It's a botnet writer's wet dream; a victim that will host your exploit once you've pwned it.
We can only hope that it's secure, or else the two dozen people who actually use Opera will be very unpopular indeed, at least until the RIAA has then rounded up for sharing their tunes with (world + dog).
On the mobile side, AT&T is taking its.net website to phones for a "more consistent experience" between PC and mobile. Essentially, AT&T has a "three-screen focus," Broderick said. "We're looking at the TV, broadband connected PC and mobile almost as a unified platform," he stressed. "What we're doing is trying to incentivize [gaming companies] to take some risks by tethering mobile games to console or PC experiences.
Does anyone know what language this guy is speaking? It's almost like English, but seems to convey no useful information.
Is he saying that the same game will be playable and look pretty much the same on mobile, PC and on a TV (presumably through a set-top box)? Wow, that should be a shitty experience for at least two out of three platforms, although I wouldn't rule out the possibility of it sucking on all three.
Or is he proposing multiple clients with potentially wildly disparate UIs playing in the same game world, chosen from a vast content range such as video poker, scrabble, or video poker?
Would anyone care to risk their sanity by trying to decipher the meaning behind his marketdroid hoots and wails?
Remind me, which other UK ISPs don't use BT's backbone?
The only real choice is which intartubes wire you get your bits from: the copper going to the local BT exchange, or the copper going to the local Virgin Cable hub.
Given that Virgin Cable provide iPlayer through their TV Watch Again service, if BT squeeze iPlayer too hard, then it'll be Virgin that benefits, and nobody else.
Look, I'm going to type this really slowly so that you understand.
The choice quotes in this article are slighly misleading. The issue isn't the "cost" to BT of carrying the bits. That's as close to nil as makes no difference. The issue for BT is that they are running out of capacity to carry those bits, and will have to upgrade their infrastructure, as you note.
Heck, if Japan or Korea ISPs can provide very high bandwidth residential internet to their customers, why couldn't the UK?
Who. Pays. For. It?
Who pays the wages of the guys digging the holes? Who pays for the fiber that goes in them, and the switches and routers?
That's all BT are arguing over: whether they have to increase the cost to consumers directly, or whether they can tax the producers (who will then have to tax the consumers through the 'television' license fee).
The only issue here is who's going to look like the bad guys for making the populace pay for upgrading BT's infrastructure. BT would prefer that the BBC do the squeezing, that's all.
Who wouldn't fall over themselves to pour money down the drain adding support for a peripheral nobody owns to a game for which you won't receive any more money?
Apart from the peripheral-specific titles, what games are going to support it?
Two words (try not to let your heads assplode): Wii. Ports.
Indeed, when I read "complicated AI", my games dev Spider Sense translates it as "Uses more clock cycles to produces unpredictable emergent behaviour that defeats the level designers' attempts to stop the AI killing itself or humping the scenery in new retarded ways each time you play."
"AI" is for research projects. If you want an enjoyable game, simple finite state machines FTW every time. It's all about the testability.
They should be learning the concepts of programming
Did you spot who "they" are?
students of Physics, Chemistry, Engineering
Do you also think that carpenters should be taught the concepts of transfer of energy, elastic and inelastic collisions, and molecular bonds, rather than how to use a chisel to carve wood?
If a private citizen breaks into my house and sees something illegal, they can usually alert the cops and have knowledge of that thing be admitted in court
Even if that private citizen happens to be collecting information on behalf of the RIAA?
Let's try to pick a consistent position, rather than just one that happens to agree with our cause de jour.
Hey, if you persevere, you get some kiddie pr0n in book 4 of the trilogy, when some dickwad starts macking on a 13 year old(*). In other words, Card goes where every other SF author before him boldly went.
(*) To be fair Card starts forgetting a few minor points like character ages, whether beings are scheduled to die or not, his own frequently asserted core world rules... likely it's just the syphilis kicking in.
Does young "Kiwi" there really have your best interests at heart, or is he more interested in making a name for himself by shooting for the moon?
It's good that someone is fighting this case, but old age and cunning will always defeat youth and vigour. And the RIAA are ancient and well versed in the ways of the Dark Side.
aimbots, programs that triple the onscreen size of all your enemies, speedhacks, and a whole host of other forms of cheating
Y'all ever play a MMORPG? They're Heroism By Spreadsheet; "aimbot" is a non sequitur.
Speedhacks, gosh, since WOW is plagued by them, I guess it must be because the client is open source, rather than because some spazz dev decided that it was a good idea to have the server trust the client, right?
