In Debian you do it by doing apt-get install apache-php IIRC. It will then install apache if you don't have it installed already and configure it so that it works. You do have to remove a "#" on one line in the.conf file for Apache though.
UT and UT2 are both multi player centered. Much like Q3 is. Doom3 is however single player oriented. In a SP games you can put in more neat graphics, but in a MP game that can be very annoying.
More complex maps. So you can use tactics to get around your opponents.
Bigger maps, which makes it possible to use entirely different strategies.
More game modes, deathmatch is no longer the norm. Now most play teamgames. Compare running around hitting each other with sticks to soccer for instance. (If you need a RL reference.;-)
And naturally the engine is a lot better which allow more realistic graphics and sound.
While the basic game idea is pretty much the same as Doom, the actual game play is very different.
They are the ultimate goal for the people which create small, stupid and useless Shareware programs as well. Because the users don't know that they can already do that with their computer, they just haven't figured out how.
Much like the people who hasn't discovered that there are more than one forward gear on a car.;-)
You are missing the point. If someone sends me a message composed solely of text then they could send it in ASCII or MIME. If the message contains some layout they could send it in HTML or PDF. All of these I can read on a number of platforms. If I receive a.doc file I have to use Office on a Windows or OSX platform. (And I don't think I have to tell you that Office is a rather expensive product.) And no, WordPad doesn't work with all the latest Office.doc file formats.
I don't care how they (the company/the person) chose to store the data on their own system. Neither does RMS, although your try to twist his words. (Not very well I might add.) For all I care they could store the text as painting on the wall. But if they want me to read it it's easiest for all if they send it in a plain format I can read.
You can not be serious when you state that Word converting.txt to.doc is the same as when GCC compiles from.c to.o? That's plainly rediculous! If you want that analogy to work you would need to have Emacs autocompile all.c files it opened. (And to a specific platform, as X86.)
What program you use to send or receive emails and edit text doesn't enter into the discussion. See wall painting above.
If you by the last comment mean to say that Netscape should be hunted down by wild dingos for saving email in HTML as standard then I agree with you. Otherwise I can't see the point. HTML is an open format, (Although Netscape and Microsoft both did some extending in their days.) and can be viewed on a lot of platforms with a lot of programs. So no, it's not relevant to the discussion.
Yeah, Office is well know for backwards compatability. Companies are forced to upgrade because the "Save as old word format" doesn't work properly with some layouts.
The open standards doesn't get anywhere because Word is a monopoly. The people RMS are politely asking to refrain from sending out.doc files are a good example of it. They most likely don't even think about what they are doing. (Sending out text in a format some are unable to read.)
Besides the point that.doc files proprietary they are also bloated (Lot's of filling in them.). Sending a plaintext or HTML will save a lot bandwidth some times.
The standard 8-bit ASCII works fine for most european languages btw. If you need to send files with text which is not possible to send using these formats you should probably send it as a PDF instead. That way you are sure that the reader won't get a bunch of random symbols.
And if people want to communicate with me (Which I assume is why they send me email with.DOC attachments.) then it would be nice if they do so in a format I can read. It wouldn't be very useful to you if I had made this post in Swedish, now would it?
Actually I think what is needed here is better QoS. (Quality of Service.) Technically your download is not affected by the other people downloading. That is, your download (from net) goes downstream on the DSL. The people downloading from you send data upstream on the DSL. Some extra control data is naturally getting in the way for you however. (But unless the protocol is braindead this shouldn't be a problem.)
The main problem is that when you do something (click a link whatever) that data has to go on the already saturated uplink. So what you want is give the OS an indication how bandwidth should be distributed among the programs. (Much like how scheduling divides CPU time between processes.)
Re:Well, it's not clear, but it would look cool...
on
Laptop Case Modding?
·
· Score: 1
It's flammable. Carbon Fiber doesn't make a good firewall.
Yeah, but who uses a laptop as a firewall anyways?
As mentioned in the FAQ a hash has function is also designed so that you *can't* reverse it. (Well, you can brute force it.) This means that they are by design useless for compression. (They are useful if you want to verify a message though.)
You have managed to write "pi", nothing else. You haven't actually "compressed" anything, you have only used a symbol.
This does not work on real data. (Because then you would need to send the sequence once anyways, otherways you can't decompress it.)
"Oh, but we could make a big table of possibilities." Yes you could, and no, you would still not be able to compress random data reliably.
Sure, if someone happens to send a file with the first 500,000 digits in PI then you can compress it. If they send the works of Shakespeare it won't do anything.
For compression to be useful you need to talk about a general case.
I have read some information theory, but I can not make sense of that. I don't know if I'm wrong or not though.
AFAIK the reason text compresses better than other stuff is because it contains a lot of rendundancy. Some where around 3.2 bits of redundacy. (That is, 3.2:1, just by studying the text.)
