There's nothing wrong with waiting 15 years. But a person who is sexually attracted to children is just that. 20 years old isn't really a child. 25 years old, not a child. The gap is not the thing, the wanting sex with children is the thing. Agreed. Though, in the case of the 10 year old (which might still be slightly too young for this example, but not by much), what if the attractee is unaware of the age.. I have been astonished many times by the real age of some girls compared to how they look and act..
I think Chris Rock said it best : "If a woman tells you she's 20, and looks 16 - she's 12"
A 14 year old who has the hots for her 5-year-old babysitting client discovers she's a pedophile "at a young age."
Ditto the 18 year old who finds he likes the 10-year-old girl next door. And yet, if they all wait 15 years, it becomes completely acceptable. 29 year old and a 20 year old.. 9 year gap, but thats ok. 33 year old and a 25 year old.. 8 year gap, also acceptable..
OH GOD! *cowers in corner, rocking back and forth* See, now you could have avoided the extra stress if you would have noticed the name of the poster who responded to you.. With a name like cthulhu, it should be expected that nightmares will follow suit.
So while it may not be difficult to spot some wayward code if you are a geek, it might not be if you are a 65 year old hippie who knows almost nothing about computers. What does RMS have to do with this?
Being a muslim shows insenstivity towards my atheism, therefore you must stop being a muslim.
Yeah, it does sound kind of stupid when one put the flashlight on how fucking special you think you are, doesn't it?
I think you have it wrong there.. It's like you're a die-hard Ford driver, and these are all Chevy drivers. Of course, Ford is better than Chevy, which makes all of the Chevy drivers infidels. So, we need to declare s jihad on them and wipe them from the face of the earth. And what makes this even more relevant is this recent story. See? Ford = Muhammad.
The problem is that humans have this insane tendency to believe in something so strongly that they're willing to not only die for it, but kill other people who don't believe in it. People like this are stupid and should be shot.
The Golem Standard is Oil, you're already using it Hrm.. perhaps I missed that bit.. Moist Von Lipwig, et al?
(Did you read a different book to me?). I clearly do not remember ever reading a book *to* you... Have I been sleepreading again?
What do you think is backing the US Dollar? The Saudis... And look at all the trouble that has caused. Wow.. Political discussion.. You really don't want to be friends, do you.. *grin*
Second, gold doesn't have intrinsic value at all. The value of gold fluctuates all the time. All the gold standard did was fix the price of gold. While the gold standard was tenable for a time it didn't work in the long run because it's not stable. Your money supply is dependent on your gold supply which in turn limits your economy. You can't have more dollars than your fixed ratio to gold. New discoveries of gold can also create deflationary shocks. We could always go on the Golem Standard. As I understand it, there are only 4,000 chem-free golems, all currently buried just outside of Ankh Morpork. It is extremely unlikely that any more will ever be found as the original creators, the Um, mysteriously disappeared.
Dynamic IP addresses are used because its the only possible way to do it without having techs setting up every joe six pack or grandmothers computer. DHCP can be used to assign static addresses and it would be transparent to the end user. Reasons they don't :
1) Possible admin overhead (automatic assignment needs to handle non-contiguous blocks, returned IPs, etc) 2) Why waste the time on this? Is a static IP guaranteed as part of your service? 3) We can charge for static IPs!
been around for the past 10 years then you would know server 2008 is meant to do that job. Wow.. So, in essence, since it's 10 years late, they renamed Windows Server 1998 to Windows Server 2008? Slick marketing there! Not sure how they hid that one.. Everyone knew Vista was late.. Noone has made a peep about WS2008!
Why would I bother downloading anything from their servers then? I have access to the/dev/null server even when my network is down. Another win for Nokia! No bandwidth requirement, and offline access!!
Ok, I'm a tad confused now.. I can understand needing the guys contact info to sue him. And if he broke the law, then fine. But why do they need his Blog Drafts and Emails? Those can't possibly be something they can sue him for..
It does appear to do MUCH better on the Acid2 test than FF2 (guess the new rendering engine could be all that it was hyped up to be), but it doesn't quite pass - if you compare to the reference rendering, you'll notice that there is a little too much space between the mouth and bottom edge of the space (I opened the reference and the live test is two different tabs and switched back and forth). Hrm.. I did the same here and noticed that the nose is slightly smaller (by like one pixel on each side) than the reference rendering.. But damn close!
I'm not following you, how is this better than Hot Coffee?
Hot Coffee ("HC") required hacking the code as well(illegal) and, if you wanted nudity, you had to add your own content. Plus the HC content was never rated by the ESRB (because it was never included in a "released state").
The Manhunt2 content was rated by the ESRB and, as far as I know, R* had to promise to remove it before they could get the M rating.
So, unless R* told the ESRB that they were just going to hide the content, they're screwed.
