... management thought that real-world advertising worked the same way they were told banner advertising worked.
Ford or Coke don't expect people to instantly stop what they're doing and go buy a truck or vanilla soda when they see their advertisement. I wonder why management thought your company was different?
The A, X, and Y registers on the 6502 are eight bit, so the maximum value you'd be able to load is: LDA #$FF
Note he didn't specify LDA #$C030, he specified LDA $C030 - load the value from location $C030 into accumulator.
The platform for that code is probably C64 as the jump table was stored right at the high end of memory.
It's not for the C64 - if it's a useful program, $C030 is part of an 8K RAM bank, and $FDED isn't an official kernal entry point (it's been awhile since I took a look at the kernal disassembly, so I couln't tell you if it actually a valid address for jumping to, but I doubt it.) So, if it was a useful program, he'd be taking a value that doesn't change, and passing it to a fixed routine.
If the director didn't intend for me to see something, it wouldn't have ended up on film.
That's the whole point - the 4:3 have "extra" stuff (at the top and bottom) that *DIDN'T* appear in the theatrical screening, because it was matted out. The director *DID NOT* intend for you to see it, and yet it was *STILL* part of the film.
As an example, check out this. Are you suggesting that the director intended you to see the boom mike in Princess Bride, or that he intented you to see that John Cleese had pants on?
When you create software, you get *COPYRIGHT* protection on it.
When was the last time a book plot got patent protection? That's really novel, right? Why shouldn't you be able to patent the plot of your book? It's just the same damn argument.
A) irrelevant to the case B) something they asked for C) onerous for IBM to produce, and D) something IBM didn't want to give them (because it's irrelevant to the case, as well as onerous to produce.)
Yes, we all know that SCO is going to use this as a delay. First, it will take IBM a long time to produce it, and as soon as IBM hands it over, SCO's gonna request *more* time, because it's too much for them go through in the remaining discovery period.
The speech synthesis in 1.1 through 2.04 was done in software, via a license from another company.
The license ran out by the time AmigaOS 3.0 was released, so the A4000 and A1200 never had native speech synthesis (although you could just copy it from a 2.04 or 2.1 release.)
OK, so speculation is that it's a meteorite - OK, but this was found on a large plain.. what are the odds that a meteor could hit a planet and not leave a crater? Wouldn't the gravity of Mars cause it to increase velocity?
Anyone with more knowledge of meteor physics than me have an explanation?
With software, you only own the right to use one instance of it - right to use, not right to do whatever you want.
Bullshit. You own a *COPY*, and can do anything you want with it, except for what is forbidden by copyright law (ie. *COPY* it - and even then, most jurisdictions allow you to do that, provided you don't distribute the copies.)
The entire world is protected by security through obscurity to some degree.
Bullshit.
How many passwords do you have to access your computer systems? PIN numbers to use the ATM at the bank?
All of which have *NOTHING* to do with obscurity. I find it interesting that people who use this flawed argument don't actually know what obscurity really is.
Obscurity is *OBSCURING* information. Go to google, and enter "define: obscure" - you'll get the following result:
Obscure: make less visible or unclear
Note that is is *NOT* to make invisible or unknowable, but to make it harder for someone to find. Show me where anybody with half a brain says you should keep passwords and PINs somewhere hidden, but where someone might find them (nowhere - passwords should be committed to memory and never given out.)
You're making the elementary mistake of confusing "obscurity does not imply complete security" with "obscurity does not imply any security".
No, I'm not making that mistake - as I said, obscurity *does not* imply any security. You have yet to refute my claim, attempting to change the subject won't work.
Any step that requires an additional action on the part of a would-be security breach increases your security, provided other things remain equal
False. Forcing an attacker to take extra steps does *nothing* to increase security - if your system is insecure, then it's insecure, and adding additional hurdles won't change that.
Security through obscurity is the first layer, nothing more, but nothing less
Bullshit.
Obscurity is a *detriment* to security, because it leads you to believe that you are doing something effective when you are not. This subjects you to the human failing of hubris ("well, it may be a vulnerability, but it's unlikely that anyone will find out about it, so I'll fix it later.")
If you open everything up, you have removed a layer of security.
No, because that layer was never there to begin with.
Specifically, (in the context of this discussion), if you believe that hiding the source code affords *any* security benefit whatsoever, all you have to do is look at the number of security holes in IIS. If obscurity was *truly* effective, then there would not be the number of holes discovered for it that there are.
if, God forbid, your TV took a dump on you, then you can't watch TV, a VHS tape or play a game on your console
Yes, but if you replace your TV (say, because it's broken), you're not forced to replace your VCR/DVD/Console at the same time, or if you have a second TV, you can simply use that while the other is getting fixed/replaced.
