So what stops someone from hacking PB? If you can hack PB, all you have to know is the right answers to the right questions. Alternatively cheaters could develop a hacked PB client. I wouldn't be surprized if things like these are floating around. Programs of this sort are a nice idea but they're fighting the untrusted client problem, an inheritly unwinnable battle.
There are some other noticeable differences in the board layout. First off, you are only going to get 3 PCI slots. This is because most of the peripherals that would use a PCI slot, such as the Ethernet adapter and sound card, are already onboard. Personally I've never used more than 3 PCI slots, and with this board, not a single slot it used. Yep, 3 should definitely be enough.
Ouch. I was loving this board until I read that. I hate integrated components. If they die, or if something faster/cooler/better comes out that doesn't leave me enough slots to upgrade, so I have to replace the motherboard. Sorry Abit, you lost my business right there.
Unfortunately, convincing the other side's troops that we hadn't developed some sort of new superweapon might be another story.
You wouldn't try to convince them we hadn't developed a superweapon. Arguably, nukes are as big or bigger a psychological warfare weapon as they are a weapon of mass destruction.
> 222(P0)$ of size 46 head reduces in 53 steps to S(S(K(S(SKK)))KK)(K(SKK(S(K(S(*K)))K)(SKK(S(K(*K)) (SKK(S(*)K)))(SKK(S(K(*))(*K(*(*))))(SKK(S(*)(*(*) ))(KK)))))) of size 167 outputs 16 bits "0000000000000000"
The OpenSSH people corrected the bug in their own source, which they would have had access to even if it was closed.
Sure, if they found out about it before a blackhat did. There's a good chance they wouldn't have. And anyone could've corrected the issue and submitted a patch; in OSS there may be a patch before the public even knows there was a vulnerability.
The vendor was notified ahead of time, which is one of the things that MS has been campaigning for. Why aren't we beating up on the guy who released this to the vendor first and not to the community immediately?
There's a policy among bug reporters to give the author a reasonable period of time to fix a bug before releasing it. MS gets that grace period about as often as everyone else, but they're so slow at getting out patches that the vulnerability runs rampant. If an OSS project is slow at getting patches out, someone else takes it upon his or herself to write a patch. Its sort of a self-correcting system.
(Gundam Wing) in one of the last few episodes Duo goes into a door, steps out again and says "That's definitely not what I expected to find!". What did they edit out there? I can't seem to find anything on the net about it.
I am sure that Microsoft's SIT (slashdot infiltration team) will read this and immediately alert the top brass about this grassroots subversion away from MS software, and try to initiate a whole new marketing campaing aimed at college/university students and well as Profs. It's only a matter of time...
Well, as I attended a Microsoft sponsered unveiling of.NET and Visual Studio.NET Academic at my university on Monday during which they gave all attendees(students, faculty, a few others) free full copies of Windows XP and Visual Studio.NET Academic, I would guess this has already been started.
This is a bit off-topic, but I think some people around here will find it entertaining so I'm going to post it anyway. This is a true story, I saw it happen just last night at a Microsoft sponsered.NET unavailing. One of MS's representatives was opening with a PowerPoint presentation when, suddenly and for no apparent reason, the presentation went back into PP's editor while she was speaking. She said "That's not good [pause] As you can see, some things have stayed the same." I got a chuckle out of a Microsoft employee joking about their own buggy software.
Game theory is a really interesting and helpful at analyzong real world problems, but has little or nothing to do with games as we know them.
I'm not sure I agree with that. I think the AI in most present day games could benefit greatly by adding a bit of game theory. Take the Prisoners Dilemma, give an AI a worst possible alternative of dying (or whatever is appropriate for the game), and have it try to minimize that possibility (provided its primary motive is survival). I think you'd see some great improvements in simulating the way humans play games. Most of the games I've played recently have monsters that are somewhere between fearless and stupid, which doesn't make for a very interesting game. It tends to be: alert monster(s) to presence to make them move, lure monster into trap; they all fall for the same tactic. Now show me a monster who throws down some fire to make me take cover when he sees that BFG9000 in my hand then runs to get the pack of bigger monsters, who then try to set up an ambush, or run even further to alert still other monsters, and I'll be interested. Half-Life had some stuff like this in its human enemies, taken to its extreme I think you could simulate real humans and other inteligence very well.
from The Register story: Motion Picture Ass. of America (MPAA) ...the industry Ass. President...
From now on when I read a story about the RIAA, MPAA, et al I'm going to read the name with "Association" replaced by "Ass". Seems like a more appropriate word for these organizations anyway.
from this page: Is it possible to develop games for the Nokia mobile phones? The only phones that games may be developed for are the 9110 and 9210 Communicators. The 9210 has a symbian operating System which is an open platform for developers.
This means that anyone may develop games and other add-on applications for the device. This is the same with the 9110, however it has a different operating system.
Additionally, several Nokia phones support Wireless Application Protocol (WAP), where games and information can be programed for mobile viewing.
For more information on the Communicators SDKs and other Nokia tools, visit the Nokia Forum (www.forum.nokia.com).