I'm not sure they ever promised to REMOVE the content, but to ALTER it. And they did just that. The content was altered through the use of filters and camera angles. Big deal.
I have the game, and I'm enjoying it. (Quick, run and hide, I might go on a shooting rampage any second now).. The filters don't obscure all that much, so I don't see what the big deal was to begin with. And I don't see it as a murder simulator at all. I mean, come on.. I'm fairly certain that most kids know that if you beat someone repeatedly with a pipe, they die. Likewise, stabbing them multiple times in the chest will likely kill a person. It's not like the game shows you anything new..
And getting a view of the non-pixelated nudity in The Sims was so easy anyone could do it. It's really surprising nothing ever came of that. Sim Coffee? Hot Sim Coffee? Simulated Hot Coffee?
From what I can tell the "hack" in this case requires a homebrew PSP (legality questioned), and ISO of the games (legality questioned) and the modification of a few configuration files (not something normally possible on a console)... Hidden content is all over the place, in DVDs, games, business applications, etc. If it takes extraordinary means to get to it, something that technically shouldn't be possible if the device it's played on is used properly, how is that the fault of the developer?
Sure, they left the content in. But realize that what they did to the scenes was "fuzz" them over with odd camera angles and filters. You need the scenes there in order to filter them..
Hot coffee was a little different. That wasn't part of the game at all, or at least, not something they released, per se. Perhaps it was something planned that they decided not to release after all. Either way, it's not something that was intended to be available.
I've been following their news flashes also, and indeed they are very open about what they're doing (and how). The amount of testing they've done is staggering, but the landing has always been the weakest link of the vehicle IMHO. I think landing is at least as difficult as building the rest of the rocket, but most testing went toward engine testing. Yeah, it looks like landing is definitely a tough one.. My guess is that the upward thrust, combined with the sudden outward forces induced when getting closer to the ground, causes some problems with the vertical landing. Seems that as they approach, the vehicle starts tilting a bit..
Lately, they have been flying reliably, but then they had to change the graphite chambers suddenly because the company they bought them from had received a big order and could not supply them to Armadillo. Is that what caused the problems? In any case, making changes just before the big show is always an omen for troubles (not that they had a choice). That may have been it, though there has been some talk about the fuel mixture as well. I guess there's no "standard" for fuel mixtures, or at least, not the kind they use, and the supplier may have changed the mixture slightly? I'm sure John and the rest of the crew will dissect, diagnose, and post the findings..
It's really too bad, I thought they had a fair chance. I just hope John will take some time to really focus on the landing, the engine troubles will have to be examined but I don't think it will turn out to be a major issue (again, they've been flying for a while now, the engine is quite stable). He sounded pretty disappointed... Went as far as saying that they felt worse than last year.. I think it was just a bad day.. Sure, improvement will definitely help, but there are always those days that nothing goes right.. That said, they did have some decent flights earlier.. And, the AST qualification flight went off without a hitch.. There's video here : http://media.armadilloaerospace.com/2007_10_21/modFreeFlight.mpg
The good thing is that, as a software engineer, he surely knows how to handle crashes emotionally. Heh... There was a lot of discussion about how being a software engineer has impacted how he builds rockets.. Incremental improvements.. Build fast, fly often.. And it's worked.
I think these guys deserve all the credit they get. John and company spend a lot of time refining their approach and are kind enough to share that data with the rest of the rocketry community. They're helping push commercial rocketry into the mainstream and I wish them all the best. Can't wait to see how they do next year!
The issue aside, no matter how smart you are, there is still no reason to be a dick about things. I don't recall reading any articles about what an ass Einstein was. That's only because he was a dick on such a higher level, no one understood he was actually being a dick to them.:)
I agree, in principle.. But we're talking about another world here. How many "laymen" were able to directly interface with Einstein on an almost daily basis? There were no mailing lists, etc. back them. So, he only had to deal with it once in a while, if ever. It doesn't excuse the behavior, but it may explain it somewhat.
You can play the games in "Offline" mode, so no need to authenticate with any central resource. Valve has also stated on numerous occasions, that in the event they were to go out of business, they would patch existing games to no longer authenticate to a master server at all. Apparently its even been tested to some degree. We don't have enough money to stay in business, but we'll go ahead and put out a patch to drop authentication? Yeah, I'll believe that one when I see it...
I don't really see how a physical product would be more profitable. Look at Valve with Steam. They pushed to get online distribution going, and (for the most part) have made their customers very happy. I love the convenience of purchasing my game online and downloading it prior to its official release. Not only that, but they save money by not producing (as many) cds, manuals, boxes, etc. I'm not sure how distribution costs would compare, since there still would be some. Of course, if steam were to go out of business, you'd lose access to those games.. I believe they require a server authentication to make them work, correct?