I don't recall the terms "8-bit random" or "7-bit random" however. So perhaps that's where the magic comes from.;-)
But perhaps it should be mentioned that machine verification has been an idea for a long time. (Amongst academics.) It hasn't been solved there at least.
And although MS Vault will most likely stop some problems I wouldn't be surprised if it introduces some show-stopper errors which makes some drivers impossible to write. Or that they miss some errors. (Either way you will get potentially buggy drivers.)
But I recon it can't really make the situation worse.;-)
I doubt that people will use C# for writing drivers. For the same reason you don't use Java for that. You don't get enough access to the hardware (which is preyy annoying if you are writing a hardware driver;-) and it's not as geared towards speed as plain C is.
I guess that some drivers could be written in C#/Java, but those are not the ones that cause trouble. (Generally video card drivers are bad.)
Ah yes. The famous Denver airport. When I went to the US for a year I had the "pleasure" of travelling through DIA. A lot of people gave me the advice before to "make sure to pack some clothes in your carry-on". And this is from people in Sweden. Imagine what a randomized luggage system can do for your city's fame.;-)
Oh and while I were there they rebuilt the airport. (Which is what the parent is discussing.) After a few months they discovered that the glass roof in some parts of the building was leaking and had ruined the marble floor.
So it's not only programming errors that can put your city on the map. Now go out there and make a really lousy job next time you are called to engineer somthing. I mean, just look at what it did from the people in Pisa.;-)
I was going to post a snide remark about how it is "common knowledge" that the Great Wall of China can be seen from the moon. But I hesitated and looked it up, good for me.
Apparently it (the wall) can only be seen from LEO, and at that time several other human constructions can be seen. It would in fact seem strange if the wall were visible, it is not wider than a big motorway.
Oh well, yet another question in Trivial Pursuit when I get to be a "besserwisser" and whine about the stupid game. (So all in all I'm satisfied.;-)
Personally I liked Bladerunner. (The movie that is.) The world seems very real in it. Sure, it doesn't follow DADoES completely but it is still a good movie. Basically an extrapolation from the book than anything else.
Much like how Starship Troopers movies and book are similar. (Obviously ST the movie sucks compared to the book.)
Since the transmission format is wide open you have to assume that it has already been captured and read by anyone interested in snooping around your life. If they already have copies of some of the clear text that resides in the encrypted archive, it will be child's play to find your encryption keys and decrypt the entire archive.
Most modern encryption systems are not vulnerable to "known plaintext attacks". Although DES can be attacked with this it is still not easy. Far from it in fact.
And if you use a serious system you do not have the same key for each message. Each new mail is encrypted using DES/AES/or similar with a random key which in turn is encrypted with RSA. (This way the program doing the encryption can't be studied to learn the decryption key.) This is what PGP/GPG already do BTW.
So although that particular mail has been compromised the rest of the archive is safe.
Next to be secure you need to make sure that your email client / OS is not vulnerable to trojans. If you can't trust your own system you need to use a trusted system to view the messanges. (This is rather theoretical and mainly applicable on public terminals in libraries and internet coffe houses.)
If you want to be paranoid about it it's far easier for someone with access to listen in on your telephone conversation or use a tele-microphone to listen in when you take a stroll in the park than it is to crack an encrypted transmission.
Essentially TPM is a much more complicated beast than people make it out to be. It has a wonderfully foreboding atmosphere and is extremely frank about how easy it was for Palpatine to achieve his goals due to bureaucracy, procrastination and willful blindness of those around him.
Yes, I have told a lot of people about this. Pointed out what actually happen in TPM. Not all that many people have thought of it before. (Which I have met that is.) And I think this qualifies as something genuinely good in TPM.
Unfortunately it is completely buried under loads of garbage. My guess is that most people don't see the "deeper meaning" of TPM because the entire movie suggest that there are no hidden parts.
My guess is that these good parts are the few remnants of what TPM could have been. Much like when you see a movie adaptation of a book and suddenly something brilliant happen. Sometimes that brillians is there in spite of the director. It is there because in the original there were something shining bright enough to actually shine through everything the director put on top of it.
Re:has the targeted demographic really changed?
on
Attack of the Clones
·
· Score: 1
I've heard that one of the oldest (When I heard of it first it was the oldest.) ancient findings of writing which has been found, contains a passage about how "Kids these days don't respect their elders."
Don't know if it's true, but I sure wouldn't be surprised.
Define "Hack". Without that your statement is basically pointless.
If you for instance create a similar program and manage to run it instead of your own program. But it saves the same data to a file as well as echo it, then you have in a sense "hacked" it. (In this case, you have made something which act the same but which has hidden features.)
Granted, this does not explicitly "hack" your program, it hacks the "function" of the program.