There's a theoretical problem with TCP in TCP on connections with errors
No, it's not theoretical, and it's not just with errors. A single link with high latency will kill your connections. It really does happen.
From a practical perspective it works just fine
Only if you're extremely lucky. If you're not, you *will* experience problems. If any of the connections between sites become saturated, you'll experience dropped packets, which starts the snowball rolling down the hill.
Not quite what I was thinking.. (and kind of orthogonal to the discussion of MRPGs, as pretty much the goal of CS is to kill other players.)
Instead of something happening after the fact, you'd have a flag on your character that says "allow other players to kill me with impunity". Everybody can see this flag, and you must leave the game to change it.
Allows dueling, and provides disincentive for PKs, while not eliminating PKing completely.
that defeats the purpose of having PvP in the first place
Not really - you can kill someone, you just have to know there are consequences for doing so.
But what about a modification then - each player can opt to enable/disable the penalty for someone killing them - something that other players can see (so they know.)
Slashdot Mirror
... management thought that real-world advertising worked the same way they were told banner advertising worked.
Ford or Coke don't expect people to instantly stop what they're doing and go buy a truck or vanilla soda when they see their advertisement. I wonder why management thought your company was different?
The A, X, and Y registers on the 6502 are eight bit, so the maximum value you'd be able to load is:
LDA #$FF
Note he didn't specify LDA #$C030, he specified LDA $C030 - load the value from location $C030 into accumulator.
The platform for that code is probably C64 as the jump table was stored right at the high end of memory.
It's not for the C64 - if it's a useful program, $C030 is part of an 8K RAM bank, and $FDED isn't an official kernal entry point (it's been awhile since I took a look at the kernal disassembly, so I couln't tell you if it actually a valid address for jumping to, but I doubt it.) So, if it was a useful program, he'd be taking a value that doesn't change, and passing it to a fixed routine.
If the director didn't intend for me to see something, it wouldn't have ended up on film.
That's the whole point - the 4:3 have "extra" stuff (at the top and bottom) that *DIDN'T* appear in the theatrical screening, because it was matted out. The director *DID NOT* intend for you to see it, and yet it was *STILL* part of the film.
As an example, check out this. Are you suggesting that the director intended you to see the boom mike in Princess Bride, or that he intented you to see that John Cleese had pants on?
Please do some reading on the subject.
When you create software, you get *COPYRIGHT* protection on it.
When was the last time a book plot got patent protection? That's really novel, right? Why shouldn't you be able to patent the plot of your book? It's just the same damn argument.
... it is a victory for SCO, because it's
A) irrelevant to the case
B) something they asked for
C) onerous for IBM to produce, and
D) something IBM didn't want to give them (because it's irrelevant to the case, as well as onerous to produce.)
Yes, we all know that SCO is going to use this as a delay. First, it will take IBM a long time to produce it, and as soon as IBM hands it over, SCO's gonna request *more* time, because it's too much for them go through in the remaining discovery period.
I can see this quickly becoming twisted in the media into some sort of foreign-influence topic in the States.
Yes, I can see the headlines now:
"Canadian Government acts just USA!"
Jay would ask the dog whether to include a gate or not, and if the dog barked, the gate would go in -- otherwise not.
Wow, now that's impressive. The best I've been able to get from my dog is for him to ring a bell when he has to go outside to take a crap.
2) The speech synth chip.
There was no speech synth chip.
The speech synthesis in 1.1 through 2.04 was done in software, via a license from another company.
The license ran out by the time AmigaOS 3.0 was released, so the A4000 and A1200 never had native speech synthesis (although you could just copy it from a 2.04 or 2.1 release.)
OK, so speculation is that it's a meteorite - OK, but this was found on a large plain.. what are the odds that a meteor could hit a planet and not leave a crater? Wouldn't the gravity of Mars cause it to increase velocity?
Anyone with more knowledge of meteor physics than me have an explanation?
With software, you only own the right to use one instance of it - right to use, not right to do whatever you want.
Bullshit. You own a *COPY*, and can do anything you want with it, except for what is forbidden by copyright law (ie. *COPY* it - and even then, most jurisdictions allow you to do that, provided you don't distribute the copies.)
That is patently untrue.
No, it isn't. It's perfectly true.
The entire world is protected by security through obscurity to some degree.
Bullshit.
How many passwords do you have to access your computer systems? PIN numbers to use the ATM at the bank?