The problem with downloadable games is usually that once you download them, if you erase them for some reason, you need to re-download them. That sucks. Same problem with DRM music.. I'd rather own the physical media, thank you very much. Although, that's becoming a problem too.. (ie, bioshock and its DRM)
We should put Theo and Daniel J. Bernstein (DJB) and see who survives. These so-called 'visionaries' and have a hard time forming an argument without degrading the argument with words like 'stupid'. It's a real shame that men like these are considered leaders the Free Software movement.
After reading vitriolic posts by these two fools, RMS doesn't seem all that bad. I disagree. He seems to call it like it is. And I would agree that anyone deluded enough to think that adding another layer to the, already complex, PC model increases security is just stupid. Sure, it may be that they are not well versed in the inner workings of both the hardware and software, but does that make their assertion any more correct? And besides, he's on a mailing list where the majority of the readers should be close to his level of knowledge.. He may not be the most tactful guy in the world, but he's a hell of a lot smarter than most...
I've been on the fence about virtualization for a very long time now. Sure, it's quite convenient to install VMware, load up a guest OS, and tinker with new features. But to load up a server with multiple instances of the same operating system is ludicrous. It certainly doesn't scale well at all. And the marketing teams are incredibly good at making people believe that by installing their virtualization software, you'll suddenly have a bunch of "virtual" servers with the same capabilities as a single server. Sure, they all have the same capabilities from an OS standpoint, but performance isn't going to be anything close to a standalone server..
And as far as security goes, it's nonsense. Ok, so I install 5 copies of RHEL 5.0 on my virtual server. If the virtualization software itself is attacked and compromised, all 5 servers go down. If an OS level attack is successful, then all 5 virtual servers are likely vulnerable because it's an OS level attack. The only security "benefit" I can see is if a single virtual server is compromised through something like a web application. That application may not exist on the other virtual servers, so they're "safe".. However, once you get into that one server, DDoS attacks aren't far behind. At the very least, you'll take up resources and you can potentially impact the operation of the other virtual servers.
I'll stick with standalone servers for now.. At least until there's a better solution, of which I don't see one coming anytime soon...
Slashdot Mirror
There, fixed that for ya..
My first grammar Nazi post.. I'm SO proud!
There's nothing wrong with waiting 15 years. But a person who is sexually attracted to children is just that. 20 years old isn't really a child. 25 years old, not a child. The gap is not the thing, the wanting sex with children is the thing. Agreed. Though, in the case of the 10 year old (which might still be slightly too young for this example, but not by much), what if the attractee is unaware of the age.. I have been astonished many times by the real age of some girls compared to how they look and act..
I think Chris Rock said it best : "If a woman tells you she's 20, and looks 16 - she's 12"
Ditto the 18 year old who finds he likes the 10-year-old girl next door. And yet, if they all wait 15 years, it becomes completely acceptable. 29 year old and a 20 year old.. 9 year gap, but thats ok. 33 year old and a 25 year old.. 8 year gap, also acceptable..
Being a muslim shows insenstivity towards my atheism, therefore you must stop being a muslim.
Yeah, it does sound kind of stupid when one put the flashlight on how fucking special you think you are, doesn't it?
I think you have it wrong there.. It's like you're a die-hard Ford driver, and these are all Chevy drivers. Of course, Ford is better than Chevy, which makes all of the Chevy drivers infidels. So, we need to declare s jihad on them and wipe them from the face of the earth. And what makes this even more relevant is this recent story. See? Ford = Muhammad.The problem is that humans have this insane tendency to believe in something so strongly that they're willing to not only die for it, but kill other people who don't believe in it. People like this are stupid and should be shot.
Wrong on so many levels...
Holy crap! MS figured out step 2!
Step 1 - Create buggy, frustrating software
Step 2 - Patent Frustration Detection!
Step 3 - Profit!
1) Possible admin overhead (automatic assignment needs to handle non-contiguous blocks, returned IPs, etc)
2) Why waste the time on this? Is a static IP guaranteed as part of your service?
3) We can charge for static IPs!
You must be new here...
Ok, I'm a tad confused now.. I can understand needing the guys contact info to sue him. And if he broke the law, then fine. But why do they need his Blog Drafts and Emails? Those can't possibly be something they can sue him for..
I'm not following you, how is this better than Hot Coffee?
Hot Coffee ("HC") required hacking the code as well(illegal) and, if you wanted nudity, you had to add your own content. Plus the HC content was never rated by the ESRB (because it was never included in a "released state").
The Manhunt2 content was rated by the ESRB and, as far as I know, R* had to promise to remove it before they could get the M rating.
So, unless R* told the ESRB that they were just going to hide the content, they're screwed.
