. This is as simple as a one-hop channel. Instead of talking to my destination, I talk to a single forwarder. Done.
Goal #2: Prevent tracking. If I talk to a single forwarder, then a single node knows who I am, and who I am talking to. This can be prevented by a two-hop. Node #1 knows that a connection is going in from site H, and out to site 2, but doesn't know that H is the requesting host. Node #2 knows that it is talking to destination D, and host #1, but doesn't know who the requesting host is. "Perfect", right? Well, not if node 1 is doing the splitting.
Goal #3: Provide real privacy. There's a good analysis that I don't have a link to showing that the two-hop is traceable. And if the first hop is splitting (instead of the host splitting), then the two hop doesn't have enough security. Basically, if I remember correctly: If you always change the entry and exit nodes, you will eventually have a pair controlled by an attacker, so you have to limit your switching of those. To prevent being tracked, you need a random third node in-between.
The more nodes? The slower the speed, and a different set of attacks being defended against.
For most people? A single hop suffices.
For those that want light security? Two hops.
For those that want speed? Have multiple paths, and assembly at the end.
What kills Tor, beyond these, are things you, as a user, cannot control:
** Stupid websites that assume anything coming from a Tor node are attacks and delete them **.
I mean, **stupid**. I can actually log in, with name and password, and still get "Sorry, we don't accept hackers using Tor" type messages.
As long as sites are going to say "We can arbitrarily deny service to people who are concerned about privacy", then nothing will get fixed.
As far as "splitting" paths go? Here's what the Tor docs say:
> You should split each connection over many paths.
>
> We don't currently think this is a good idea. You see, the attacks we're worried about are at the endpoints: the adversary watches Alice (or the first hop in the path) and Bob (or the last hop in the path) and learns that they are communicating.
Tor is concerned about the security of your communication. Tor is not concerned about the speed of your communication. As long as "Use the best possible security, regardless of speed cost" is the goal, then Tor will only be focused on people who need to best possible security -- namely, those who are taking actions against a government or large corporation.
Even on my Mac OS, running Minecraft, I see this. When Minecraft starts up, it opens a window, displays what ever is in the graphics memory, and then eventually clears it out and shows it's welcome window.
That graphics memory can be anything from screen rendering pieces, to other window data, etc.
I wonder if anything would survive a logout, and then someone else logging in?
Jar-Jar was not the problem. Jar-Jar was a wonderful villian.
The problem was giving up on the "villian" idea, and just going comic relief.
I'm still waiting for episode 8 to show him in the big reveal.
Ref: https://www.reddit.com/r/StarW...
Has this gotten my money? Not yet. I plan to watch the Darths and Droids version of this movie first.
Now, I'd like to discuss two things that were mentioned in Reddit. I'm not asking for spoilers, I just want to open up some wild mass guessing.
First, what is the likelyhood that episode 8 will reveal that the guy whose name translates to a type of fish will turn out to be Sith-lord Binks, having stayed in the background since Palpatine double-crossed him way back in episode 3 by promoting Doku instead of him.
Second, how likely is it that Luke -- and yes, I saw while skimming through that he is missing (or otherwise out of the way) at the start of the movie will turn out to have turned dark at the end of 6 (after all, Yoda made a prophecy about him, etc. -- all the pieces are there, he could just have been acting "good" with the goal of Father+Son ruling the galaxy ... but darn it, daddy died. Hmm, maybe Luke + Binks as episode 8 lords?)
Yea, I know, but I said: Wild mass guessing.
(I think Binks as Sithlord would make a great plotline; I don't know if that's what will happen. Luke having turned bad at the end of 6, and hiding it from those near him at first, only to get away to found his own Evil Inc.? Until I found out that he starts this movie off in hiding, I didn't think that was possible. Err, did I just say "No, that's impossble"?)
Are you talking about the service at http://mega.nz/?
That service never sees unencrypted data, so could not even do hash comparisons to remove infringing files.
Everything else is a mere annoyance, even Jar Jar Binks.
Jar-Jar was a competent Force user, very likely Sith by the end of the trilogy.
https://www.reddit.com/r/StarW...