All of which have *NOTHING* to do with obscurity. I find it interesting that people who use this flawed argument don't actually know what obscurity really is.
Obscurity is *OBSCURING* information. Go to google, and enter "define: obscure" - you'll get the following result:
Obscure: make less visible or unclear
Note that is is *NOT* to make invisible or unknowable, but to make it harder for someone to find. Show me where anybody with half a brain says you should keep passwords and PINs somewhere hidden, but where someone might find them (nowhere - passwords should be committed to memory and never given out.)
You're making the elementary mistake of confusing "obscurity does not imply complete security" with "obscurity does not imply any security".
No, I'm not making that mistake - as I said, obscurity *does not* imply any security. You have yet to refute my claim, attempting to change the subject won't work.
Any step that requires an additional action on the part of a would-be security breach increases your security, provided other things remain equal
False. Forcing an attacker to take extra steps does *nothing* to increase security - if your system is insecure, then it's insecure, and adding additional hurdles won't change that.
Security through obscurity is the first layer, nothing more, but nothing less
Bullshit.
Obscurity is a *detriment* to security, because it leads you to believe that you are doing something effective when you are not. This subjects you to the human failing of hubris ("well, it may be a vulnerability, but it's unlikely that anyone will find out about it, so I'll fix it later.")
If you open everything up, you have removed a layer of security.
No, because that layer was never there to begin with.
Specifically, (in the context of this discussion), if you believe that hiding the source code affords *any* security benefit whatsoever, all you have to do is look at the number of security holes in IIS. If obscurity was *truly* effective, then there would not be the number of holes discovered for it that there are.
You think that you have the right to determine whether or not you should pay for someone else's IP, AFTER you've already garnered the benefit of it?
Yes. What's wrong with that?
Are you suggesting that people should have to pay money to someone for something before they know if they like it or not?
So remember, before you buy that house, you're not allowed to go look inside it! Or the car - you're not allowed to test drive it.
Remember, by your logic, if you do, you're a hypocrite!
if, God forbid, your TV took a dump on you, then you can't watch TV, a VHS tape or play a game on your console
Yes, but if you replace your TV (say, because it's broken), you're not forced to replace your VCR/DVD/Console at the same time, or if you have a second TV, you can simply use that while the other is getting fixed/replaced.
I'm not claiming retaliation was a defense - if you'd read my post, I said it was a reasonable example of religion killing.
Actually, the way I read you post is that you are claiming retaliation is defense.
the Crusades (which was a defensive war [...] the first Crusade was retaliatory
If the first Crusade was retaliatory, and all Crusades(?) were defensive, then it certainly seems like you're claiming that retaliation is defense.
Hydrogen is energy storage and transfer medium, not a power source.
The same thing can be said about fossil fuels - or do you believe that the fossils create the energy themselves?
It takes a lot of energy to make Hydrogen (H2) in large amounts
And it takes just as much (possibly even more) energy to *make* oil. (Make as in create, not refine.)
The only difference between oil and hydrogen is that oil has had a few billion years head-start.
A spiral bound notebook meets your criteria
Where can you buy one that comes with a keyboard?
It has one..
It's an offer, or possibly a command.
"Interview Richard Stallman!"
There's a theoretical problem with TCP in TCP on connections with errors
No, it's not theoretical, and it's not just with errors. A single link with high latency will kill your connections. It really does happen.
From a practical perspective it works just fine
Only if you're extremely lucky. If you're not, you *will* experience problems. If any of the connections between sites become saturated, you'll experience dropped packets, which starts the snowball rolling down the hill.
9/11 was murder, not war.
And what about the dead Iraqi civilians? That would all be murder too, right?
If someone has a normal/high intelligence, it doesn't mean he/she enjoys puzzling out sendmail.cf
Yeah, because that's what *desktop* users do everyday, right?
Don't tell me, let me guess - you write for Enterprise, right? :o)
Not quite what I was thinking.. (and kind of orthogonal to the discussion of MRPGs, as pretty much the goal of CS is to kill other players.)
Instead of something happening after the fact, you'd have a flag on your character that says "allow other players to kill me with impunity". Everybody can see this flag, and you must leave the game to change it.
Allows dueling, and provides disincentive for PKs, while not eliminating PKing completely.
that defeats the purpose of having PvP in the first place
Not really - you can kill someone, you just have to know there are consequences for doing so.
But what about a modification then - each player can opt to enable/disable the penalty for someone killing them - something that other players can see (so they know.)
... penalizing players for killing PCs?
Say, you kill someone, you lose some experience/life/karma/whatever points.