I'm not sure they ever promised to REMOVE the content, but to ALTER it. And they did just that. The content was altered through the use of filters and camera angles. Big deal.I have the game, and I'm enjoying it. (Quick, run and hide, I might go on a shooting rampage any second now)
From what I can tell the "hack" in this case requires a homebrew PSP (legality questioned), and ISO of the games (legality questioned) and the modification of a few configuration files (not something normally possible on a console) ... Hidden content is all over the place, in DVDs, games, business applications, etc. If it takes extraordinary means to get to it, something that technically shouldn't be possible if the device it's played on is used properly, how is that the fault of the developer?
Sure, they left the content in. But realize that what they did to the scenes was "fuzz" them over with odd camera angles and filters. You need the scenes there in order to filter them..
Hot coffee was a little different. That wasn't part of the game at all, or at least, not something they released, per se. Perhaps it was something planned that they decided not to release after all. Either way, it's not something that was intended to be available.
Let's not blow all of this out of proportion.
Lately, they have been flying reliably, but then they had to change the graphite chambers suddenly because the company they bought them from had received a big order and could not supply them to Armadillo. Is that what caused the problems? In any case, making changes just before the big show is always an omen for troubles (not that they had a choice). That may have been it, though there has been some talk about the fuel mixture as well. I guess there's no "standard" for fuel mixtures, or at least, not the kind they use, and the supplier may have changed the mixture slightly? I'm sure John and the rest of the crew will dissect, diagnose, and post the findings.. It's really too bad, I thought they had a fair chance. I just hope John will take some time to really focus on the landing, the engine troubles will have to be examined but I don't think it will turn out to be a major issue (again, they've been flying for a while now, the engine is quite stable). He sounded pretty disappointed... Went as far as saying that they felt worse than last year.. I think it was just a bad day.. Sure, improvement will definitely help, but there are always those days that nothing goes right.. That said, they did have some decent flights earlier.. And, the AST qualification flight went off without a hitch.. There's video here : http://media.armadilloaerospace.com/2007_10_21/modFreeFlight.mpg The good thing is that, as a software engineer, he surely knows how to handle crashes emotionally. Heh... There was a lot of discussion about how being a software engineer has impacted how he builds rockets.. Incremental improvements.. Build fast, fly often.. And it's worked.
I think these guys deserve all the credit they get. John and company spend a lot of time refining their approach and are kind enough to share that data with the rest of the rocketry community. They're helping push commercial rocketry into the mainstream and I wish them all the best. Can't wait to see how they do next year!
I agree, in principle.. But we're talking about another world here. How many "laymen" were able to directly interface with Einstein on an almost daily basis? There were no mailing lists, etc. back them. So, he only had to deal with it once in a while, if ever. It doesn't excuse the behavior, but it may explain it somewhat.
You can play the games in "Offline" mode, so no need to authenticate with any central resource. Valve has also stated on numerous occasions, that in the event they were to go out of business, they would patch existing games to no longer authenticate to a master server at all. Apparently its even been tested to some degree. We don't have enough money to stay in business, but we'll go ahead and put out a patch to drop authentication? Yeah, I'll believe that one when I see it...
The problem with downloadable games is usually that once you download them, if you erase them for some reason, you need to re-download them. That sucks. Same problem with DRM music.. I'd rather own the physical media, thank you very much. Although, that's becoming a problem too.. (ie, bioshock and its DRM)
After reading vitriolic posts by these two fools, RMS doesn't seem all that bad. I disagree. He seems to call it like it is. And I would agree that anyone deluded enough to think that adding another layer to the, already complex, PC model increases security is just stupid. Sure, it may be that they are not well versed in the inner workings of both the hardware and software, but does that make their assertion any more correct? And besides, he's on a mailing list where the majority of the readers should be close to his level of knowledge.. He may not be the most tactful guy in the world, but he's a hell of a lot smarter than most...
I've been on the fence about virtualization for a very long time now. Sure, it's quite convenient to install VMware, load up a guest OS, and tinker with new features. But to load up a server with multiple instances of the same operating system is ludicrous. It certainly doesn't scale well at all. And the marketing teams are incredibly good at making people believe that by installing their virtualization software, you'll suddenly have a bunch of "virtual" servers with the same capabilities as a single server. Sure, they all have the same capabilities from an OS standpoint, but performance isn't going to be anything close to a standalone server..
And as far as security goes, it's nonsense. Ok, so I install 5 copies of RHEL 5.0 on my virtual server. If the virtualization software itself is attacked and compromised, all 5 servers go down. If an OS level attack is successful, then all 5 virtual servers are likely vulnerable because it's an OS level attack. The only security "benefit" I can see is if a single virtual server is compromised through something like a web application. That application may not exist on the other virtual servers, so they're "safe".. However, once you get into that one server, DDoS attacks aren't far behind. At the very least, you'll take up resources and you can potentially impact the operation of the other virtual servers.
I'll stick with standalone servers for now.. At least until there's a better solution, of which I don't see one coming anytime soon...