Anyone know if Nokia's move to provide a development kit will include an SDK? (Or does one already exist?) I'd love to be able to write some additional games for my cell phone. By the look of it I'd say it would require some special hardware to copy them over as well. Going to have to look into this...
this is very similar to best buy's software policy: if you don't open it, you can return it.
I always liked when the EULAs said "If you do not agree to the terms of this agreement please return this software..." By opening it to read the license agreement you give up your ability to return it, and by not opening it you can't read the license agreement. Catch 22. My solution? Exchange the opened software for an unopened copy and immediately return that one. (I've heard they're not suppose to let you do this, but no one has ever tried to stop me)
This is somewhat OT, but I'm curious. I occasionally do tech support for my friends and every now and then I come across a drive that makes a rhythmic clicking noise similar to the one your car makes when your turn signal is on. What causes that? It seems to be quite a frequent problem and the drive is always either dead or dies shortly thereafter.
If my understanding of shotguns is correct (I have fired them on several occasions so I'm not totally clueless), there are multiple types of shells, some are buckshot which are, like you pointed out, BBs; however they are smaller, greater in number, and exit the barrel with much higher velocity than air rifle BBs. There are so many, in fact, you can cut a 3 foot wide target in half with about 10 12-gauge shells at 15 foot range. Another type of shell is solid-load in which there is a single large projectile.
How difficult would it be to cause such a failure? The article mentions the thing might be a terrorist target, and also mentions these carbon nanotubules are around 30 times as strong as kevlar. Bomb suits I've heard are around 10 layers of kevlar(I don't know the thinkness of those layers), so I'd think it'd take something on the order of an atomic bomb to cause a critical failure if you left reasonably excess strength in the cable.
If there are aliens, where are they?... However, when you think about it, it becomes fairly obvious that it really is the only argument in this debate that is somewhere between strong and very strong.
I don't know if there are any correlaries to this Fermi Paradox, but based solely on your post I think Fermi made waaaay too many assumptions. Lets see...
They're not advanced enough for us to locate?
They're too advanced for us to locate?
They don't want to be located or at least located by us? (as in actively seeking to hide)
They don't care to be located? (as in not hiding but not shouting "hey here we are!")
They don't care to locate others?
They have not yet been able to contact us because our ability to receive signals has only been around 100 years, and they're, oh, 500 lightyears away?
We still have no idea how to receive their signals?
They have no idea how to send signals?
They don't believe we exist?
They too have a Fermi Paradox?
I could go on forever. I don't consider this a strong argument. I prefer the approach of statistics, even if it can yield no answers based our on current lack of information.
I think we'd become the nanites in the Grey Goo scenario, only we'd be able to jump from planet to planet. We humans tend not to know when to quit exploiting something for its resources. Or is there nothing wrong with doing this to an uninhabited planet? (I'd like to hear opinions on that)
Slashdot Mirror
So what stops someone from hacking PB? If you can hack PB, all you have to know is the right answers to the right questions. Alternatively cheaters could develop a hacked PB client. I wouldn't be surprized if things like these are floating around. Programs of this sort are a nice idea but they're fighting the untrusted client problem, an inheritly unwinnable battle.
Ouch. I was loving this board until I read that. I hate integrated components. If they die, or if something faster/cooler/better comes out that doesn't leave me enough slots to upgrade, so I have to replace the motherboard. Sorry Abit, you lost my business right there.
Those are legit. You lose 30 pounds in 30 days by walking your ass all over town hanging more of the damn signs.
Mystery Science-Fiction Theatre 3000 amateur edition anyone?
You wouldn't try to convince them we hadn't developed a superweapon. Arguably, nukes are as big or bigger a psychological warfare weapon as they are a weapon of mass destruction.
I find these stats interesting:
800 MHz Athlon CPU: 2.4 GigaFlOPS
Geforce 3 GPU (internal calculations): 76 GigaFlOPS
> 222(P0)$) (SKK(S(*)K)))(SKK(S(K(*))(*K(*(*))))(SKK(S(*)(*(*) ))(KK)))))) of size 167
of size 46
head reduces in 53 steps to S(S(K(S(SKK)))KK)(K(SKK(S(K(S(*K)))K)(SKK(S(K(*K)
outputs 16 bits "0000000000000000"
pfffffttt... Well duh. Anybody could see that.
(</sarcasm>)
The OpenSSH people corrected the bug in their own source, which they would have had access to even if it was closed.
Sure, if they found out about it before a blackhat did. There's a good chance they wouldn't have. And anyone could've corrected the issue and submitted a patch; in OSS there may be a patch before the public even knows there was a vulnerability.
The vendor was notified ahead of time, which is one of the things that MS has been campaigning for. Why aren't we beating up on the guy who released this to the vendor first and not to the community immediately?
There's a policy among bug reporters to give the author a reasonable period of time to fix a bug before releasing it. MS gets that grace period about as often as everyone else, but they're so slow at getting out patches that the vulnerability runs rampant. If an OSS project is slow at getting patches out, someone else takes it upon his or herself to write a patch. Its sort of a self-correcting system.
(Gundam Wing) in one of the last few episodes Duo goes into a door, steps out again and says "That's definitely not what I expected to find!". What did they edit out there? I can't seem to find anything on the net about it.