Slashdot Mirror
In Debian you do it by doing apt-get install apache-php IIRC. It will then install apache if you don't have it installed already and configure it so that it works. You do have to remove a "#" on one line in the .conf file for Apache though.
I would assume that it wouldn't.
UT and UT2 are both multi player centered. Much like Q3 is. Doom3 is however single player oriented. In a SP games you can put in more neat graphics, but in a MP game that can be very annoying.
I think U2 would be a better comparison to D3.
More complex maps. So you can use tactics to get around your opponents.
;-)
Bigger maps, which makes it possible to use entirely different strategies.
More game modes, deathmatch is no longer the norm. Now most play teamgames. Compare running around hitting each other with sticks to soccer for instance. (If you need a RL reference.
And naturally the engine is a lot better which allow more realistic graphics and sound.
While the basic game idea is pretty much the same as Doom, the actual game play is very different.
Generally when I send email to people it is because I want them to read it. So by your own loagic the sender is the one who should conform.
They are the ultimate goal for the people which create small, stupid and useless Shareware programs as well. Because the users don't know that they can already do that with their computer, they just haven't figured out how.
;-)
Much like the people who hasn't discovered that there are more than one forward gear on a car.
You are missing the point. If someone sends me a message composed solely of text then they could send it in ASCII or MIME. If the message contains some layout they could send it in HTML or PDF. All of these I can read on a number of platforms. If I receive a .doc file I have to use Office on a Windows or OSX platform. (And I don't think I have to tell you that Office is a rather expensive product.) And no, WordPad doesn't work with all the latest Office .doc file formats.
.txt to .doc is the same as when GCC compiles from .c to .o? That's plainly rediculous! If you want that analogy to work you would need to have Emacs autocompile all .c files it opened. (And to a specific platform, as X86.)
I don't care how they (the company/the person) chose to store the data on their own system. Neither does RMS, although your try to twist his words. (Not very well I might add.) For all I care they could store the text as painting on the wall. But if they want me to read it it's easiest for all if they send it in a plain format I can read.
You can not be serious when you state that Word converting
What program you use to send or receive emails and edit text doesn't enter into the discussion. See wall painting above.
If you by the last comment mean to say that Netscape should be hunted down by wild dingos for saving email in HTML as standard then I agree with you. Otherwise I can't see the point. HTML is an open format, (Although Netscape and Microsoft both did some extending in their days.) and can be viewed on a lot of platforms with a lot of programs. So no, it's not relevant to the discussion.
Yeah, Office is well know for backwards compatability. Companies are forced to upgrade because the "Save as old word format" doesn't work properly with some layouts.
.doc files are a good example of it. They most likely don't even think about what they are doing. (Sending out text in a format some are unable to read.)
.doc files proprietary they are also bloated (Lot's of filling in them.). Sending a plaintext or HTML will save a lot bandwidth some times.
.DOC attachments.) then it would be nice if they do so in a format I can read. It wouldn't be very useful to you if I had made this post in Swedish, now would it?
The open standards doesn't get anywhere because Word is a monopoly. The people RMS are politely asking to refrain from sending out
Besides the point that
The standard 8-bit ASCII works fine for most european languages btw. If you need to send files with text which is not possible to send using these formats you should probably send it as a PDF instead. That way you are sure that the reader won't get a bunch of random symbols.
And if people want to communicate with me (Which I assume is why they send me email with
With LaTeX you genereally create PostScript (ps) or PDF's. Those two can be read by basically any system around.
Actually I think what is needed here is better QoS. (Quality of Service.) Technically your download is not affected by the other people downloading. That is, your download (from net) goes downstream on the DSL. The people downloading from you send data upstream on the DSL. Some extra control data is naturally getting in the way for you however. (But unless the protocol is braindead this shouldn't be a problem.)
The main problem is that when you do something (click a link whatever) that data has to go on the already saturated uplink. So what you want is give the OS an indication how bandwidth should be distributed among the programs. (Much like how scheduling divides CPU time between processes.)
Yeah, but who uses a laptop as a firewall anyways?
As mentioned in the FAQ a hash has function is also designed so that you *can't* reverse it. (Well, you can brute force it.) This means that they are by design useless for compression. (They are useful if you want to verify a message though.)
Ehh?
You have managed to write "pi", nothing else. You haven't actually "compressed" anything, you have only used a symbol.
This does not work on real data. (Because then you would need to send the sequence once anyways, otherways you can't decompress it.)
"Oh, but we could make a big table of possibilities." Yes you could, and no, you would still not be able to compress random data reliably.
Sure, if someone happens to send a file with the first 500,000 digits in PI then you can compress it. If they send the works of Shakespeare it won't do anything.
For compression to be useful you need to talk about a general case.
I have read some information theory, but I can not make sense of that. I don't know if I'm wrong or not though.