Any popular game is going to have its client, or client protocol, compromised. There's no defence that doesn't turn into an asymmetrical arms race. Make it as tight as you like, I still own the operating system, and I'm the Man in the Middle.
The solution is a robust and paranoid server design, not to try to secure the client. Make it a requirement that your server assume and act as though the thing connecting to it is a robot, not a player, and design your game so that said robot can't do anything that a player couldn't do better. If you can't meet that requirement, and your game is successful, then it will be compromised, and you need to accept that. Fortunately, with an MMORPG, you can design around this problem, if you put the work in up front.
Trusting the security of the client seems quicker, easier, much like the Dark Side, but it will destroy you just as thoroughly in the end.
Then the servers might fall over and everyone gets pissed off.
s/might/do. All the big popular games suffer from this, since they design for mean, median or modal cases and just roll over and die when a big raid (whether of Goblin Knob, or Star System Blandonia) kicks off.
Eve: Online's method of dealing with it is to fill in a form requesting some bigger iron for the location and duration of your raid. "Please fill in the location, date and time of your surprise attack".
Not even a dice rolling game, unless you count the semi-random selection of NCP attacks, and loot drops. The actual mechanics of modern ORPGs don't have random factors, just "damage per second". Heroism by spreadsheet. Eventually all ORPGs will be Progress Quest.
I thought the specific issue at hand was the ISK inflation driven by RMT?
RMT is essentially unfettered inflation
the actual amount of isk(ingame money) has not changed. Ergo, no inflation has taken place.
Yup, there we go.
Well, I'd probably get pretty angry and defensive too if I entered a economic debate without being familiar with the basic terms, or even able to remember what I'd just typed.
Why is player D "bound to show up" (ever, let alone soon)? RMT drives the creation of player C, either as a new player, or by switching an earn-and-spend player to an ISK generator. What's the demand that creates player D?
Now that you explain it that way, it seems so obvious: I just think it's funny because I enjoy watching it and it makes me laugh by respectfully parodying beloved memes. But since you don't get it, it must be objectively un-amusing, therefore I'm obviously just mired in cognitive dissonance.
Now that I think about it, I nearly busted a gut laughing at Galaxy Quest, so I guess by your measure that must suck harder than a Thai ladyboy trying to fund her final op.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a botnet writer's wet dream; a victim that will host your exploit once you've pwned it.
We can only hope that it's secure, or else the two dozen people who actually use Opera will be very unpopular indeed, at least until the RIAA has then rounded up for sharing their tunes with (world + dog).
Say what?
Does anyone know what language this guy is speaking? It's almost like English, but seems to convey no useful information.
Is he saying that the same game will be playable and look pretty much the same on mobile, PC and on a TV (presumably through a set-top box)? Wow, that should be a shitty experience for at least two out of three platforms, although I wouldn't rule out the possibility of it sucking on all three.
Or is he proposing multiple clients with potentially wildly disparate UIs playing in the same game world, chosen from a vast content range such as video poker, scrabble, or video poker?
Would anyone care to risk their sanity by trying to decipher the meaning behind his marketdroid hoots and wails?
Oh, great, now Maureen O'Gara will run a ZOMFG Linux Zealots Plot To Kill Darl - I Have Proof!!!!! article.
I believe the phrase that you're scrabbling for is "Once you go track you'll never go back."
No, it does not "require" any more space than it takes to flex your wrist, at least if you're a fucking toolbox.
There's a difference between enabling and requiring.
Remind me, which other UK ISPs don't use BT's backbone?
The only real choice is which intartubes wire you get your bits from: the copper going to the local BT exchange, or the copper going to the local Virgin Cable hub.
Given that Virgin Cable provide iPlayer through their TV Watch Again service, if BT squeeze iPlayer too hard, then it'll be Virgin that benefits, and nobody else.
Look, I'm going to type this really slowly so that you understand.
The choice quotes in this article are slighly misleading. The issue isn't the "cost" to BT of carrying the bits. That's as close to nil as makes no difference. The issue for BT is that they are running out of capacity to carry those bits, and will have to upgrade their infrastructure, as you note.
Who. Pays. For. It?
Who pays the wages of the guys digging the holes? Who pays for the fiber that goes in them, and the switches and routers?
That's all BT are arguing over: whether they have to increase the cost to consumers directly, or whether they can tax the producers (who will then have to tax the consumers through the 'television' license fee).
The only issue here is who's going to look like the bad guys for making the populace pay for upgrading BT's infrastructure. BT would prefer that the BBC do the squeezing, that's all.
Who wouldn't fall over themselves to pour money down the drain adding support for a peripheral nobody owns to a game for which you won't receive any more money?