Quick summary: Drunken Fist martial arts, highly successful even when the odds are against him, waves his hand before people agree with him, so low-keyed that people under-estimate him (so no one pays too much attention, letting him be out of the spotlight).
At the start of the trilogy? He's helping the good guys.
By the end? He's working with Palpatine.
Every aspect of the pacing puts him as the foil to Luke or Yoda from the original trilogy. He's just not looking for attention.
I am worried. Looking over their site,
Our regulatory clients
We work with Consumers, ISPs and Governments all over the world
So, this is a box that reads all my data sent upstream, and reports to the USA government ...
What does the privacy policy say?
It may however become necessary - by law, legal process, litigation, and/or requests from public and governmental authorities within or outside your country of residence
So, by request from governmental authorities outside your country of residence ...
That is no privacy at all. Seriously. This could easily be an NSA operation in disguise -- heck, no wonder they can just give this box away for free.
Seriously, if pages are annoying then there are 10.000 others to choose from. These guys need another business model..
The problem is, I'm not looking for web pages. I'm looking for specific content.
There may be hundreds of millions of other pages, but how many Schlock Mercenary's are there? How many antipope.org's are there?
Charlie Stross's personal/author blog? Sure, there are other authors with blogs. I happen to like what he has to say.
Web comics? Yea, I've got a list of things I read. And there's stuff that I don't read.
Nothing else is an exact match for Irregular Web Comics, or Schlock Mercenary, or Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality, or ....
There are things that can do a partial substitution. There's a bunch of lego comics; there are other decent story comics. And there's my personal choice for "best of the bunch".
What do a lot of these sites have in common? Oddly, now that I think about it, they make money by selling merchandise/books, not by selling ads on-screen. Hmm.
You clearly are not aware of how bad a no-bid procurement process can get. Sadly I've seen it in action and let's say it would put third world countries to shame.
Then again, there are rare times when no-bid contracts work just fine.
Start at http://www.schlockmercenary.co..., and read the next 6 pages...
"All the other stars with their puffed egos
Better run, better run
Out run Chuk Norris"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Why would you even WANT to have 20 browser windows open in 1995??
Well, on my NeXT slab, on the original WWW software, I would have lots of windows open. Every link opened in a new browser. I could easily move around, go back, see where I was, etc. Responsiveness was very, very high. Pages were simple, and presented information -- not trying to sell ads by downloading code from other sites without any peer review.
What do you mean, modern windowing systems have huge overhead per window?
What do you mean, modern websites won't work if you interact with multiple windows in the same session?
Just ask yourself: What would Homestuck be if there was no Flash? Flash has a place.
Seriously, Springfield is where 5 states come together in a 5-sided point accumulation, and a bullet in a straight line goes through 4 of them. Continuity? Sheesh.
Yeish. I had no idea it was that bad, actually.
So who writes these javascript specifications, anyways?
Who is at fault for leaking privacy data to a commercial entity without approval -- the commercial entity for asking for the data, the business that makes and distributes the browser without care for leaking data, or what?
And why is it that there is no "User is under 13" mode in the browsers?
Cookies aren't even required anymore for tracking. Data can be stored in local storage, global storage, indexed DB, even in your web history...
You left out "Lets get a list of all your browser extensions, in the order they are registered to the browser". That turns out to be amazingly specific for any person that is concerned about privacy.
So, I use a normal cookie with a 10 year expiration, and a list of your browser extensions. No extensions? Cookie. Privacy minded person? List of what you are doing. What privacy?
Does anyone know a firefox extension that prevents sites from querying the firefox extensions?
So what ever happened to "save the random state at shutdown, and restore the random state at startup"? That, I thought, was standard behavior as of about a decade ago.
If that wasn't enough, then every so often (no more than once a day or so), grab 1K of random bytes from random.org, and add it to the pool at a slow and steady rate (when /dev/random would block, for example); refill that buffer when empty if enough time has passed.
Yes, that basically means 1K bytes, or 8K bits, of entropy only for /dev/random, that would not be visible to /dev/urandom. People using urandom are basically saying that they don't need the really good numbers, right?