;-)
AFAIK the reason text compresses better than other stuff is because it contains a lot of rendundancy. Some where around 3.2 bits of redundacy. (That is, 3.2:1, just by studying the text.)
I don't recall the terms "8-bit random" or "7-bit random" however. So perhaps that's where the magic comes from.
Ok that makes a more sense.
;-)
But perhaps it should be mentioned that machine verification has been an idea for a long time. (Amongst academics.) It hasn't been solved there at least.
And although MS Vault will most likely stop some problems I wouldn't be surprised if it introduces some show-stopper errors which makes some drivers impossible to write. Or that they miss some errors. (Either way you will get potentially buggy drivers.)
But I recon it can't really make the situation worse.
I doubt that people will use C# for writing drivers. For the same reason you don't use Java for that. You don't get enough access to the hardware (which is preyy annoying if you are writing a hardware driver ;-) and it's not as geared towards speed as plain C is.
I guess that some drivers could be written in C#/Java, but those are not the ones that cause trouble. (Generally video card drivers are bad.)
Ah yes. The famous Denver airport. When I went to the US for a year I had the "pleasure" of travelling through DIA. A lot of people gave me the advice before to "make sure to pack some clothes in your carry-on". And this is from people in Sweden. Imagine what a randomized luggage system can do for your city's fame. ;-)
;-)
Oh and while I were there they rebuilt the airport. (Which is what the parent is discussing.) After a few months they discovered that the glass roof in some parts of the building was leaking and had ruined the marble floor.
So it's not only programming errors that can put your city on the map. Now go out there and make a really lousy job next time you are called to engineer somthing. I mean, just look at what it did from the people in Pisa.
I was going to post a snide remark about how it is "common knowledge" that the Great Wall of China can be seen from the moon. But I hesitated and looked it up, good for me.
;-)
Apparently it (the wall) can only be seen from LEO, and at that time several other human constructions can be seen. It would in fact seem strange if the wall were visible, it is not wider than a big motorway.
Oh well, yet another question in Trivial Pursuit when I get to be a "besserwisser" and whine about the stupid game. (So all in all I'm satisfied.
Personally I liked Bladerunner. (The movie that is.) The world seems very real in it. Sure, it doesn't follow DADoES completely but it is still a good movie. Basically an extrapolation from the book than anything else.
Much like how Starship Troopers movies and book are similar. (Obviously ST the movie sucks compared to the book.)
Most modern encryption systems are not vulnerable to "known plaintext attacks". Although DES can be attacked with this it is still not easy. Far from it in fact.
And if you use a serious system you do not have the same key for each message. Each new mail is encrypted using DES/AES/or similar with a random key which in turn is encrypted with RSA. (This way the program doing the encryption can't be studied to learn the decryption key.) This is what PGP/GPG already do BTW.
So although that particular mail has been compromised the rest of the archive is safe.
Next to be secure you need to make sure that your email client / OS is not vulnerable to trojans. If you can't trust your own system you need to use a trusted system to view the messanges. (This is rather theoretical and mainly applicable on public terminals in libraries and internet coffe houses.)
If you want to be paranoid about it it's far easier for someone with access to listen in on your telephone conversation or use a tele-microphone to listen in when you take a stroll in the park than it is to crack an encrypted transmission.
Yes, I have told a lot of people about this. Pointed out what actually happen in TPM. Not all that many people have thought of it before. (Which I have met that is.) And I think this qualifies as something genuinely good in TPM.
Unfortunately it is completely buried under loads of garbage. My guess is that most people don't see the "deeper meaning" of TPM because the entire movie suggest that there are no hidden parts.
My guess is that these good parts are the few remnants of what TPM could have been. Much like when you see a movie adaptation of a book and suddenly something brilliant happen. Sometimes that brillians is there in spite of the director. It is there because in the original there were something shining bright enough to actually shine through everything the director put on top of it.
I've heard that one of the oldest (When I heard of it first it was the oldest.) ancient findings of writing which has been found, contains a passage about how "Kids these days don't respect their elders."
Don't know if it's true, but I sure wouldn't be surprised.
Considering that most sat's don't even have 486 grade processors it seems highly likely that they would have a few GB of storage.
Me, sarcastic?
Generally I'd assume you don't want to run IPSEC or similar for satellite comm. For the same reason you don't want to use PGP for auth. control.
These system have very limited processing power and you don't want to waste bandwidth neither.
So solutions would have to be efficient as well.
Define "Hack". Without that your statement is basically pointless.
If you for instance create a similar program and manage to run it instead of your own program. But it saves the same data to a file as well as echo it, then you have in a sense "hacked" it. (In this case, you have made something which act the same but which has hidden features.)
Granted, this does not explicitly "hack" your program, it hacks the "function" of the program.