Apart from the peripheral-specific titles, what games are going to support it?
Two words (try not to let your heads assplode): Wii. Ports.
but when they copy credit card numbers, they're "stealing" them?
It's all just data, right? Right?
+1, Harsh But True.
The interest here isn't in justice, or even the law, it's in whether we can get away getting something for nothing.
And does does that relate to evidence collected by them being inadmissable in court?
Indeed, when I read "complicated AI", my games dev Spider Sense translates it as "Uses more clock cycles to produces unpredictable emergent behaviour that defeats the level designers' attempts to stop the AI killing itself or humping the scenery in new retarded ways each time you play."
"AI" is for research projects. If you want an enjoyable game, simple finite state machines FTW every time. It's all about the testability.
You may be an exception, but let's be clear that the zeitgeist around here tends to be that evidence collected by the RIAA's private investigators should be thrown out of court, cause, dude, they're totally evil and shit. FIGHT THE POWAH!
Did you spot who "they" are?
Do you also think that carpenters should be taught the concepts of transfer of energy, elastic and inelastic collisions, and molecular bonds, rather than how to use a chisel to carve wood?
Even if that private citizen happens to be collecting information on behalf of the RIAA?
Let's try to pick a consistent position, rather than just one that happens to agree with our cause de jour.
(*) To be fair Card starts forgetting a few minor points like character ages, whether beings are scheduled to die or not, his own frequently asserted core world rules... likely it's just the syphilis kicking in.
Does young "Kiwi" there really have your best interests at heart, or is he more interested in making a name for himself by shooting for the moon?
It's good that someone is fighting this case, but old age and cunning will always defeat youth and vigour. And the RIAA are ancient and well versed in the ways of the Dark Side.
Y'all ever play a MMORPG? They're Heroism By Spreadsheet; "aimbot" is a non sequitur.
Speedhacks, gosh, since WOW is plagued by them, I guess it must be because the client is open source, rather than because some spazz dev decided that it was a good idea to have the server trust the client, right?
Any popular game is going to have its client, or client protocol, compromised. There's no defence that doesn't turn into an asymmetrical arms race. Make it as tight as you like, I still own the operating system, and I'm the Man in the Middle.
The solution is a robust and paranoid server design, not to try to secure the client. Make it a requirement that your server assume and act as though the thing connecting to it is a robot, not a player, and design your game so that said robot can't do anything that a player couldn't do better. If you can't meet that requirement, and your game is successful, then it will be compromised, and you need to accept that. Fortunately, with an MMORPG, you can design around this problem, if you put the work in up front.
Trusting the security of the client seems quicker, easier, much like the Dark Side, but it will destroy you just as thoroughly in the end.
Are you saying that the GP is WORSE THAN HITLER?
So, they're going to delay security updates until the next scheduled patch-o-rama?
Or are they going to release "critical" updates as needed, thus making a mockery of the schedule?
Either way, I find it hard to care one way or another. Can you find some way to tie this story to the OLPC, or Futurama?
s/might/do. All the big popular games suffer from this, since they design for mean, median or modal cases and just roll over and die when a big raid (whether of Goblin Knob, or Star System Blandonia) kicks off.
Eve: Online's method of dealing with it is to fill in a form requesting some bigger iron for the location and duration of your raid. "Please fill in the location, date and time of your surprise attack".
Not even a dice rolling game, unless you count the semi-random selection of NCP attacks, and loot drops. The actual mechanics of modern ORPGs don't have random factors, just "damage per second". Heroism by spreadsheet. Eventually all ORPGs will be Progress Quest.
I thought the specific issue at hand was the ISK inflation driven by RMT?
Yup, there we go.
Well, I'd probably get pretty angry and defensive too if I entered a economic debate without being familiar with the basic terms, or even able to remember what I'd just typed.
Why is player D "bound to show up" (ever, let alone soon)? RMT drives the creation of player C, either as a new player, or by switching an earn-and-spend player to an ISK generator. What's the demand that creates player D?
That truism may not be as effective as you think in explaining to your boss why you're hours late to work three days out of five.
If you want to get trite - and apparently you do - then I must assume the lotus position and intone that the unknown is less reliable than the absent.
Now that you explain it that way, it seems so obvious: I just think it's funny because I enjoy watching it and it makes me laugh by respectfully parodying beloved memes. But since you don't get it, it must be objectively un-amusing, therefore I'm obviously just mired in cognitive dissonance.
Now that I think about it, I nearly busted a gut laughing at Galaxy Quest, so I guess by your measure that must suck harder than a Thai ladyboy trying to fund her final op.