Well, as I attended a Microsoft sponsered unveiling of .NET and Visual Studio .NET Academic at my university on Monday during which they gave all attendees(students, faculty, a few others) free full copies of Windows XP and Visual Studio .NET Academic, I would guess this has already been started.
This is a bit off-topic, but I think some people around here will find it entertaining so I'm going to post it anyway. This is a true story, I saw it happen just last night at a Microsoft sponsered .NET unavailing. One of MS's representatives was opening with a PowerPoint presentation when, suddenly and for no apparent reason, the presentation went back into PP's editor while she was speaking. She said "That's not good [pause] As you can see, some things have stayed the same." I got a chuckle out of a Microsoft employee joking about their own buggy software.
Game theory is a really interesting and helpful at analyzong real world problems, but has little or nothing to do with games as we know them.
I'm not sure I agree with that. I think the AI in most present day games could benefit greatly by adding a bit of game theory. Take the Prisoners Dilemma, give an AI a worst possible alternative of dying (or whatever is appropriate for the game), and have it try to minimize that possibility (provided its primary motive is survival). I think you'd see some great improvements in simulating the way humans play games. Most of the games I've played recently have monsters that are somewhere between fearless and stupid, which doesn't make for a very interesting game. It tends to be: alert monster(s) to presence to make them move, lure monster into trap; they all fall for the same tactic. Now show me a monster who throws down some fire to make me take cover when he sees that BFG9000 in my hand then runs to get the pack of bigger monsters, who then try to set up an ambush, or run even further to alert still other monsters, and I'll be interested. Half-Life had some stuff like this in its human enemies, taken to its extreme I think you could simulate real humans and other inteligence very well.
Someones trying to lose moderator privledges I guess. I noticed this dumb FP comment got modded up as informative. Metamod will take care of it.
from The Register story:
...the industry Ass. President ...
Motion Picture Ass. of America (MPAA)
From now on when I read a story about the RIAA, MPAA, et al I'm going to read the name with "Association" replaced by "Ass". Seems like a more appropriate word for these organizations anyway.
from this page:
Is it possible to develop games for the Nokia mobile phones?
The only phones that games may be developed for are the 9110 and 9210 Communicators. The 9210 has a symbian operating System which is an open platform for developers.
This means that anyone may develop games and other add-on applications for the device. This is the same with the 9110, however it has a different operating system.
Additionally, several Nokia phones support Wireless Application Protocol (WAP), where games and information can be programed for mobile viewing.
For more information on the Communicators SDKs and other Nokia tools, visit the Nokia Forum (www.forum.nokia.com).
Anyone know if Nokia's move to provide a development kit will include an SDK? (Or does one already exist?) I'd love to be able to write some additional games for my cell phone. By the look of it I'd say it would require some special hardware to copy them over as well. Going to have to look into this...
Congrats and best wishes Rob. :)
-Doug
this is very similar to best buy's software policy: if you don't open it, you can return it.
I always liked when the EULAs said "If you do not agree to the terms of this agreement please return this software..." By opening it to read the license agreement you give up your ability to return it, and by not opening it you can't read the license agreement. Catch 22. My solution? Exchange the opened software for an unopened copy and immediately return that one. (I've heard they're not suppose to let you do this, but no one has ever tried to stop me)
Further jokes (including the ones above, I'm guessing this is where the poster got them) are here.
This is somewhat OT, but I'm curious. I occasionally do tech support for my friends and every now and then I come across a drive that makes a rhythmic clicking noise similar to the one your car makes when your turn signal is on. What causes that? It seems to be quite a frequent problem and the drive is always either dead or dies shortly thereafter.
If my understanding of shotguns is correct (I have fired them on several occasions so I'm not totally clueless), there are multiple types of shells, some are buckshot which are, like you pointed out, BBs; however they are smaller, greater in number, and exit the barrel with much higher velocity than air rifle BBs. There are so many, in fact, you can cut a 3 foot wide target in half with about 10 12-gauge shells at 15 foot range. Another type of shell is solid-load in which there is a single large projectile.
How difficult would it be to cause such a failure? The article mentions the thing might be a terrorist target, and also mentions these carbon nanotubules are around 30 times as strong as kevlar. Bomb suits I've heard are around 10 layers of kevlar(I don't know the thinkness of those layers), so I'd think it'd take something on the order of an atomic bomb to cause a critical failure if you left reasonably excess strength in the cable.
you could have a cell phone in a ring on your finger...give new meaning to the phrase 'Talk to the hand.'"
You mean kinda like a miniaturized one of these?
I don't know if there are any correlaries to this Fermi Paradox, but based solely on your post I think Fermi made waaaay too many assumptions. Lets see...
I could go on forever. I don't consider this a strong argument. I prefer the approach of statistics, even if it can yield no answers based our on current lack of information.
I think we'd become the nanites in the Grey Goo scenario, only we'd be able to jump from planet to planet. We humans tend not to know when to quit exploiting something for its resources. Or is there nothing wrong with doing this to an uninhabited planet? (I'd like to hear opinions on that)